Ripple

Hunting little, fluffy animals, Nac

"What's it called when you throw toilet paper over a house?" Who on earth would do this? And why??? Oh and "55% (Dixie). Barely into the Dixie category." Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Um, I see where your coming from, but really loss of livelihood is not a sustainable argument. Afterall, if drag hunting was used instead of fox hunting, everyone would keep their jobs, including the hounds. As for foxes killing domesticated pets, agreed, it does happen. I seem to remember reading something about a warning in Scotland about foxes taking pets being published recently? This doesn't have any impact on hunts, because, of course, they don't operate in urban areas. Foxes are basically scavengers and have been encroaching on built up areas, not because of access to cats and small dogs, but mainly because people put their waste out in easily accessible bags! It wouldn't matter how many foxes were killed in the countryside, it wouldn't stop them from taking the easy option of finding food in towns etc. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Whilst I wouldn't dispute the efficency of using guns to cull animals of any description, fox hunting using horse and hound has been somewhat effective. I readily agree that this claim can be disputed by many sources. However, I cannot believe that farmers would request a hunt if they didn't believe it would be effective. http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence2/4exmoorhunts.htm [/url] http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/welshfarmersfox.htm About 300,000 foxes are killed each year, roughly the equivalent of the number of cubs born each year. Of these 300k, roughly 20,000 are killed by hunts. Perhaps not as many as fox hunts would like people to think, but not an insignificant number? Although I don't object to hunting per se, I do object to certain hunt's methods at times. I can't agree with cub-hunting, nor can I agree with the practice of 'bagging' a fox. At the end of the day, as I said before, I didn't much enjoy sitting around waiting for something to happen. Oh, and barbed wire.... geez! Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Firstly, I completely agree with mr2mk1g. In the overall scheme of things, this is such a trivial issue. I do feel that the real reason that anyone is against fox hunting is the perception that those who hunt are "rich, drunk , pompous assholes". Not that killing a fox using hounds is cruel. I really feel that this issue needs to be looked at in a far less emotive, more balanced way. When a fox kills, it will kill more than it will eat at that one time. It buries surplus food as a store to ensure future provisions. This is pretty frugal and clever but has been misunderstood as wanton killing in the fox. Nevertheless, this does mean that farmers and other livestock producers do suffer large losses. Foxes will also kill pets as they move into urban areas. So, there is no doubt that as the fox doesn't have a natural predator, fox numbers need to be controlled. Just as, for example, deer are culled. Now, killing a fox with hounds. Perhaps it is cruel, I don't know. All I can say is I've seen this quite a few times (admittedly I haven't hunted in the last 14 years) and each time its been fast. The hounds do not want to hang about torturing a fox that could and would, bite back. Many foxes that are caught are incapcitated in some way. Injured by someone who's tried to shoot them or trap them or poison them. Though of course, this doesn't count for all foxes caught. Cub hunting anyone? Some hunts are inconsiderate, they do have arrogant bastards as members, they do park their vehicles in the way, they don't control their dogs as they should, etc. But not all hunts are like this. So what are the alternatives to hunting? As trapping and poisoning are both unacceptable for a number of reasons, it seems that the only viable option is using marksmen. However, because of the expense and time involved, I can foresee farmers etc. taking the matter into their own hands and leaving us with many more injured foxes, and consequently suffering foxes, than ever before. The argument that hunts use that horses and hounds will have to be exterminated holds no water whatsoever. Drag hunting can be used in place of hunting with little change to the status quo at all that I can see. Personally, I prefer drag hunting. Hanging about waiting for a fox on a cold, wet, tired horse was never much fun. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

This post makes me ashamed to be British. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

No, I won't admit it. It was your interpretation. Either you're a complete newbie here and you've written a pretty strange post for a first one, or you're a regular who's using an 'anonymous' nick. Either way I have no idea whatsoever if we're ever going to become best buddies Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Correct, it was your interpretation. I said: I did not say that you were advocating it, I did not say that you were guilty of the act. I merely stated that to advocate it would be indicative of complicity or guilt, in my opinion. Again, your interpretation. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Actually, I didn't accuse you of advocating anything. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read and understand the written word? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

A written disagreement on the net, no matter how strong, does not, in any way whatsoever, merit an attack on someone that is anything but a reply in writing using the same medium. To advocate any thing else is, in my opinion, in indication of complicity at best, an admission of guilt at worst. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

I'm so upset to read this. Everyone has said everything I feel about it. Kevin, I really hope you're ok. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

I'm sure you, as everyone, does that too, its human nature after all. I can only judge you from what you write and how others respond to you. From that I gather that you're pretty hot on safety stuff, you do admirable works for charity and you come across as unreasonable and extremely aggressive at times which, I should imagine, unfortunately means the good stuff is lost to many. An opinion I have of you, which, of course, is largely irrelevant. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Sure, it was a personal attack. I shouldn't have shown my feelings about you. I'll miss reading the arguments on here.

Oh c'mon. Ron is telling everyone about his good works in what appears to be a pretty blatant attempt to discredit the notion that he's arrogant, self-obsessed and narrow-minded, and then as he goes on immediately after to disclaim it, it loses all credibility. All of Ron's posts, that I've read, show the aforementioned notion to be completely accurate. The sad thing is, any useful, pertinent information or advice he offers is probably lost to those that it would benefit the most because of his attitude that screams 'tosser'. If Ron would reply to posts in the mature, sensible, intelligent way that he must display in the work he does with the organisations he mentioned, I'm sure everyone would benefit as much as he appears to want them to. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

You just did. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Ok, and I think it does. Not only this case, but the general desire for non-disabled people to not have to 'accept', 'cope' with disabled people, sometimes, admittedly, for very sound reasons. Absolutely the right thing to do, I've done the same. Infact, just the other week I wrung the neck of a pheasant that had been run over but not killed. However, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. Nightingale's post was very enlightening. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

wrong country. I think you'll find that in the cases where this has happened, lots of thought and independend review has taken place. Parents have consented, independend doctor's have consented and after the fact prosecuters consented. Er, just because its not Germany doesn't mean there can't be similarities. In my opinion. I do not believe that killing someone (of whatever age) because they are not perfect, i.e. disabled, can be right, no matter how much thought, and by whom, is put into it. There appears, from what I can see, to be a drive for eliminating any condition that is not wholly perfect (the Nazi connection). There appears to be a drive towards cure not cope, and thus erradicating anyone who cannot be cured and doesn't fit the ideal. Edit: Didn't make much sense! Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Wow! That gives me really conflicting feelings. I'm an advocate of euthanasia, even for those who cannot request it. However, this smacks too much of Nazi supremacy, for me. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

And it only took 9 posts! Ok, so not a strict interpretation Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Yep, precisely. But those who shout the loudest, don't appear in the main, to have much interest in anything that doesn't affect their country right here, right now. Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

It doesn't directly involve anyone else, though, does it? Yet... Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Well, they shouldn't. Not if you had reported the theft in the first place. As a law-abiding citizen, you'd do that, wouldn't you? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Teehee! Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Hmm, methinks, and I could well be wrong, that an omnivore is its own set, simply because the physiologies are completely distinct between the three groups. An omnivore is not a combination of carnivore and herbivore, but has a completely different physiology which enables it to use both plant or animal material in digestion, not one of the other. I dunno, I'm guessing here! Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

Ah ha! I see. I was being pedantic. Although, having said that and getting right into pedant mode, I thought carnivore, omnivore and herbivore were discrete groups. Is that not correct? Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes