Fox hunting

Jhon, maroon baiting is a blodletting spurt that some of us here indulge in from thyme to time and is usually aimed at people who try and spoil this forum. Yu are not wun of them.

A pox on misspellers! Something about a Bondy attracted my attention, so I will dip my wee oar in: it does not often get an airing, as certain sections of the public will disagree. Fox hunting is one of those things that persons do not have any say in unless they are of the position to do it. Like capital gains and inheritance tax - our views don't really count for much until we benefit from such. The difference between the old toffs and the new toffs nowadays is that it's actually a lot more fun to shoot your money on recreational drugs and killing real people than doing in pretty wimpy foxes. There's no money in it like culling seals, so it is always going to have been dying by now. The foxes will keep their own numbers under control, by a simple operation of Haldane's evolutionary calculus. In this age it's unforgiveable to labour under these misconceptions. Do I need to remind you young lads about what happened at Watership Down? rick x

(hadn't realized Fox could do evolutionary calculus).. Stormy...I don't have to go to ground then? *Pears cautiously in case missi spots him above ground*

I'm all for good looking women. Don't care much for blood sport. Don't see how the two need to be associated myself.

Back to smoking very briefly - I've yet to see (and I have looked) a decent study proving that anyone has died of passive smoking. Simply attributing (as some of the wilder ASH studies have done) every lung cancer death amongst non-smokers to passive smoking doesn't cut it. I'm looking for rates of lung cancer amongst non-smokers generally, plotted against rates of lung cancer amongst specifically non-smokers who live with a smoker. Yet to see anyone demonstrate this in a proper scientific survey. I'm no great fan of smoking, and I'm rather glad that people don't tend to do it in restaurants much, and smoking in a train compartment was a little annoying, but I can't see why the government would want to restrict it in pubs. Simple fact - by paying more taxes and dying earlier so that they don't claim a pension, the smoker is a tax hero keeping my income tax down. And I love and adore them for it. (And before anyone starts whining about the NHS having to treat them - the smokers pay for the NHS - you non-smokers want to start paying for it if everyone quits smoking. Per pack, smokers contribute 80pence net worth to the economy - tax and savings as against medical costs. The Government should be promoting smoking - free packs to sixteen year olds to get them hooked.) If a particular bar decides they don't want to allow smoking in their bar, that's fine, their choice and if I don't like it I can go elsewhere. They stand or fall by the market. But Government banning it and allowing no choice and personal freedom/personal responsibility is something I find sickening. Know what? And the Government don't seem to get this at all - people know that smoking kills them, they know that casual sex carries risks, they know that getting hammered on a regular basis is bad for them, they know that chips and pizzas make them fat. But many of them CHOOSE to do it - quite possibly because a lot of life is pretty shit, and fags and fucking and food and booze are rather nice simple pleasures of life.

The body responsible for advising the gov and who produced the original stats that supposedly shows a collation between smock particles in the air and lung cancer, revised the findings a few months ago and stated that the model was not conclusive and perhaps not as accurate as first thought. I cant remember the name of the group that advised the gov, but i do know there has been much opposition over there findings, precisely because it is not based on qualitative or quantitative evidence, because and "unless things have changed", there is non! Like wise, there is non to show that passive smoking dose not have a detrimental effect on non smokers. "Hardly Scientific". The disagreement between the opponents and many study in the heath services, is based on the amount of smock particles per sq/mt of air in a room. The opponents to this study argue that the amount of secondary smock that some one would need to inhaled, compared to a smoker is astronomically un proportionate to the results of the Gov advisers. (Or some thing like that ).

I'm all in favour of country people enjoying themselves. If this bill passes there'll be a revolution before the next election I'm telling ya! This is as important as the Poll Tax was. Just ask the country folk.

Just listened to the seven o'clock news. Oh dear ... 'Bye Tony Blair - we hardly knew ye.

