.

If it be your will wrote:Would this be an issue that might sway your vote one way or the other?

This is a massive waste of Parliamentary time. Just like it was when Blair put the needless, pointless ban in force in the first place.

Any political party who pledged to abstain from the debate and concentrate on their constituents needs instead would win points from me.

Sadly, it's become a stupid political football. We have Tony Blair to thank for this upcoming waste of Parliamentary time.

Labour will appeal to fluffy metro-lefties by promising to protect their stinking foxes. The Conservatives are doing nothing other than ensuring their countryside support remember to turn out.

It's all a sodding waste of time.

Foxes. I mean. Bloody foxes.

********, your dismissal of a barbaric and disgusting toff pastime is repulsive.
Any right thinking, well balanced individual would be revolted by this activity, okay, its not Brexit, not our economic survival, but to reintroduce this, suggests we are warped as a society. what **** ******* would take part in killing foxes?

This isn't about hunting and killing a fox, which is still allowed, it's about whether or not a group of country toffs can don silly attire and set their dogs loose to tear a fox to pieces whilst it is still alive.

If foxes are a problem, I have no issue with the being culled humanely but see no benefit in allowing its return. It's no different to bull fighting, cock fighting or dog fighting.

It wouldn't sway my vote. It's probably something that shouldn't even be on any political agenda at present.

Stick you little outrage up your bottom, wile.

Foxes are vermin.

I don't care for them and neither do I care for hunting them.

Go cry yourself silly over a rat or a cockroach or something.

There are million priorities ahead of fox hunting including things like animal welfare for important animals like livestock.

Sod stinking dirty foxes.

Just because you're an ultra-vegan, Wile, doesn't mean that killing vermin isn't sometimes a good thing. Even if you do tolerate urban foxes, rats, and mice, your neighbours might have a valid reason to object. Or is it not so much the killing of foxes you object to, more the idea of people riding horses?

It shouldn't waste much parliamentary time, because it's just a matter of repealing the Act passed ten years ago (or whenever). On the other hand, it might be better for the hunters not to have it repealed, because next time someone tries to ban fox hunting with hounds, they might do it competently.

DCWat wrote:If foxes are a problem, I have no issue with the being culled humanely but see no benefit in allowing its return. It's no different to bull fighting, cock fighting or dog fighting.

I see no benefit but given that the law hasn't prevented hunts from going out and chasing the foxes and killing them (albeit in a very slightly different fashion) I see no reason to keep the law either. Apart from the massive waste of Parliamentary time it represents.

DCWat wrote:It wouldn't sway my vote. It's probably something that shouldn't even be on any political agenda at present.

Agreed. It's a bone being thrown to the countryside alliance types. Nothing more.

DCWat wrote:If foxes are a problem, I have no issue with the being culled humanely but see no benefit in allowing its return. It's no different to bull fighting, cock fighting or dog fighting.

It's very much different. All your three examples are designed to give a long fight, blood and gore, and end with one or both animals dead and any survivors injured. Fox hunting is designed so that the fox is killed more or less instantly - because being killed by 40 dogs is a lot quicker than being killed by 1 - and so that the fox either dies or escapes uninjured.

That's not to say you need to agree with it, but you need to know the difference.

.

.

Being chased for miles and then ripped to death by a pack of dogs can and does go on for a considerable amount of time.

Of course the three examples are different, but the commonality between the four is plainly obvious. All are barbaric, all are done in the name of entertainment, all see an animal suffering a traumatic death.

If it be your will wrote:It looks like the Conservatives are going to commit to a vote on it, so there must be a lot of Conservatives for which this is and important issue.

It's a sizeable minority. The kind who are likely to not vote out of spite or apathy.

A policy like this is designed to get a specific demographic out to vote. If you want a stereotype it'll be tweed wearing countryside alliance types.

They'll fit the average Labour member's stereotype of "a Tory" or "a Toff" but they're nothing more than a sizeable minority in Conservative Party circles.

They're the equivalent of Corbynistas and the loony left in the Labour Party - a vocal fringe.

Sadly the Labour fringe are in charge of the party. The Conservative fringe are having this bone thrown their way.

.

If it be your will wrote:I understand the average hunt lasts 17 minutes according to the independent study submitted to parliament in 2005 - from the start of the chase, though sometimes they can go on as long as 2 hours. I watched a bullfight once, and I don't think the first one lasted 17 minutes (I left after the first one, feeling violently ill and wondering what the hell I was doing there, so I can't speak for the others). I have no knowledge of cock fighting.

The chase isn't a panicked fox sprinting hell for leather to get away - it's a fox using cunning to get away, with the hounds following its trail. If it comes to a line-of-sight chase, the fox is a bit quicker but hasn't the stamina, so either way it doesn 't last long.

Rowls wrote:Stick you little outrage up your bottom, wile.

Foxes are vermin.

I don't care for them and neither do I care for hunting them.

Go cry yourself silly over a rat or a cockroach or something.

There are million priorities ahead of fox hunting including things like animal welfare for important animals like livestock.

Sod stinking dirty foxes.

Looking forward to what the Tories have to offer in terms of reversing their tax breaks to the rich in order to fund better living standards for everyone else. Not holding my breath though. Theresa May is the problem, and has been part of it fore seven years of failure. 'Strong and stable' is too frightened to debate Corbyn in front of the nation!

Rowls wrote:I see no benefit but given that the law hasn't prevented hunts from going out and chasing the foxes and killing them (albeit in a very slightly different fashion) I see no reason to keep the law either. Apart from the massive waste of Parliamentary time it represents.



Agreed. It's a bone being thrown to the countryside alliance types. Nothing more.

If it's only a "very slightly different fashion" then why does the law need to be changed?

Great let's kill Vermin - Humans act like vermin therefore humans are vermin therefore let's all commit mass suicide.

As an example - Foxes get into a hen house - cause absolute havoc destroy everything - eat practically nothing

Humans wipe out whole species - enslave one another - exploit each other for monetary gain - Are still doing to fish stocks the equivalent of what foxes do inside hen houses.

Most domestic livestock are not native to the UK and neither it can be argued are foxes - so humans play around for fun and then blame animals for animal like behaviour because humans are idiots.

Remember the Prairie dog - absolutely vital to the functioning of a healthy prairie - almost wiped out because they were considered vermin - when humans understand how an ecosystem works then they can decide if it's sensible to remove a pest - otherwise you end up with things like mass starvation because of the human stupidity factor - Humans doing so much to mess up a planet.

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Great let's kill Vermin - Humans act like vermin therefore humans are vermin therefore let's all commit mass suicide.

First thing to do would be to get rid of any kind of law, or act, that guarentees all humans inalienable rights.

Imploding Turtle wrote:First thing to do would be to get rid of any kind of law, or act, that guarentees all humans inalienable rights.

Thank You - Lovely what next?

Wile E Coyote wrote:********, your dismissal of a barbaric and disgusting toff pastime is repulsive.
Any right thinking, well balanced individual would be revolted by this activity, okay, its not Brexit, not our economic survival, but to reintroduce this, suggests we are warped as a society. what **** ******* would take part in killing foxes?

Plenty hunting done by the working classes, go to Cumbria and see the traditions of the fell packs or Wales and talk to the ex mining communities.

As someone said this issue has become a political football, a polemic about which many know little but have strong views.

Personally I think it is illiberal and poor legislation.

The tories want to bring back fox hunting.

Labour wants a Robin Hood tax.

Is that licence to ambush the toffs riding through the forest and rob them of their pouches of gold and silver?

The sad thing about fox hunting is that they pretend they are doing country folk a service by killing vermin when in fact they breed them in coverts to give them their sport.
Indeed a barbaric pastime which can only warp the minds of those who pursue it. The conservative Party in flight.

dsr wrote:It's very much different. All your three examples are designed to give a long fight, blood and gore, and end with one or both animals dead and any survivors injured. Fox hunting is designed so that the fox is killed more or less instantly - because being killed by 40 dogs is a lot quicker than being killed by 1 - and so that the fox either dies or escapes uninjured.
.

