Agreed but a comprimise where hundreds of people don't lose jobs!
About time...
- Thread starter The Negotiator
- Start date
Currently reading:
About time...
jamie86 said:
YEP an foxes dont realy bova most people but rats are barsteds, next door just pulled down thier garage so all thier rats are looking for new homes one gone in my flat roof proubly need to take celing down to check he not ate the wires
Yet
Do rats eat your livestock???
Do foxes???
Point proved
No offence you guys/girls but the majority for a ban have no idea and just go by what people have told them or what the media say!
"Oh it's in the paper must be true"
Do rats eat your livestock???
Do foxes???
Point proved
No offence you guys/girls but the majority for a ban have no idea and just go by what people have told them or what the media say!
"Oh it's in the paper must be true"
excaped dogs attac more live stock than foxes but fox often gets the blame, BTW i know lots an lots of live stock farmers having spent a lot of time at my mums work, she has been a book keeper for a cattle market for 35 years, thoes farmers dont let the hunt on thier land what does that tell you?jamie86 said:
It tells you they're anti-hunt i'm not saying some people aren't but the majority are against a ban.....
Also another major point no one has said about is they way which this ban has gone about.......
As it has not gone through the House of Lords (I think it's that one my mistake if it's the other way around)
Also another major point no one has said about is they way which this ban has gone about.......
As it has not gone through the House of Lords (I think it's that one my mistake if it's the other way around)
I agree with hunting, but do not agree with hunting with dogs.
The thing about the whole debate that p*ssed me off so much is this town versus country issue which the Countryside Alliance go on about. They keep going on about representing countryfolk. Well I'm a born and bred country boy and still live in a Village in rural Lincolnshire and they don't speak for me, my family or the majority of the regulars in my local.
I agree the fox is vermin & needs controlling, but the woman across the road from me is a gamekeeper and despatched 203 foxes last year by shooting, and the snare, so using dogs isn't necessary. Also the fellar three houses down has chickens. He's had them taken by Foxes, but just accepts it as a risk as he said to me 'I've got chickens what do you expect?'. He just does the best he can to ensure they are safe.
Before she moved away, my friend once worked with the local Brocklesby Hunt and told me the average life of a pack dog is 3 years, and then they are destroyed. This is cos they lose their sense of smell or are just no longer 'up for the chase'. So in my mind there is no argument of what will happen to the dogs, as they get a bullet in the back of the head anyway.
Also the Jobs argument is bull as well. The husband of the Gamekeeper across the road is a Blacksmith. His Forge closed a long time ago, and there is no demand for him to shoe horses anymore. He lost his livelihood, so what did he do? He became an ornamental metal worker. You adapt to survive, which is exactly what everybody else in the countryside has had to do.
The Jobs argument is like saying you can't ban medical research because nurses will be put out of work if you do.
Hunting with dogs is either cruel or not cruel. There is no other argument.
The thing about the whole debate that p*ssed me off so much is this town versus country issue which the Countryside Alliance go on about. They keep going on about representing countryfolk. Well I'm a born and bred country boy and still live in a Village in rural Lincolnshire and they don't speak for me, my family or the majority of the regulars in my local.
I agree the fox is vermin & needs controlling, but the woman across the road from me is a gamekeeper and despatched 203 foxes last year by shooting, and the snare, so using dogs isn't necessary. Also the fellar three houses down has chickens. He's had them taken by Foxes, but just accepts it as a risk as he said to me 'I've got chickens what do you expect?'. He just does the best he can to ensure they are safe.
Before she moved away, my friend once worked with the local Brocklesby Hunt and told me the average life of a pack dog is 3 years, and then they are destroyed. This is cos they lose their sense of smell or are just no longer 'up for the chase'. So in my mind there is no argument of what will happen to the dogs, as they get a bullet in the back of the head anyway.