>> I'm all in favour of country people enjoying themselves << Are you SERIOUS Matt? Ripping a wild animal apart with a pack of rabid dogs, and foxhounds as well, is hardly 'enjoyment' by civilised standards.

john, please please don't stop posting :0) According to the vet where I used to live, foxes DO spread disease? They have worms for a start - the reason that dog poo is considered so dangerous to children - toxa cara (?) can be spread by foxes? They can also spread mange, fleas and parvo virus to dogs. Seeing a fox dying from natural causes ie disease/starvation is NOT NICE. If fox numbers rise, and desperately hungry foxes raid more dustbins, kill cats, hang around dying in public etc people will complain about that, too? I think Missi must have lived in proper countryside, not the fringes like I used to, where it must be different. It was common to see extremely distressed animals wandering about, too sick even to run away? I don't know what the ethical answer is, but I think there will be a lot of suffering before a natural balance is reached? Just as with all the horrifically, terminally sick rabbits blindly bumping into trees, that made me cry. Even being vegan, I would not go against anyone who shot them? Even foxes would not eat them So long as the govt. allows any form of advertising for cigarettes, I don't see how they can complain? What worries me far more is mobile phones. At least you can choose not to be in the vicinity of smoke As we hurtle towards third war, we are worrying about this sort of thing...

>> ..According to the vet where I used to live, foxes DO spread disease? They have worms for a start - the reason that dog poo is considered so dangerous to children .. << So perhaps we should start hunting domestic dogs on a Sunday too then, Fay. The disease that dogs carry that affects children causes at least 500 cases of blindness per year, I have been aware of this problem for many years but people still allow their pet dogs to lick their kids. As it happens I don't think anyone is sure if the foxes infect the dogs, or vice versa. Where I live now (a small country town of approx 36,000 people) we are provided with 'wheelie bins' and I have to say I have never seen a single instance of a bin being overturned by a fox, in fact I have rarely seen a fox in my town, I assume because their is no easily attainable food source. Sixteen miles away in Leigh-on-Sea they still use black bin bags that have to be left out for collection. There is a population of 'urban foxes' in Leigh that systematically loot the bags every week. It's easy to control fox population simply by restricting their food sources. Since you've mentioned ethics and diseased rabbits I feel obliged to tell you that I was told by an ex-Ministry of Ag and Fish employee 20yrs ago, that every now and then Ag & Fish people deliberately release into the wild, in areas where the rabbit population has exploded, contaminated rabbits. The population dies out and it takes several years for the colonies to re-establish themselves. I have seen the evidence of this in Essex on the A12 Chelmsford to Colchester road and also closer to home.

*So perhaps we should start hunting domestic dogs on a Sunday too then, Fay* No missi. Because we favor some animals above others, thats why we intervene when they become sick, distressed, or are likely to spread disease throughout there own are to other species. aether way, the method of managing rabbit population grove is culling. You cant agree with culling for one species and not for another. Perhaps the problem is really about peoples personnel preferences? We like some animals more then others, Cats Dogs, Horses, Fox's etc. But as was the case with mad cow disease and as much as it may make people very upset, if the Fox population was left un culled, it would have a devastating effect on that species and on others. Like rabbits, you would have to make the chose between culling out of Mersey, for the good of the healthy fox population and for the good of other livestocks and no doubt pets to. I hate fox hunting. But the fact remains missi, some form of culling would be necessary. It a question of which is the more humane. Hunting. Shooting. Trapping. Poisoning Allowing the spread of disease.

Earlier today I donned my tight jodphurs and went hunting for hippies, the inhabitants of council estates, foxes and rabbits, before returning to the lodge where all the boys took their clothes orf and started bumming each other just like the good old days when they were at Eaton said Henry Twyselton-Rollings. Why spoil our fun?

Am amazed by the attempt at judicial review - it is page one of every book on Constitutional law every published in the UK "The courts will not intervene to set aside the decisions of Parliament or question how the law was arrived at - where the wording of the Act is uncertain, the court may look at Parliamentary debates to see what was intended". Courts in the UK can look at whether Government departments or Ministers have misapplied the law or acted unreasonably, but they cannot consider whether an Act of Parliament is valid law or not. So the judicial review (although it makes sense in a strict legal sense - the Parliament Act 1949 says that you can make law without the Lords consent if you ask them twice and they say no, but the Parliament Act was passed without the Lords consent before there was a proper law that allowed this to happen, so it is questionable) is doomed to failure, because all the case law says that courts cannot question the decision of Parliament - they can interpret Acts, but they cannot say that an Act is unlawful. There are arguments to say that every Act passed since the Act of Union with Scotland in the seventeenth century is unlawful because that Act itself wasn't properly enacted, but it is purely an academic point.

