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

ROFLMAO!!! Of course I have read the Burns report.

If I thought that you actually raised any points worth answering, I would have done so and if you thought I was patronising you, I hereby apologise but that does not make it an excuse to return the offence - it only drags you down to my nasty, horrible and violent hunt saboteur level, doesn't it?

I'm far from ignorant, thank you. In fact, I consider myself to be quite well educated and I can even type and spell a bit too. Incidentally, I also don't believe in any gospel (with or without a capital G) because I'm an atheist.

Of course I realise what would happen if hunting were to be banned. A lot of people would be very happy indeed, including yours truly. So what if a few countryside industries suffer (and not half as much as they say they will)? They could carry on supporting drag hunting and if they choose not to do so, then that's they're own fault. After all, where were the Countryside Alliance supporters when the mining, clothing, shipbuilding and steel industries were closing? Why should the Countryside Alliance expect any different treatment?

The poor unfortunate hounds have to be destroyed when they are no longer able to hunt and are unsuitable as pets, aren't they automatically destroyed when they become too old or lame (Roughly aged six - less than half the normal life expectancy of a dog)?

I can quite understand that it must be very exciting, charging all over the countryside on a horse but does it really have to end with something being killed? Apart from being unnecessary (as previous points have shown) it's also rather cowardly. After all, the huntsman is in no danger of being hurt by a fox (or stag) at any time. I wonder if they'd be so brave if they were hunting a lion or a tiger? Of course not - they'd resort to shooting then, wouldn't they? Oh yes!

So next time you're on your horse, charging all over the countryside in pursuit of a defenceless small furry beastie, say to yourself over and over again, "This is cowardly. This is cruel. This is cowardly. This is cruel. This is cowardly. This is cruel. This is unnecessary."

I don't see why drag hunting or point-to-point racing can't be just as exciting. You could hide a crate of Scotch Whiskey or £100 in a bag as a prize, which would give everyone a bit more incentive.

There must be far more enjoyable or exciting activities that you could support and follow (sky-diving, scuba-diving, pot-holing, bungee-jumping, riding fast motorcycles, etc etc). I'm sure all these are just as much fun as hunting and killing small wee fluffy bunnies/foxes/stags! My husband once worked in a Boxing booth in Australia and says that, that WAS exciting! (Blood everywhere - you'd have loved it - but nothing got killed. He says the only thing that died, was his pride!!)

Just please answer this violent, ignorant old anti-hunting person's two little questions though...

Why DO you enjoy killing animals? What DO you feel when you see an animal die?

Researcher 170249, if you read my post you will see that I was not referring to a comparison between animal rights with human rights, and nor was The Whippy. The comparison I found insulting was that between the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and blacks in the deep south of the US with the perceived persecution of the hunting fraternity. However, The Whippy has since stated that wasn't what he meant. It's interesting how easy it is to get the wrong end of the stick in a passionate debate.

I think I understand The Whippy to say that the Burns Report states that hunting is no more cruel than shooting, to quote directly:



I have taken the trouble to reread the Burns Report which is available online (I won't give the url because they always get pulled, but it's easy to find - just search on Burns Report).

Note to the moderators - I am here attaching an attributed quote from the Burns Report, a freely and publicly available official report of a Parliamentary Committee to the Home Secretary - I believe that this does not breach any coyright, and I hope you will leave it in situ. It is relevant to the conversation, and has been widely reported, including on the BBC.

The Burns Report states:



The report is, in its own words, tentative, but to put the argument the other way around it does not suggest that shooting is more cruel than hunting. It would certainly suggest that lamping is preferable to hunting where possible. I fail to see how you could view this report as somehow endorsing hunting.

To turn to the proposal that foxes and cats are cruel, whatever views one might hold about animals having rights or not, this argument seems to me a nonsense. Cats and foxes do play with their prey and kill prey that they do not eat, but animals act on instinct, conditioned responses and learned reactions - I have never heard of anybody, even the most committed animal activist, claiming that cats or foxes have the intellectual capacity to make a reasoned moral judgement about whether or not to kill.

They may well derive pleasure from the activity - there is some evidence that animals experience emotions (including fear - a major argument against hunting), but they are simply acting according to their nature - they are predators. For a human to derive pleasure from killing is in an an altogether different category (and I am specifically not suggesting that any contributor to this conversation does derive pleasure from killing) - humans are capable of making a reasoned moral judgement, and it is reasonable, when that choice is controversial, to ask those who have made such a judgement to kill, to justify it. Moreover, when a human not only decides to kill, but elects do do so in the pursuit of a 'sport', an activity which is apparently engaged in for pleasure, it is even more reasonable to ask for the decison to be justified.

All of which makes Gwennie's question relevant - I genuinely would like to know the answer. I can understand the thrill of the chase, but sometimes there is a kill. Just how do you feel when this happens?

And the argument that the hunt only go on land which they are allowed to is also not correct. Many times they have come over our land, no matter how many times we tell them not to.

wide

This post has been removed.

You raise an important point, wide_inside, which itself raises wider issues. I don't wish to go into specifics, but I work for a train operating company and am aware that sometimes hunts have strayed on to the railway line. I am not suggesting that this is deliberate, I am sure it is not, but it is an issue which is rarely raised and sees little publicity. The consequences of a hunt straying on to the tracks when a train is approaching don't bear thinking about.

Who could find satisfaction in the killing of any living creature? Hunting is not a sport...nor a game, we are dealing a very serious matter that should not be taken lightly.