Also the Jobs argument is bull as well. The husband of the Gamekeeper across the road is a Blacksmith. His Forge closed a long time ago, and there is no demand for him to shoe horses anymore. He lost his livelihood, so what did he do? He became an ornamental metal worker. You adapt to survive, which is exactly what everybody else in the countryside has had to do.
The Jobs argument is like saying you can't ban medical research because nurses will be put out of work if you do.
Hunting with dogs is either cruel or not cruel. There is no other argument.
Basically more than anything what annoys me about this whole arguement is the govermnet seem to think they can pass any laws that they so wish to do.....
Vin- Almost everything you've said is true.....
But you must also agree that the ban will put many people under hardship that they shouldn't need to be?!
Vin- Almost everything you've said is true.....
But you must also agree that the ban will put many people under hardship that they shouldn't need to be?!
errm, the government can (eventually) pass whichever laws it wishes to do so, this is what govenments do. If you don't like em you can always vote em out.
Which is exactly what i will be trying to do come election time
And there you go! You agree with Paul after all!
I agree with Paul on some issues actually make that a v.small number of.......
But disagree with a ban on fox hunting!
But disagree with a ban on fox hunting!
jamie86 said:
The Blacksmith across the road was put under a hardship and he shouldn't have needed to be. But he did something about it. He changed.
When my Tractor driving uncle was made redundant, because they started using contractors on the land. He was put under hardship but he got a job driving wagons.
Thousands of people are made redundant every day and put under hardship, whole industries even, but they adapt and change.
If I'm made redundant tomorrow (not unlikely the amount of time I spend on the net
) I'll be put under hardship that I shouldn't need to be put under, but I'll find another job, even if it's just shovelling ****.It may be sad, but nobody is owed a living. That's the way of the world.
OP
OP
Please look at my individual points to questions brought up:
Ah come on, don't be so stupid! Loss of jobs is a reason? sure, and as Dave put it, society changes and jobs are lost, it's no excuse not to stop something inhumane!
Of course I agree that vermin have to be kept to a "correct" level, however, I don't believe a sadistic blood sport of chasing a fox until he is exhausted is one way to do that. A shotgun from a farmer however is more so.....It's not much of a sport now is it, maybe 300 years ago but I try to think as myself and others as being more civilised.
If you base things on tradition we would still be hanging people, hunting witches, preventing the majority of people from education, have sexism and homophobia, tradition isn't an excuse.
A nanny state? don't be so silly. Do you know what the governments job is, it is actually to reflect our views. They are NOT putting forward any law they so wish, they are putting forward what the majority of people in this country want, hence democracy. The HOL are the people you want to watch because they do (as two days ago) what their class of people (a small minority) want and not what the country wants. The sooner the HOL disappears the better IMO.
Kirsty; you said fishing is just as inhumane yet it's not (i.e. no death, healthier fish, nicer fishing areas etc.), where do you stand on that now?
Vin: Nicer one! (The Jobs argument is like saying you can't ban medical research because nurses will be put out of work if you do.)
And it must be remembered that it is a hunting with dogs ban and that the House Of Lords itself was the one to make it a ban from February and not 2006 (which would have allowed alternative employments to be found etc. they shot their own folk in the feet)
Ah come on, don't be so stupid! Loss of jobs is a reason? sure, and as Dave put it, society changes and jobs are lost, it's no excuse not to stop something inhumane!
Of course I agree that vermin have to be kept to a "correct" level, however, I don't believe a sadistic blood sport of chasing a fox until he is exhausted is one way to do that. A shotgun from a farmer however is more so.....It's not much of a sport now is it, maybe 300 years ago but I try to think as myself and others as being more civilised.
If you base things on tradition we would still be hanging people, hunting witches, preventing the majority of people from education, have sexism and homophobia, tradition isn't an excuse.
A nanny state? don't be so silly. Do you know what the governments job is, it is actually to reflect our views. They are NOT putting forward any law they so wish, they are putting forward what the majority of people in this country want, hence democracy. The HOL are the people you want to watch because they do (as two days ago) what their class of people (a small minority) want and not what the country wants. The sooner the HOL disappears the better IMO.