John, you are wrong mate. Culling is a human device designed to bend nature to mans will. Nature is quite capable of controlling populations of everything from krill to humans. You have been caught up in the belief that only the human race can do what is best for the planet, when in reality it's only the human race that destroys it. I didn't say I approved of releasing diseased rabbits into the wild in order to infect healthy animals to reduce their numbers, I merely pointed out that it happens.

The next use of the Parliament act should be to get rid of the house of lords and replace it with a second higher elected house. The third use should be to put the wanky windsors on the dole and elect a president.

Cromwell turns in his grave..

Missi. With all due respect, nature is the cruelest aspect of this planet. Left to its own devices, it would smother this word and the survival of the fittest would determine what species survive and which perish. You/Me, would most definitely not survive. A: because of your refusal to except that it is necessary to 'Bend nature' as a means of human survival, and me because i would endeavor to keep nature at bay and would probably be made extinct in the process. Nature is Cruel missi, not this nature order that every one seems to think it is, it takes no prisoners and left to its own devices, we would all be up the creek.

If Foxes were outlawed, only outlaws would own foxes.

I'm totally and utterly aware of the forces of nature, John, where you and I appear to differ is in 'your' belief that the planet is here for the benefit of mankind, and 'my' belief that we don't matter anymore than any other species. In fact it's my belief that the planet, as opposed to any individual species, would be far better off if we'd never crawled out of the primordial soup. Cruelty is a human concept, you can't hang human intentions/feelings on nature. I won't survive and you know what? I don't want to, at least not forever. Not because I 'refuse' to accept anything, but because whatever we humans can do, nature will take me when she sees fit, always assuming another human doesn't pre-empt her.

Just as long as he stays there...

Oh, stop squabbling. This legislation has been passed for reasons nothing to do with foxes. It's a bit of good old fashioned class-warfare driven through by back-benchers determined to piss Tone off for turning tory on them. I'd say a lot more except, as you know, I have decided to not have opinions anymore.

The way i see it the Fox population has to be coull'd. I don't agree with fox 'Hunting', but do agree that the fox population 'and others', has to be kept under control. As far as i can see, the alternatives are: Poison: Shooting: Trapping: Non are humane and all three will kill more Fox, in the long run. Whats needed is an effective way to cull in a more humane and effective way. Ether way, Fox will be killed, it just a question of how.

I see your point George, but constitutionally speaking the House of Lords is a pretty important check and balance against a Government with a huge majority who could do all sorts of daft things in office. I don't like the idea of a second elected house, because they'd be subject to the same pressure to be popular rather than to do the right thing. Of course there's a broader issue here of whether we ought to just say to a Government elected with a landslide majority, 'well, you've got your mandate and nobody should interfere - you've got four years to justify getting re-elected' - maybe that is the way forward. I rather like the Lords, it is the only flurry of excitement you get in British politics now that the Tories are long-term unelectable. I don't really give a rat's ass about whether fox-hunting is banned or not, but the murmerings about banning smoking in public places gives me the raging horrors even as a non-smoker. How about the Government get on with education and transport and law and order and stop interfering in stuff that doesn't concern them? If there was a demand for non-smoking pubs, the market would have provided one by now.

*How about the Government get on with education and transport and law and order and stop interfering in stuff that doesn't concern them* Because we live in an increasing Nanny State, that is hell bent on eroding 'my right to choose'. It makes my blood boil!!

But I saw you use the hallowed 'IMO' on a thread earlier this evening, Colin.

Andrew...Interesting point on English law vs US Law... Our courts have the authority to review the law makers (Congres) enacted laws. Our constitution allows such a review and if law if found to violate the constitution, it can be thrown out by a judge. The US Supreme Court has the final say in all matters as to what is legal and not legal. Not Congress. What is the mechanism for this in England?