And presumably, in your eyes, it would be more cruel to dispatch each fox with a single bullet?
If the fox population needs culling then fair enough. As humans we kill lots of animals, but so far as I can see we don't kill the others for sport and self-gratification.
There would be many more humane ways of controlling the fox population, than being "more quickly" ripped apart by a pack of hounds.

Not bothered either way to be honest, its the sort of thing that means a hell of a lot to certain people, but not to the majority.

I live in the countryside, and have only ever seen one fox, and that was in Brighton city centre.

Bring back fox hunting. Great sport. Lots of fun.

Watching the fox get ripped to shreds is awesome

I personally am strongly against fox hunting, as I am against any type of killing for sport.
Below is just a cute video of a fox playing with a dog's toy left outside which I think helps negate the idea of foxes being nothing more than 'vermin'
https://youtu.be/IHeVJQPoy_w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not trying to get into an argument but I hate pointless killing for selfish reasons

Shame we arent in spain and have bullfighting too lol

Love foxes! Beautiful animal.

I'm having a bit of a chuckle at some of these pre-election pledges:
You have the Tories and fox-hunting,
The Lib-Dems wanting to legalise the sale of canabis...

There are some very important economic decisions to be made, you pillocks!

'As humans we kill lots of animals, but so far as I can see we don't kill the others for sport and self-gratification.'

Have I actually just read that?

One of the main reasons for animal depopulation and extinction is down to sport hunting, trophy hunting, ivory trade.

You could also put trades like the shark fin trade in the gratification bracket. As it is not a vital source of food for a population, it is a statement, as when the fin is removed the shark is thrown back in the ocean.

boatshed bill wrote:I'm having a bit of a chuckle at some of these pre-election pledges:
You have the Tories and fox-hunting,
The Lib-Dems wanting to legalise the sale of canabis...

There are some very important economic decisions to be made, you pillocks!

So are you suggesting that manifestos should be solely for economic policies?
Personally I think that if it's something that you intend to try to implement - if elected - then it ought to be in your manifesto. (With the caveat of course that any govt. will need to introduce new measures during any Parliament due to unforeseen circumstances.)
It would be wrong IMO for a party not to include a pledge to legalise cannabis in its manifesto, and then to introduce a bill as soon as it got in power.

wickdkewlclaret wrote:'As humans we kill lots of animals, but so far as I can see we don't kill the others for sport and self-gratification.'

Have I actually just read that?

One of the main reasons for animal depopulation and extinction is down to sport hunting, trophy hunting, ivory trade.

You could also put trades like the shark fin trade in the gratification bracket. As it is not a vital source of food for a population, it is a statement, as when the fin is removed the shark is thrown back in the ocean.

So you support my argument then?
i.e. Killing animals for sport and self-gratification is totally wrong.
(You've confused me.)

nil_desperandum wrote:So are you suggesting that manifestos should be solely for economic policies?
Personally I think that if it's something that you intend to try to implement - if elected - then it ought to be in your manifesto. (With the caveat of course that any govt. will need to introduce new measures during any Parliament due to unforeseen circumstances.)
It would be wrong IMO for a party not to include a pledge to legalise cannabis in its manifesto, and then to introduce a bill as soon as it got in power.

Am I suggesting that?

I am merely finding it amusing. i haven't actually heard of a single economic policy from the Libdems.
I'm looking forward to watching a load of toffs, stoned off their heads on skunk,on horseback, trying to chase foxes!

Hasn't fox hunting been going on as normal?

boatshed bill wrote:Am I suggesting that?

I am merely finding it amusing. i haven't actually heard of a single economic policy from the Libdems.
I'm looking forward to watching a load of toffs, stoned off their heads on skunk,on horseback, trying to chase foxes!

Fair enough. I haven't looked at Lib Dem policies and am not aware what will be in their manifesto, but they are very clear on - arguably - the biggest economic issue, and the is continued membership of the SIngle Market.

nil_desperandum wrote:So you support my argument then?
i.e. Killing animals for sport and self-gratification is totally wrong.
(You've confused me.)

