Hunting Act 2004 Comes Into Force At 12am

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
After reading your post Krizon and you recalling the Fox stole, I had a look at your profile to see if you had stated your age and sure enough you do qualify for heating allowance !

Can you imagine the response if someone wore one now ?
Not out of the question though and can see one being worn in
a defiance gesture at a CA meeting.

They were indeed looked on as chic and classed as designer gear of the time.
I have a photo of my wife's grandmother wearing a 'double header' when she attended a function.
They were one of the first car owners in Leeds so dressed accordingly.
 
Oi! Only just, you cheeky chappie! :D

By coincidence, I was looking at a 1941 photo of my two dads and their mother, who's attired in a 3/4 length fur jacket. I don't think it was mink, it might have been beaver or some other 'fashion fur' of the time. She was the first 'lady driver' of Portsmouth (drove a Lagonda for Fred Jane, the founder of Jane's Fighting Ships, etc., for whom she worked), so our families enjoyed a rather better standard of living than many in those 'olden' days. My mother's aunt Louie had all kinds of furs, and while none of our family has the slightest huntin', shootin' or fishin' background, there was no sense then that the use, for fashion, of animals' skins might be unethical. So interesting that, after centuries of fur use, a couple of generations can swing such a huge change of outlook.

I suppose we've got to keep some fur-wearing in some perspective, though. In the West, it's been for fashion or 'status', whereas to the Inuit it's still essential to their existence. I guess if you hunt seal to eat, then using sealskins for warmth is just a byproduct. I imagine some Russian winters are still bitter to the bone, and fur-wearing is still an everyday occurrence, while our UK ones are dwindling down to mostly annoying rain, rather than the six feet of snow still experienced up to the early 1970s.

I think it'll be a long time before we can prise leopardskins away from being worn for tribal rituals in Africa - it would be nice to think that a paramount chief would find an acrylic version a grand enough substitute, but I don't see that happening any time soon, unless his country bans the practice. It's a strange old world, isn't, it - wearing animals' hides signals social standing in some countries, whereas in others it's still the best way to fight the freeze?
 
I am also against shooting any living creature when it is done in the name of sport.
Click to expand...

And you're quite entitled to your opinion.

While I can appreciate your point about clays being a viable alternative, I would express my opinion to you that it isn't. You are in a static, artificial environment and there's a very major difference in that there is no dog work involved. Due to the repetitive nature of the gun-fire, there can be a lot of local resistance to clay shoots because of noise pollution - gun fire on ordinary shooting days is far more random and less intrusive.

Incidentally, on environmental grounds alone, there are numerous studies (independently done) that support the existence of properly run shoots as they are a positive influence for conservation - many habitats would disappear if it weren't for the shooting fraternity.

OK, so hunting with dogs is now illegal and there are certain formats that I for one won't be sorry to see disappear off the horizon (stag/hare/mink). There are also certain large-scale driven shoots that I personally disapprove of and would never attend again (having done so on a couple of occasions when working one of my gundogs for my then boss). They are not sporting occasions.

But most shoots are on a small to medium scale, run in the main by part-time, unpaid gamekeepers and are the main sport for the farmers on whose land they are run - it's a great social occasion, we eat what we kill, the birds are raised and cared for to a very high standard, the dogs love doing what they have been bred to do and consequently are probably better-balanced than most pets. I certainly can't express very well on here the pleasure I get from watching my dogs work but when they put in an exceptional piece of work, it's awesome to watch!

But we're all different and have different ways of looking at life. To me, whether a pheasant is a) shot or b gets killed by a car on the road or c) chomped by a fox, then end result is still the same - one dead pheasant. Death from old age isn't that frequent an end for most birds! At least methods a and c mean that the death isn't a total waste........
 
Originally posted by ovverbruv@Mar 1 2005, 09:31 PM
Shadow Leader

I notice you close all you posts with

"Keep Hunting, Fight the ban"

Which other laws do you consider don't apply to you?

Why should robbers have to stop doing what they do if they enjoy it and it is a traditional activity?

There are many arguments but the tradition one wheeled out by criminals (hunters) is pathetic, they need to find something else to pin their hopes on
Click to expand...
Ovverbruv

It's one of the slogans currently being used by the CA; an organisation I support wholly in all the efforts they make for the countryside. The point of it is that we can keep hunting, and legally too, & if we show solidarity by continuing to hunt (without breaking the law) we are fighting the ban by showing people that we can, and will, carry on hunting virtually as we were before. The CA does not advocate anyone breaking the law & have produced booklets advising packs how they can continue to hunt within the law. I am not advocating breaking the law atl all; on the contrary, the slogan goes to show that hunting will remain virtually unchanged.

I am sure that you are well aware of the reasons behind the ban being politically motivated rather than any worry over the welfare of the fox. By carrying on almost as normal & within the law in my view we have pretty much won the battle as the majority of people who want hunting banned are the ones who are of the mindset that people who hunt are "arrogant toffs" and who incorrectly make it into a class issue.
 
While I abhor almost everything you country people are coming away with I suspect that if I had been born you I'd be coming away with the same shite. After all, it must be hard to accept that what you're supporting is vile . A bit like the the deep south and the slave trade.- I mean it's not like god was putting something in the confederate's water. Some day though you will all be viewed with the same loathing and disgust as they were (as will all meat eaters who have an alternative).

