h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sensible and balanced Zarniroop - commodities often in short supply where people's emotions are involved. Well done, that ex-president.

The game you mention sounds a bit like James Lovelock's (the Gaia geezer) Daisy World scenario.

Hi, A Girl called Ben!!!!!!!

Shall we throw another spanner into the works here?????


Do you know what happens to the majority of Greyhounds and
Whippets that can no longer run and win money for the owners??????

........I will leave it to your own imagination!!!!!!!!

'G'

Abi (Italic!)

FOXES DO NOT KILL FOR 'FUN'!!!!!!!!!!

Foxes do not have any comprehension whatsoever of the idea!
If there is an abundance of prey in a given area, they will kill as much as they can, and then come back later to eat as they wish..
In other words, they are creating in their own minds, a cache that they can return to in times of need......

Sorry to burst your bubble!!!!!

'G'

Abi, there seems to be some acceptance of the idea of a workshop to create an article presenting the arguments pro and con, and maybe a description of who does what on a hunt.

Whats the procedure? It needs a bit of rewriting before flinging it into Peer review. I'd have a crack but (1) I don't hunt and (2) I have No-o-o-o-o-o time!

agcB

'hat do you mean what is the Procedure?

The day's hunting itself? Or all of it?

Oh Gandalf, there have been 3 indenpdent (Well Labour) enquiries into hunting, and none of them found them crueler than any other methods of pest control(some are far crueller). So why ban it?

Procedure = whatever. Who is who, what they wear, what they do, if they pay or are paid, what happens, how often it happens, all the stuff I'd have to research, 'cause I don't know the details myself, I guess. But facts, not arguments.

B

Hello everyone,

A late entry. Leaving aside, for the time being, my views on fox hunting, I do nevertheless wonder why it seems to engender such controversy when other 'pursuits' don't seem to attract the same degree of odium. For instance, there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the same amount of fuss when shooters go blasting ducks out of the sky by the tens of thousand, or ditto pheasants and grouse and partridge etc, in the name of recreation or sport or pleasure or whatever. And how sick is it that in some countries where animal numbers in game reservations must be culled, people can and actually do pay money, big big money, to point their howitzers and bang!, another zebra or elephant bites the dust. Who is the more reprehensible - the governments that invite the shooters and take their money or the shooters that pay to do the shooting?

Walter.

Hi Walter

It's probably the case that there's a primitive blood lust hangover from our evolutionary past. It was useful in the past to enjoy hunting and killing. We may never have evolved into the delightful species we are today without it. But today there are over 6 billion of us. We no longer need to do it and most of us find unnecessary killing and especially the enjoyment of unnecessary killing abhorrent.

Personally, I find it hard to see how so many people are going to live together peacefully on this little planet when there are large numbers of people who actually enjoy inflicting pain, suffering and death on others. They may say it's not human but I don't see how you draw the line. If a person enjoyed causing suffering to an animal, I wouldn't, for example, want them to be my doctor. I'm an animal too - they might enjoy my suffering. It's been known. Also, so long as that attitude is condoned I think the lack or respect for life that results in things like war, will continue.

Sal

Sorry I have not been getting involved, partly because I do not believe in foisting my views on any one else and partly because I do not want other people's veiws foisted on me. I am a firm believer in the teachings of William Walwyn and his treatise the Compassionate Samaritan which preaches tolerance of other people's (religious) views.

I would suggest approaching Ashley about this - he would be able to advise about the appropriate way of taking a potential article forward.

Can I just add that while I agree with Gandalf that foxes don't kill for "fun" as that is a human concept, I have yet to know of an example of a fox getting in to a hen coup and not killing the majority of chickens in there while only taking one or two for food.

I have unsubscribed to this thread - so you will need to drop me a line on my home page.

Hi StM,

We will have to stop meeting like this!

I agree with everything you wrote. But you didn't actually address the point I raised, which is why foxhunting seems to attract much more controversy than other 'sports' involving the killing of animals. Just to get the ball rolling, I will venture an opinion - it is to do with 'class'. See you over at Waz's place.

Walter.

btw, in case nobody noticed - we have now slid elegantly into the writing workshop - do please fly with h2g2 airlines again, we hope you had a pleasant ride...

Only for some people Walter. The class thing doesn't seem to matter so much these days. The thing cuts right through class boundaries. I think the main reason people get so upset about fox hunting in particular is that humans don't eat foxes. They like hunting them so they find excuses to do it - like pretending we have a plague of foxes that need to be controlled.

I don't like hunting of any sort but I wouldn't make a fuss about what Abi does for example. If someone who eats meat goes out to get their own (and no more than they need - I don't mean like those pheasant massacres that go on at this time of the year) it seems a bit more honest than going to a supermarket to buy something that can hardly be associated with it's origin, like a lump of steak. Even though I'm a vegetarian and dislike that sort of thing, I wouldn't criticise someone for eating meat.

It's a shame Abi's unsubscribed from this forum. It didn't occur to me for a moment that she or anyone else was foisting their views on people. I thought we were just discussing the issues, which is what the fora are here for - or am I mistaken?

I'll pop over for a g&t with you at the waterhole later.

Sal

Hi again StM,

I still think three cubes is one too many for a G&T!!

