Heartland

Is this going to secure Labour some votes come the next election? Bloody good timing if it does don't ya think. What with Iraq and all that...

Can't agree with banning fox-hunting.

Is it more cruel and unnecessary than eating meat? After all, there is no need for me to eat dead animals in order to maintain a healthy diet ... basically I do it because I like it. As do many of you.

Is there any need for someone to dress up in a red jacket and chase an animal round a field before killing it? No .... basically they do it because they like it. Unlike most (all?) of us.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that I am morally justified in my complaisance with the rearing of livestock for slaughter, simply because I try to buy organic, free range stuff (when it's reduced, anyway) or because traditionally humans have included meat in their diet?

Is hunting really worse than allowing the continued mechanised destruction of millions of animals to support a dietary preference which is economically unsustainable and ultimately makes a contribution to global nutritional imbalances?

I'd argue not. The reason people want to see hunting banned has more to do with comments about "toffs" and "posh twats". The idea that the rich are finally getting what they deserve is behind it, and it is the politics of revenge, IMHO.

I don't know many people who hunt, and those I do know (from my time working on a paper in Devon) did not strike me as people I particularly liked. I'd guess many of you feel the same, whereas I'd guess most of you know carnivores and number them among your friends and family.

In effect, this ban is built around a specious moral argument in a bid to pick on a minority group. Not an area where I'd feel confident that the right thing is being done?

andymackem wrote:The reason people want to see hunting banned has more to do with comments about "toffs" and "posh ****". The idea that the rich are finally getting what they deserve is behind it, and it is the politics of revenge, IMHO.

Yup...and about time too...

andymackem wrote:Is it more cruel and unnecessary than eating meat?

Yes, it is more cruel and unnecessary than eating meat.

Farm animals bred for meat are stunned before being humanely slaughtered.

Foxes are chased for up to an hour by a pack of hounds, and then literally torn apart limb from limb by the hounds when they are too exhausted to run any more. Post Mortems on hunted foxes have shown huge levels of chemicals associated with stress, and video footage has shown that they are not immediately killed by the hounds, and their mauling can last for some time before they die.

I'd say that one method was more cruel and unnecessary than the other.


The bill in parliament bans hare coursing as well, which is a traditionally working class bloodsport. If the bill was motivated by class issues, then a ban on hare coursing would obviously not have been included.

i think we brushed-up against this in the animal testing debate a little while back but i'm sure you'd all be disappointed if i didn't chip in...

except i really don't care. bunch of people want to dress up in silly red jackets and ride around the countryside (which is a nasty, smelly place anyway) tooting on their little horns? fine. now and again they catch a fox? fine. they smear the fox blood on their children's cheeks? fine.

there's far, far worse things going on in the world and these muppets aren't actually doing anybody else any harm. oh, except basil brush of course. except it's not basil brush is it? it's an overgrown rat with a bushy tail that seems to have managed a brilliant pr campaign to convince us all that it's some sort of iconic emblem of the countryside (which is a nasty smelly place anyway). in the battle between the chicken and the fox i'm on the side of the chicken everytime. cos it tastes better. or so i've been told - i've never actually eaten a fox but as a fully-fledged carnivore i'd give it a go if anyone offered me a plateful.

ultimately, i'm an old-school liberal (small "l") so i'm quite happy for any and all of you to do as you wish so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. and animals don't come into that equation at all. sure, some of them are cute, some of them taste good and some of just seem to be utterly pointless (wasps? what are they for?) but they just don't count.

and so what if this was in new labour's election manifesto? since when have political parties ever implemented every election pledge? and while we're about it, i seem to remember dear old uncle tony promising us electoral reform way back in april '97 when he wasn't sure he'd get a workable majority without a bit of help. seems he's forgotten all about that with a couple of landslides under his belt.

one final point that nobody seems to be talking about much - how the hell are we going to police this new legislation? and how much is it going to cost me as a taxpayer?

andymackem wrote:The reason people want to see hunting banned has more to do with comments about "toffs" and "posh ****". The idea that the rich are finally getting what they deserve is behind it, and it is the politics of revenge, IMHO.

In a way, I think you are right about this. However the traditionally working-class "bloodsports" such as cock-fighting, dog-fighting, have all been illegal for some time. That the class system in this country has been able to preserve the upper-class equivalents for so long is testimony to the insularity of this country.

The conflation of the hunt argument with meat-eating is misdirection I'm afraid. The farming industry pays lip-service, at least, to notions of compassion for the animals in their care, whereas the hunt cannot make that claim. No-one has any "right" to have an animal tortured to death for their enjoyment, and the idea that hunting with hounds is an effective, efficient way to kill foxes is frankly laughable, never mind any arguments over whether the fox population actually needs control.