Sorry Nil, I took your post out of context. Looks like I need a second brew this morning!

If somebody can show me a better way of dealing with foxes then I'll happily accept that as a means of controlling the fox population in this country.

Poisoning? How do you ensure that ONLY foxes consume the poison?
Marksmen? Do you understand the logistics of shooting an animal the size of a fox when its moving? Even the SAS would struggle with doing that.

Somebody up above mentioned about ecosystems- nature's way of dealing with foxes traditionally was that they were the prey of wolves and the wolves were the prey of bears. However since we eliminated wolves and bears in this country several hundred years ago that's not been a viable solution. They are now at the summit of their particular food chain so it falls to us (humans) to deal with the problem. Unfortunately we have become too sensitive and too out of touch with the realities of some aspects of rural life to face this fact anymore.

Having had to deal with the bloody mess of dead chickens after fox attacks, with seeing how a farmer's financial livelihood can be affected and knowing how vicious foxes can be I have no problems with their numbers being controlled. So I come back to my original point-

If somebody can show me a better way of dealing with foxes then I'll happily accept that as a means of controlling the fox population in this country....until they do though I'd rather have fox hunting back.

Oh yeah- I speak as somebody who has accompanied the Blencathra hunt in Westmorland on foot over the fells. No horses and red jackets etc there. Just ordinary working class people doing what has to be done to preserve their way of life and livelihoods....

Left to themselves, chickens live up trees.

I've got a great new idea for a "sport" it's called urban tw@t hunting, it goes something like you get a lardy ar5e scumbag who is as insignificant in this world as say a fox. You give them a one minute head start then release 40 bloodthirsty Russian hooligans to hunt them down, once caught the hooligans are then free to rip lardy ar5e scumbag tw@t to pieces until he is very much deaded. What a jolly good "sport" old boy.

Everything has a place in nature. The only vermin in this world are human beings who kill for pleasure or in the name of sport.

I hope it doesn't come back. I don't like the idea of killing for sport whether it's fox hunting or bull fighting.

Sadly, it never went away in the first place.............North Yorkshire is still full of hunts (rhyming slang obviously)

There's a very small chance that fox hunting could return, even a free vote in parliament isn't likely to get much support.

I'd like to see a crack down because it's clearly being done illegally in much of the country and by people who think they're above the law.

.

BurnleyPaul wrote: If somebody can show me a better way of dealing with foxes then I'll happily accept that as a means of controlling the fox population in this country....until they do though I'd rather have fox hunting back.

Oh yeah- I speak as somebody who has accompanied the Blencathra hunt in Westmorland on foot over the fells. No horses and red jackets etc there. Just ordinary working class people doing what has to be done to preserve their way of life and livelihoods....

So, you've partially answered your own question.
"No horses and red jackets etc."
Sounds to me like you were hunting and culling - not out for self-gratification making a sport of it.(Massive difference).

Nothing to bring out the mentalists quite like the plight of poor animals.

.

If it be your will wrote:I'm not sure you're right about this Rowls. In the 2004 vote 137 Conservative MPs (out of a total of 166 at the time) voted against the Hunting Act.

That means 83% of Conservative MPs were against the ban at the time - hardly a fringe minority. I'd describe 83% as an 'overwhelming majority' in fact.

You misunderstand.

This is the way MPs vote when they have a choice of aye or nay. That does not reflect whether they actually give a toss. Only a few Conservative MPs actually care about fox hunting. It's some of their constituents who are bothered and vocal about it.

.

BarstewardsEnquiry wrote:I've got a great new idea for a "sport" it's called urban tw@t hunting, it goes something like you get a lardy ar5e scumbag who is as insignificant in this world as say a fox. You give them a one minute head start then release 40 bloodthirsty Russian hooligans to hunt them down, once caught the hooligans are then free to rip lardy ar5e scumbag tw@t to pieces until he is very much deaded. What a jolly good "sport" old boy.

Would it be "pay per view"?