I don't have any problem whatever with people hunting for food, although I agree that most people would not regard foxes as food for the table. Neither do I have any problem with culling where it is necessary - for instance mice plagues, rabbits and kangaroos and feral pigs and horses and camels and buffalo like we have to do here in Australia. I don't care much for it, but acknowledge the need for it to happen. This is a quite different thing from a shooter going out and obliterating several dozen ducks, or scores of pheasants; that is not shooting for food or out of necessity but for pleasure, for sport and recreation. Elephants and zebras are not normally regarded as food for human beings, but there is a long queue of people prepared to pay big dollars to be able to shoot them as some kind of centrepiece of a 'holiday'. My point is that for every fox killed by hounds and hunt, there are probably thousands of other animals shot for pleasure. If we look at who does the shooting and at which targets, it might begin to tell us why there is so much furore over foxhunting and, comparatively, so little over for instance the ducks and the pheasants and the partridges and the elephants and the zebras. Hence my semi-question: does class come into it?

I don't quite understand your comments about Abi, or the significance of her unsubscribing from this forum: maybe I need to go back and read all previous postings. Take care,

Walter

Are you saying people who hunt foxes are from a higher class than people who shoot elephants and zebras? I don't know about that - I've met some fox hunters (they're not all toffs you know) but I've never met anyone who shot an elephant. I send off letters of protest about just about every kind of animal (human and non-human) abuse going on all over the world. Fox hunting's on my doorstep though so it's had my special attention.

One possible reason that fox hunts are the target of protests and sabbing is that there's plenty of warning about where they're going to meet. They have to warn land-owners that they might cross their land (which they tend to do whether they have permission or not). The hunt is quite easy to follow, if you're fit. Shoots don't go across country and don't have to warn lots of people of their intention to shoot. As far as I'm aware, they're normally limited to the land of the person who is either hosting the thing or being paid to allow it (in this country, at least). It's not that people are happy about the mass slaughter of birds, it's just that it's a different sort of situation. I think people are more inclined to write letters of protest about that sort of 'sport' rather than confront the people with the guns.

Put it this way: Class has nothing whatever to do with the reason I don't like fox hunting. I know lots of other people who also dislike it and none of them has ever mentioned to me that class had anything to do with their dislike of the activity. If you're right about the class thing, I've been missing something because I haven't noticed it. Maybe someone else here can throw more light on the matter.

You don't need to go very far back to see where Abi unsubscribed. See post number 49. It seemed to me that we were having a polite discussion in which nobody was foisting their views on anyone else. I gather from Abi's last post that she felt views were being foisted rather than exchanged. I thought it was a shame to see her go.

Sal

Just remembered another reason fox hunting gets more attention than other blood sports. Media attention focuses on fox hunting because it's a colourful spectacle. As far as I know, that has nothing to do with class either. If the media focus on it then the attention of the public is drawn to it and that's likely to increase the volume of protest.

Sal

Yes they come and live with me. I have five retired greyhounds. The thing is that I am sure that more homes could be found for them if they did not require such a long rehabilitation period. In this me me me society we live in very few people are prepared to put the time and effort in.

Hal was my first retired greyhound and he took about two years to get used to being a pet. As a working dog he had never seen carpet and why should he have done. Coming into a house was a strange and unnerving experience for him

The greyhound industry has done a lot to clean up its act recently and works very hard with the retired greyhound Trust. But the fact is that some dogs pine and miss their working environment til their dying day.

We should be careful about giving these animals human thoughts and feelings. An animal has no concept of what humans percieve to be a high quality of life. In adopting a retired greyhound and attempting to rehabilitate them I put them through an awful lot of stress for my benefit. Whereas if they had been put down, they would have had an injection and gone to sleep and that would have been it. There is nothing wrong with a humane death Gandalf. The RSPCA a well known anti blood sports protestors put down thousands of animals a year because it is the kindest thing to do.

Any way I thought you might find some of this useful for your article.

A girl called Ben - I will see you on the 18th.

Whoops forgot to include the info

I lifted this straight from the website. Should it be reworded?

[URL removed by moderator]

1. Foxhunting as a sport is the hunting of the fox in his wild and natural
state with a pack of hounds. Nothing
must be done which in any way compromises this rule. The MFHA have
laid down detailed rules for Masters of
Foxhounds to observe, the most important of which are:

(i) If, when a fox is run to ground, the decision is that the
fox be killed, it must be humanely
destroyed; ( note this is normally decided to accord with the
wishes of the landowner or tenant);

(ii) When a hunted fox is run to ground there shall he no
digging other than for the purpose of
humanely destroying the fox;

(iii) A fox which has had to he handled by a terrierman or
his assistant must either be freed or
humanely destroyed immediately; under no circumstances may it
be hunted.

2. Hunting flourishes entirely because of the goodwill of
landowners and farmers. No one who goes hunting
should do anything to jeopardise this goodwill. It should always
be borne in mind that for much of any hunting
day, you are a guest on someone else's land.

3. Masters of Foxhounds or their appointed deputies are solely
responsible for conducting the day's hunting
and are bound by the strict rules and instructions of the MFHA.
Their authority is absolute and their
instructions must always be cheerfully obeyed.

The above are in fact the 'Three Golden Rules' of the hunt.

There is a whole tome which accompanies the hunt and with any activity there are those that will bend the rules or cheat. As a whole, huntsmen have a strong code of honour when it comes to obeying these rules.

I've also had a look at the link to the countryside alliance above - I'm not sure that I agree with all of the issues raised there, but there are some valid points made.

I still think its cruel.

It is cruel. I wonder if describing the activity as though it's a clinical procedure is meant to make it sound clean and sterile - the sort of things that shouldn't engage our emotions. In any case, if that's the purpose, it certainly doesn't work for me. Speaking as a person who has witnessed the horror of fox hunting, I can confirm that the word 'cruel' is an excellent description of what these fun-loving sports people inflict on a rather nice little wild animal.

Sal