Hunting with hounds is a brutal, barbaric "tradition" that has carried over from the relics of our feudal past. I'm not arguing that all traditions should be abandoned, but surely this is one that belongs in the past.

I'm also concerned that many of the pro-hunt lobby have claimed that without hunting, the packs of hounds will have to be put down. I completely fail to understand why the hounds could not be rehoused by our famous "nation of animal-lovers".

markfiend wrote:No-one has any "right" to have an animal tortured to death for their enjoyment, and the idea that hunting with hounds is an effective, efficient way to kill foxes is frankly laughable, never mind any arguments over whether the fox population actually needs control.

it does look like a jolly fun day out though. and where are those hunt saboteur chappies going to get their kicks now?

RicheyJames wrote:one final point that nobody seems to be talking about much - how the hell are we going to police this new legislation? and how much is it going to cost me as a taxpayer?

It shouldn't cost any more than it currently costs to police the sabotaging of hunts, and since I doubt the pro-hunt fanatics will continue trying to hunt for long after the first few arrests/fines, then a ban on hunting should significantly lower the expenses and manpower burden on rural police forces.

lazarus corporation wrote:It shouldn't cost any more than it currently costs to police the sabotaging of hunts

which, of course, wouldn't be necessary if swampy and co just stayed at home in their squats drinking dandelion tea.

I doubt the pro-hunt fanatics will continue trying to hunt for long after the first few arrests/fines

now that is funny because nobody ever breaks the law do they?

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:Is it more cruel and unnecessary than eating meat?

Yes, it is more cruel and unnecessary than eating meat.

Farm animals bred for meat are stunned before being humanely slaughtered.

Factory farming? Halal or Kosher slaughter rituals? Not convincing. Without getting on to a whole moral issue about why it is appropriate to create, nurture and destroy a life simply so you and I can have our preferred dinner menu, but not appropriate to end a "natural" life in the wild so someone can have their preferred entertainment.

The bill in parliament bans hare coursing as well, which is a traditionally working class bloodsport. If the bill was motivated by class issues, then a ban on hare coursing would obviously not have been included.

But the popular image remains one of restricting the toffs. Much of the language on page one of this debate is about the same. The bill may not be motivated by class issues, popular support for it almost certainly is. IMHO, obviously.

RicheyJames wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:It shouldn't cost any more than it currently costs to police the sabotaging of hunts

which, of course, wouldn't be necessary if swampy and co just stayed at home in their squats drinking dandelion tea.

...and the presence of saboteurs wouldn't be necessary if the hunters just stayed at home in their mansions drinking G&T, if you want to match stereotype for stereotype.

RicheyJames wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:I doubt the pro-hunt fanatics will continue trying to hunt for long after the first few arrests/fines

now that is funny because nobody ever breaks the law do they?

I'm sure they will break the law at first, but, on average, they've got a lot more to lose than "Swampy and co", and when the fines and jail sentences for non-payment (and the jail sentences for attacking police officers, judging by the pro-hunt violence in the demonstration yesterday) start hitting, then they'll retreat to armchair whinging about how it was better in the good old days when you could hunt foxes and have a villager flogged for not tugging their forelock quickly enough...

lazarus corporation wrote:I'm sure they will break the law at first, but, on average, they've got a lot more to lose than "Swampy and co", and when the fines and jail sentences for non-payment (and the jail sentences for attacking police officers, judging by the pro-hunt violence in the demonstration yesterday) start hitting, then they'll retreat to armchair whinging about how it was better in the good old days when you could hunt foxes and have a villager flogged for not tugging their forelock quickly enough...

but that all pre-supposes that you'll actually be able to prove they've committed an offence. from what i understand, the countryside (which is a nasty smelly place) is quite big enough to lose a bunch of people on horses in. even if they are wearing very silly jackets...

andymackem wrote:Factory farming? Halal or Kosher slaughter rituals? Not convincing. Without getting on to a whole moral issue about why it is appropriate to create, nurture and destroy a life simply so you and I can have our preferred dinner menu, but not appropriate to end a "natural" life in the wild so someone can have their preferred entertainment.

30 men on horseback and 50 hounds (bred specifically for stamina to prolong the chase rather than speed to end it quickly) is not a natural death. Especially when you bring in the issue of "bagged foxes" (foxes caught earlier, then released close to the hounds to ensure a kill on that day).

But the popular image remains one of restricting the toffs. Much of the language on page one of this debate is about the same. The bill may not be motivated by class issues, popular support for it almost certainly is. IMHO, obviously.

True, but there's also the opposing stereotype of hunt saboteurs being "Swampy and co". When I was sabbing some years back, most of the sabs had jobs - teachers, computer programmers, nurse, trainee solicitors etc.