If opinions were outlawed, only outlaws would have opinions.

Well as far as 'I' know, Denver, the House of Lords is the final appeal in Britain. OK, as Andrew says, if elected they would be under the pressure to appeal to the popular vote, BUT the lords protect what's left of the 'aristocratic privileges', so they are not a lot different. I think the European court of human rights is superior to any court in Britain, but i'm not sure what cases may be pursued through it. To take issue with Andrew about the government not interfering in what doesn't concern them, it strikes me that as up to 10,000 people a year die from secondary smoking (if you can believe the statistics, and I choose to) then the care of those people, and also those that suffer but don't actually die, (a far greater number I suspect) falls on the tax-payer. As the government is responsible for raising taxes and spending them (wisely?), it follows that the causes of the expenditure ARE in fact, the governments concern. Most people who bang on about 'smokers rights' (and they appear to be entirely anti-smoking ban people) are I believe, 'smokers'. Nobody seems to be similarly concerned about the rights of non-smokers who have no choice but to breath the cancer-friendly carcinogens exhaled by the others. I feel similarly about noise polution. Why should those that want peace and quiet have to be assaulted by loud radios etc.? To claim equal rights for both sides is not even a stupid defence. One is invasive and the other isn't.

did not.

Oh, and I forgot to reply to John, who believes the country is about to be destroyed by foxes. As with all flora/fauna survival depends on a habitat that will sustain them. ALL species are self-regulating, when there is no food for foxes there numbers dwindle, ther's no need to use sick depraved methods to kill them and defend them as 'good husbandry'. Those that say 'foxes need to be culled to preserve the balance of the countryside' are talking out their arses. I've lived in the countryside and worked there in the main for 60 yrs and I KNOW it's all bollocks. So there!

I've been thinking about this (yes, I'm slow) and now get it. I was confused. When you said 'earlier this evening' I foolishly thought you meant earlier this evening and not JUST NOW!

Well, the paintings I have of the "Fox Hunts" sure look nice, they may go up in value now too. I say ban more fox hunting. As a smoker, I won't argue with your point of view. It's one of those things...I know full well that I'm a target of opportunity for the public's need to pass feel good legislation. I don't smoke around others; I respect their "personal space.” If I’m outdoors and want to smoke and you don’t like it. Fuck off! I don’t like your farting, no law against it though. The problem with "feel good" legislation is that once the cat is out of the bag, there will be a never ending stream of it. The other problem with it, is it has a disproportionate effect on the poor. This is where I part ways with legislation. If it has a significantly greater effect on one group of society, then there is something inherently wrong with it. Legislators tend to over-react to public projections of guilt and try to regulate personal behaviors that are beyond regulation and within the realm of personal liberty. Next, we'll target "overweight" people, then something else and so on. The cost of health-care for fat-lazy people exceeds the norm, we have to regulate it, and besides it is good public policy to promote healthy living. Eventually, we'll be taxed and legislated to death.

*I forgot to reply to John, who believes the country is about to be destroyed by foxes* No missi! I believe that many species have been and are being made extinct by human intervention 'and lack of human intervention', depending on the species. In the case of the Fox, you fail to mention spread of disses, which is just one thing that would work to ward the reduction of that species, if it were not kept in check by culling. The effect of natural degradesion, and precisely because of the effect that humans have had on that natural order, would be devastating to the population of many species, not just the Fox. Siting back and leaving it up to the balance between a species and the ability of the habitat to support that species, is no longer viable with the effect that human activity has had on the country. Our very presences disrupts the balance through the effect of pesticides, intensive farming, destruction of hedge raw and the spread of disease not to mention others. But like it or not, we are hear and we have a responsibility to try to limit the effect we have on other species. A species specificity to environment no longer applies in the sense that you suggest missi. The presences of humans has seen to that. Fox's need culling. The natural balance has been irrevocably disrupted by human activity in the country side. So there!