Kirsty; you said fishing is just as inhumane yet it's not (i.e. no death, healthier fish, nicer fishing areas etc.), where do you stand on that now?
Vin: Nicer one! (The Jobs argument is like saying you can't ban medical research because nurses will be put out of work if you do.)
And it must be remembered that it is a hunting with dogs ban and that the House Of Lords itself was the one to make it a ban from February and not 2006 (which would have allowed alternative employments to be found etc. they shot their own folk in the feet)
OP
OP
Oh and before with take down the rebels in Iraq let's try to make a comprimise to avoid them having job losses, it's not fair they lose their hobbies and jobs.
Not in agreement, good, but that's on the lines of what you are saying Jamie
Not in agreement, good, but that's on the lines of what you are saying Jamie
Paul......
Please don't even get my started on my views on Iraq as I know someone who was killed out there and have many friends out there as we speak.....
I'm gonna back down from this one as I don't wanna offend anyone or in case a "real" arguement starts!
Jamie
Please don't even get my started on my views on Iraq as I know someone who was killed out there and have many friends out there as we speak.....
I'm gonna back down from this one as I don't wanna offend anyone or in case a "real" arguement starts!
Jamie
OP
OP
Re: Paul......
My point is that you can't say "it should be kept going to prevent loss of jobs" because that can be applied to many different situations and it isn't much of a valid reason.
The argument isn't about Iraq but it was an example of why that doesn't justify keeping on such a "sport"
We can always argue Iraq in another argument
My point is that you can't say "it should be kept going to prevent loss of jobs" because that can be applied to many different situations and it isn't much of a valid reason.
The argument isn't about Iraq but it was an example of why that doesn't justify keeping on such a "sport"
We can always argue Iraq in another argument
Paul- Yeah it definately would be an arguement!
Anyway i'm gonna let this thread go now!
But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Lol
Anyway i'm gonna let this thread go now!
But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Lol
...it's ok to eat fish cuz they haven't any feelings..
Still don't agree with fishing, it's got to hurt and they don't even get to die afterwards, and they can go through it time and time again.
And about the witch hunting, it still does happen its just got a new name-find the terrorist.
And if you go back long enough homosexuality was actually encouraged-mainly thinking of the ancient greek armies...
Ho hum.
Still don't agree with fishing, it's got to hurt and they don't even get to die afterwards, and they can go through it time and time again.
And about the witch hunting, it still does happen its just got a new name-find the terrorist.
And if you go back long enough homosexuality was actually encouraged-mainly thinking of the ancient greek armies...
Ho hum.
OP
OP
Erm, your comment on homosexuality, is it relevant in any way or just an interesting comment??
It's ok to eat fish because it's nature! It's ok to eat chickens because it's nature also. However, it's not ok to chase a fog to exhaustion then have hounds rip it to shreads. I mean even I would become a veggie if i knew my chicken for dinner was chased until it couldn't run anymore then picked at until it died by forks.
Fishing I am told is found not to cause pain and on top of this there are advantages of it (i.e. better conditions for fish) which help the fish!
I think most of you would agree it's a good thing if Prince Charles who I believe famously said "If hunting with dogs is banned I'm going to leave the country" keeps to his word! lol
Anyway, it's banned and our country is all the better for it in more ways than one.
It's ok to eat fish because it's nature! It's ok to eat chickens because it's nature also. However, it's not ok to chase a fog to exhaustion then have hounds rip it to shreads. I mean even I would become a veggie if i knew my chicken for dinner was chased until it couldn't run anymore then picked at until it died by forks.
Fishing I am told is found not to cause pain and on top of this there are advantages of it (i.e. better conditions for fish) which help the fish!
I think most of you would agree it's a good thing if Prince Charles who I believe famously said "If hunting with dogs is banned I'm going to leave the country" keeps to his word! lol
Anyway, it's banned and our country is all the better for it in more ways than one.
Similar threads