The media focuses on fox hunting, whereas the bill is to ban hunting with hounds - including hare coursing. Possibly it's because fox hunting is more photogenic than hare coursing, possibly because the media are anti-hunting on class issues, possibly because the media are pro-fox hutning, possibly because the Countryside Alliance is the main pro-hunt lobby group and it focuses on fox hunting ...

A good point was made earlier that "the toffs" have used their power/old-boys-networks to keep fox hunting going, long after most of the working class bloodsports have been banned. So maybe there is a resentment that the "upper classes" have managed to thwart the will of parliament and the electorate for too long, and need to be brought in line.

RicheyJames wrote:but that all pre-supposes that you'll actually be able to prove they've committed an offence. from what i understand, the countryside (which is a nasty smelly place) is quite big enough to lose a bunch of people on horses in. even if they are wearing very silly jackets...

I think that answers your question of what the hunt saboteurs will be doing (with their video cameras) after hunting is banned - collecting evidence of hunts still active, using reasonable force to stop people breaking the law (quite legal), and providing the evidence to the police/CPS to prosecute the criminals.

Actually stopping hunting is simple - the first time a hunt goes out illegally you confiscate and rehome all their hounds (the hounds are tools used to commit the crime, so it's completely right that the criminal should be relieved of them).

Without hounds, the hunt can't hunt. The hounds are a specially bred and trained - it's not like the the huntsman can nip down the RSPCA and pick up 50 assorted waifs and strays to replace them with. Although the image of them trying to hunt with an assorted pack of poodles, jack russels, and spaniels is quite amusing...

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:Factory farming? Halal or Kosher slaughter rituals? Not convincing. Without getting on to a whole moral issue about why it is appropriate to create, nurture and destroy a life simply so you and I can have our preferred dinner menu, but not appropriate to end a "natural" life in the wild so someone can have their preferred entertainment.

30 men on horseback and 50 hounds (bred specifically for stamina to prolong the chase rather than speed to end it quickly) is not a natural death. Especially when you bring in the issue of "bagged foxes" (foxes caught earlier, then released close to the hounds to ensure a kill on that day).

How does this answer my question? I said "natural" in quotes as part of the phrase '"natural" life'. No mention of natural deaths. Is it morally worse to chase a fox around the countryside and rip it apart, rather than raise broiler hens in overcrowded lightless factories where the concentration of their own shit brings out ammonia burns on their flesh so long as you stun them before 'humanely' killing them?

If you are a vegetarian, then I have some respect for your arguments. I'll have even more when you call for a total ban on raising livestock for slaughter, or the consumption of meat.

If you are not a vegetarian, frankly your position is at best woolly and at worst hypocritical. The only arguments to justify the continued consumption of meat are ones about freedom of choice, personal preference and long-standing tradition. These are almost exactly the same as the ones about preserving hunting.

I'll bet that after the ban, you'll get a few drag hunts that "accidentally" catch a fox, much in the same way that mink-hunts sometimes "accidentally" catch otters.

andymackem wrote:If you are a vegetarian, then I have some respect for your arguments. I'll have even more when you call for a total ban on raising livestock for slaughter, or the consumption of meat.

If you are not a vegetarian, frankly your position is at best woolly and at worst hypocritical. The only arguments to justify the continued consumption of meat are ones about freedom of choice, personal preference and long-standing tradition. These are almost exactly the same as the ones about preserving hunting.

I agree with you here. However, there is IMO precisely zero chance of ever banning meat-eating. It's a case of fighting the ones you can win.

andymackem wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:Factory farming? Halal or Kosher slaughter rituals? Not convincing. Without getting on to a whole moral issue about why it is appropriate to create, nurture and destroy a life simply so you and I can have our preferred dinner menu, but not appropriate to end a "natural" life in the wild so someone can have their preferred entertainment.

30 men on horseback and 50 hounds (bred specifically for stamina to prolong the chase rather than speed to end it quickly) is not a natural death. Especially when you bring in the issue of "bagged foxes" (foxes caught earlier, then released close to the hounds to ensure a kill on that day).

How does this answer my question? I said "natural" in quotes as part of the phrase '"natural" life'. No mention of natural deaths. Is it morally worse to chase a fox around the countryside and rip it apart, rather than raise broiler hens in overcrowded lightless factories where the concentration of their own shit brings out ammonia burns on their flesh so long as you stun them before 'humanely' killing them?

If you are a vegetarian, then I have some respect for your arguments. I'll have even more when you call for a total ban on raising livestock for slaughter, or the consumption of meat.

