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

Fox's earths have only one entrance if they've dug it themselves. Possibly more if they've squatted and redeveloped a disused badger sett.

The beast is primarily a dawn and dusk hunter, so if you turn up at lunchtime you'll almost certainly find him at home.

"Smoking out with poison gas" sounds so quaint. The practicalities involve a portable diesel generator; a length of hosepipe to attach to the exhaust, and a couple of shovels to back fill the earth's entrance as one pumps it full of carbon monoxide laden fumes.

I absolutely refuse to be labelled as someone who thinks foxes are cute, fluffy wuffy or any other description you may care to give them that is 'baby talk' just because I am anti hunting with dogs.


yes, I'm still dithering about this beacuase of a lot of issues (but I don't think I'm going over to the pro-hunting lobby in this lifetime) - but I agree with Mort. Foxes are, apparently, a pest. So why is so much energy being expended in the wrong direction. If foxhunting is pest control: find another (more acceptable to the masses?) method of doing it and stop hiding behind the "loss of jobs, boo hoo" and "killing hounds for no reason" argument.

I wonder how many of these "job loss" protesters marched in support of miners, steelworkers (I'm a Yorkshire lass, those job losses still cut deep) aerospace workers etc etc who lost their jobs without even half the warning the hunt industry has had.

However, since i'm dithering I'd like to stay out of the argument in favour of dragging the thread in this direction. I'm currently listening to the Today show and I'm staggered to hear this:

(sorry paraphrased) The Countryside Alliance, commenting on the Ramblers' Association who are going on mass walks today, have announced that the countryside is a "no go" area for ministers because of the fox-hunting ban.

They appear to be hijacking a family event for their own ends, and because of this have just about lost any sympathy at all that I have for them.

For goodness sakes, people! We might not like a bunch of Townies trampling all over "our" countryside - but if they are responsible and stick to the correct paths and rights of way, there is no reason why they shouldn't. Plus, how much money are they now going to spend in country pubs having a pint after ambling around pointing at things going "oh look, dear, how quaint. There's a chappie on a tractor!!"

This all smacks of a spat between different generations of arrivistes.

There was once a rural community, huddled in hovels. There was once a town community, cowering in slums. Both groups eked out their subsistence in a harsh environment. Both developed tooth-and-claw reflexes in defence of their own. Both were exploited, abused and constrained by the whims of the ruling rich.

Things are different now - or are they? We've made progress on a road to social harmony, but we're not there yet. There is still injustice and inequality in this society.

So cut this debate in the right plane. This is not town and country at all. This is rich and poor. This is the class struggle as of old.

The interesting development here is that the privileged side are seemingly trying to embrace the classic tactics of the deprived side, in belligerent mass disobedience. But you need numbers to get away with that. Numbers and unquestioning reflex sypathy for the rightness of your cause among the bystanders.

No minority should ever turn and fight, unless it wants to be torn limb from bloody limb. Even the fox knows that.

I'm not sure it's necessarily about rich vs. poor though. I just think the hunting lobby have successfully duped a whole lot of people into fighting their corner.

I'm trying to find out, unsucessfully so far because I'm very pressed for time, how the fox problem is handled here.

“then how do the Spanish get away with bull fighting? Or are they working on legislation that would ban the use of capes and swords in the bull ring?”

I hope bull fighting is banned along with all other so called sports that involves the killing of animals for pleasure

“not in a country where I could campaign to change the law or vote against the party that enacted it at the next election, no”

To break the law may win round a few people to your side but would I think lose far more

And I thought reasoned debate had disapeared on hootoo
Yes I would accept rural dwellers had many genuine complaints to make but I don't feel it is the result of an urban conspiracy
Supermarkets manage to ripoff both farmer and consumer to take one example

I don't believe in conspiracies.

I do believe in the cumulative effect of individual chocies, though.

The problem for any minority is that there are more people outside the group making individual choices, and that the sometimes justifiable concerns of the minority group are swamped.

B

>>Supermarkets manage to ripoff both farmer and consumer to take one example<<

Which is why, as much as I can, I use the bakery in my village instead of the supermarket, and I get my eggs from the farm next door. (advertised as having come from happy chickens - I've never yet seen one smile, though). I'd buy more, locally, but the only other shop we had (a small Spar supermarket) closed due to lack of custom (it was pitifully small, with a terribly small selection and was a bit more expensive than WallyWorld just outside our nearest town). We also had a butcher... but WallyWorld did for them about 2 years ago.

It works out expensive, and I'm well aware that if my financial circumstances were different (or they change) I'll be another lost customer for my local places.

It isn't necessarily the result of an urban conspiracy, but isn't the definition of a democracy something about not how they treat their majorities, but how they treat their minorities?

It's all very well to tell us all to move, but where can we go? The people with less money are having to move out of towns because they are too expensive... perhaps we should all of us (country dwellers and displaced townies alike) turn into a band of nomads?

Or should the people we voted for, do their jobs properly?

None of which is relevant to this debate, particularly, except that the pro-hunting lobby managed to hi-jack and coerce until it all became one.

I'm begining to think that the only people not feeling disenfranchised and put upon are the super rich.

And they're all too busy hunting to care...
(sorry, joke, but I couldn't resist. My bad)

>> I wonder how many of these "job loss" protesters marched in support of miners,

I did.

B

I grew up in a pit village (well on the outskirts) and for the first miner's strike there was terrific sympathy. Free credit in the shops, free repairs to appliances, loans and sharing of resources from all aspects of the community.

The second miners strike was reasonably well supported, though not to the extent of the first - some people still hadn't settled bills with guys like the local milkman, and some people felt they were entitled to things that had been allowed during the strike.

The third miners strike had some sympathy, but little support, a lot of people working in the car factories were finding their jobs under pressure now.

The forth miners strike - about pit closures, people were asking where the miners had been when the factories were on strike. No support - you can go to the well too often, and if you don't put back, then it runs dry.

When the pit closed there was more acceptance, than anger.

Like the hunting debate the edges were nibbled away until people had reached saturation point, when it happened, it was seen as inevitable.

Now closing the Jaguar plant - people are fuming.

It's all too quiet.

Perhaps I'm lucky not eating meat as my local greengrocer is cheaper than the supermarket usually. I'm lucky to now live in an affluent suberb so there are 2 mini-supermarkets, grocers, bakers, butchers etc within walking distance. When I lived in London there just wasn't that choice.

*tries to make a noise*