John, Our very existence is part of the Natural Order. What ever the hell happens to foxes as a result of our presence, will be natural. We spread far more disease than any fox ever could. Maybe humans need to be culled. *winks...then blushes*

I wasn't aware that foxes are great spreaders of diseases, John. If they ARE it must be one of the best-kept secrets in rural Britain. Badgers on the other hand spread tuberculosis among cattle, and THAT'S been known among the yokels for decades, BUT there are laws protecting badgers from being culled/hunted. It seems to me therefore, that your 'disease' defence for killing foxes is a bit lame. >> Our very presences disrupts the balance through the effect of pesticides, intensive farming, destruction of hedge raw and the spread of disease not to mention others. << If what you say is correct, and I broadly accept it is, then it also means that a fall in the means of sustenance for the fox will ineveitably lead to a reduction in population. Thank you for supporting my theory. It's also a well-known fact that far more foxes are killed on the country's roads than by being torn apart by the local hunt. Perhaps if the fox population is such a threat to the countryside the best way to cull them would be to place chicken coops on the central reservations of dual carriageways. Foxes do NOT need culling, though I'm inclined to agree that maybe humans DO. Denver, farting is obligatory and encumbent on all humans, it is also not a threat to health (in most cases, though I have a theory that smokers farts are toxic). On your other point, I believe you've touched on a very valid topic. Lard-arses SHOULD be taxed into extinction. Why should those that show restraint and thereby leave enough food for the starving millions around the world, also consume a disproportionate share of the available health care? The very thought of an obese person peeling the cheeks of their arse apart just so their third eye can see the porcelain makes me wanna vomit.

I cocked up there in my enthusiasm, it should have read... >> Why should those that show restraint and thereby leave enough food for the starving millions around the world pay for those that....make pigs of themselves and also consume a disproportionate share of the available health care? <<

Just read this, have to go out again but will be happy to set you all straight when i return..

One logical end to this is of course.... Take the lard-arses of the world, cull them, cook them over burning smokers fart-gas and use them to feed the starving of the world. We could solve a number of problems with one law. We could then have the UN be the international regulatory body in charge of overseeing all of this.

Yup... I think it's a fantastic idea to cull the world of lard arses. Will we let them finish their hershey bars first?

Denver, the flaw in your business plan is the UN, they couldn't organise a screw in a brothel. Finish their Hershey bars? NO WAY!

No, Hershey bars don't qualify. Just had one matter of fact ....HA

*Bob Roberts in the lodge* ...I must say, I do look jolly fetching in this gear...

'nother scotch old chap? Blooming heck eh, there's a fair bit of joshing going on around here today my dear fellow. Are these ruffians members? Ask Jeeves to check their membership.

...they must have at least twenty generations of inbreeding to enter the country lodge.

*Our very existence is part of the Natural Order. What ever the hell happens to foxes as a result of our presence, will be natural. We spread far more disease than any fox ever could.* Bolocks! Our activity's are not! Also, you know as well as i do denver, that i referee to 'Inter species', not 'cross species, in terms of the spread of diseases. Its an argument that has no substances. *I wasn't aware that foxes are great spreaders of diseases, John. If they ARE it must be one of the best-kept secrets in rural Britain* Missi, you are aware that Fox's get diseases? That with an increase in fox numbers, beyond a particular thresh hold that there is a corresponding increase in inter species diseases?

Yes. At the heart of it Stormy, that’s precisely what it is..Class-warfare. I think its sad that people cloak this fact in emotive causes, when whats really going on in the broader picture, has nothing to do with fox's. Any one for the freedom to choose? How about stem Cell's? Safe the rabbits? Any one?

All species get diseases, but in the case of foxes I was NOT aware that they were in any particular danger or were cariers of any magnitude.

the whole stem cell arguement has little difference to the abortion one...i.e. does an embryo have a right to life. It is the disposal of embryos from which stem cells have been extracted that cause moral difficulties for some.

That correspondence applies to all species missi. A large increase in any spices, beyond a particular thresh hold leads to inter species diseases, but also a decrease Bondy a particular thresh hold can and has made species extinct. The balance is extremely fragile, hence why the are many extinctions throughout the world on a regular bases. Because of the effect of human activities on this planet, 'That natural order', has been drastically disrupted.