If you are not a vegetarian, frankly your position is at best woolly and at worst hypocritical. The only arguments to justify the continued consumption of meat are ones about freedom of choice, personal preference and long-standing tradition. These are almost exactly the same as the ones about preserving hunting.

its morally just as bad.

and IIRC he's vegan (like me)

andymackem wrote:If you are a vegetarian, then I have some respect for your arguments. I'll have even more when you call for a total ban on raising livestock for slaughter, or the consumption of meat.

Yes, as QB pointed out, I'm a vegan, so I'm being consistent in my arguments (and my "leather" jacket is not leather, and neither are my boots)

And as Markfiend mentioned, it's only worth fighting battles you can win - yes, I'd like everyone to stop eating meat, but it's not going to happen in my lifetime, so I'm not going to waste time fighting for something that's not going to happen.

Ending bloodsports in the UK is, however, an achievable aim.

Ideally it would be great to end all animal cruelty including killing animals for meat, but society changes slowly over generations.

all IMHO of course.

lazarus corporation wrote:Ideally it would be great to end all animal cruelty

might be an idea to strive to put an end to toture, war, famine and preventable disease first. once we've ended unnecessary human death i'll be ready to talk about better treatment for animals. until then, reynard and co can fend for themselves.

To say something as ignorant as, "As long as it's not hurting me, I don't mind" Is utterly irresponsible. How many people today would fight tooth and nail for the abolishment of slavery if that was still happening today? And what about capital punishment? The list is endless. What would happen if it was us that was hunted down and torn from limb to limb while some toffee nosed, sliver spoon jammed right up their ar*e type people looked on? Would it be unacceptable and barbaric then? Why? Because we can walk, talk and defend ourselves?

@Lordy. I don't like dogs so fill yer boots

RicheyJames wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Ideally it would be great to end all animal cruelty

might be an idea to strive to put an end to toture, war, famine and preventable disease first. once we've ended unnecessary human death i'll be ready to talk about better treatment for animals. until then, reynard and co can fend for themselves.

if you think that striving to put an end to torture, war, famine and preventable disease is a good thing, then please go ahead and do it (you'd have my support). Perhaps you already do campaign on these issues, in which case, well done.

One comment I used to get when I was a sab was people telling me that I should spend my time better campaigning against torture/road deaths/famine in Africa etc.

Those people then walked off and did nothing to help the causes they'd suggested - they seemed to think that "changing the world" was someone else's job, while they did their shopping, although they were happy telling me what I should campaign about on their behalf, while they did bugger all.

Moral of this story: if you think "Cause A" is more important than "Cause B" then actively support Cause A. If you can't be bothered to do anything, then don't criticise those who can be bothered and their choice of priorities.

Sexygothâ„¢ wrote:To say something as ignorant as, "As long as it's not hurting me, I don't mind" Is utterly irresponsible. How many people today would fight tooth and nail for the abolishment of slavery if that was still happening today? And what about capital punishment? The list is endless.

couldn't agree more. a statement like that would be totally irresponsible. and, in the context of the examples you put forward, uttery reprehensible. thank goodness nobody made such a crass remark.

on the other hand, believing that there are far more important issues affecting the lives of actual people (rather than cute fluffy animals) that governments should be dealing with seems a perfectly valid and rational response to the whole brouhaha.

as i said before, it's all about liberalism. it's about choice. it's about freedom. it's about protecting the right to do something which you have no desire to do yourself. it's about protecting people's rights to do whatever they like, so long as their activities don't have a negative impact on others. i happen to believe that that's a fundamental part of our society, government and everyday way of life. anything less is a step on the road to a totalitarian state.

lazarus corporation wrote:

andymackem wrote:If you are a vegetarian, then I have some respect for your arguments. I'll have even more when you call for a total ban on raising livestock for slaughter, or the consumption of meat.

Yes, as QB pointed out, I'm a vegan, so I'm being consistent in my arguments (and my "leather" jacket is not leather, and neither are my boots)

And as Markfiend mentioned, it's only worth fighting battles you can win - yes, I'd like everyone to stop eating meat, but it's not going to happen in my lifetime, so I'm not going to waste time fighting for something that's not going to happen.

Ending bloodsports in the UK is, however, an achievable aim.

Ideally it would be great to end all animal cruelty including killing animals for meat, but society changes slowly over generations.

all IMHO of course.

Fair enough. I retract any allegation of hypocrisy.

I'd still argue that the freedom of choice, enjoyment and tradition issues are strong enough to justify continuing to eat meat, though, therefore I can't morally agree on banning hunting. Fundamentally this is because I value animal lives more cheaply than human lives.

Guess we'll have to agree to differ there. /little yellow olive branch thingy/

andymackem wrote:Guess we'll have to agree to differ there. /little yellow olive branch thingy/

Happy to agree to differ

/exchange of olive branch thingies/