Human beings seem to be incapable of relating to the suffering of any creature (including other humans) unless they themselves suffered similarly in the last ten minutes. The fact that we regard ourselves as intelligent must be viewed as hilarious by observing aliens.
 
"After all, it must be hard to accept that what you're supporting is vile and that all your loved ones / friends who do, or have done, the same are scum."

I think that this part of HT's posting is quite out of order and should be deleted.

HT should issue an apology.
 
For anyone who doesn't know what was being written about when the fashion item of a fox-fur stole was mentioned, here is an example:

b61fcb3j.jpg
 
Honest Tom

I trust you wear only synthetic items of clothing (no leather shoes or other items), that you are vegan, do not drive a car, etc, etc.....

I too, find your comments offensive - apart from anything else how dare anybody force me to be vegetarian? For the record, the good Lord himself devised us to be omnivores - humans cannot derive all the vitamins & minerals their bodies need to function effectively from vegetable products alone. Your idea that people should be made to turn vegetarian is laughable, not to mention bang out of order.
 
HT, you're entitled to personally view Shadow Leader and Songsheet as scum, and all of us on here who don't share your vegetarian views as shite, though as that is well over the bar of your agreement in using this site, your posting ought to be deleted, on the grounds of deliberately giving personal offence. I expect you feel that you don't care if you do, but if you want to reduce argument to the level of the guttersnipe, keep it at home, not on here.
 
being the fashion guru V, I think I remember it being a fur thingy worn around the neck of a lady
 
Ven - it's a fox converted into a neck warmer. Very fash into the 1950s. I think it was called a tippet as it 'tipped' the lady's collar with fur, but I'm not sure.

Brian has put up a full-colour photo of one that uses two foxes - it's more of a fox stole, rather than just a little tippet.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Mar 2 2005, 08:40 PM
HT, you're entitled to personally view Shadow Leader and Songsheet as scum, and all of us on here who don't share your vegetarian views as shite, though as that is well over the bar of your agreement in using this site, your posting ought to be deleted, on the grounds of deliberately giving personal offence. I expect you feel that you don't care if you do, but if you want to reduce argument to the level of the guttersnipe, keep it at home, not on here.
Click to expand...
The posting was an attack on the human race rather than any individuals but, as you say, I don't really care.

Dom, you say "how dare anybody force me to be vegetarian?". Would you give cannibalism the same defence or would it not apply to that because you could end up on the menu?
 
As a townie who lives on the edge of farmland and will shortly be moving to a wholly rural location, I'm against most of the acts recently banned (hunting with dogs of hares/stag/mink) and ambivalent about fox hunting. I know people who've lived in the country all their lives who feel the same. I would have liked to have seen the acts separated but that was prevented by backwoodsmen on both sides.
I'd like to see Tom moderate his posting but would point out that the tone is no more offensive than postings on other threads by some of the pro-hunting group and can't help but smile at the sense of outrage portrayed. The words 'reap' and 'sow' come to mind.
I don't see the point of abuse as a discussion strategy. The reality is that this law will be around for several years if Labour win the next election (see Lord H for current odds) and, if it is, the whole issue will subside in that time. It's quite likely that Labour will not win the election after next and, if elected, the Tories would repeal the current law. That is some way off and I for one can't be arsed to discuss this minor issue for the next 4 or 5 years. It will NOT decide the next election, possibly a dozen seats where it's a decisive issue.
If you're for the law - sit down shut up, you've a victory of sorts. If you're against it - accept it, you lost. The Hunts will continue in a 'legal' way. Rather like speeding, those infringing the law will be prosecuted on a fairly random basis. Horses will be exercised, country folk will have their fun. Animal rights groups have already said that they intend moving on to factory farming.
 
221 and Kri, well I never heard of such a thing before.

Actually my mother bought a musquash (it's a kind of hairy rat) coat in Montreal just after the war, which she still wears. It's had one refurbishment in nearly 60 years and looks as good as new.

Regardless of what some think of wearing fur, it's given sterling service and how many synthetic coats with the associated pollution of their manufacture would she have gone through otherwise?
 
You see what I mean about this forum, Ven? Look in and learn! :D

Archie, I think that the fact that there are omnivores on here doesn't entitle HT to call them all shite. If you eat meat, fish, molluscs, or poultry (and eggs should be included), you're shite. That's a novel way to encourage people to change their dietary habits - not by ethical reasoning, but by insult. But he's typical of the standard anti-omnivore fanatic, pronouncing the entire human race, bar vegetarians (well, no, that should be vegans, to be utterly animal-product free) as vile and disgusting...

... with the possible exception of those jockeys, trainers, and owners who provide the runners from which he's not averse to turning a penny. Or perhaps, showing solidarity with his personal ethics, he only backs horses with vegetarian connections.
 
Krizon I am not trying to justify the idiocy of the ALF but it is a drop in the ocean compared to escapes from mink farms , they should never have been here in the first place .

I wish people would stop interfering with natural environments - look at that idiot Frenchman who imported US vines in the 1870s with them came phylloxera a pest indigenous to the US where vines were resistant to it . Here it nearly destroyed the European vineyards and much of the depopulation of rural France was directly caused by it .
 
Originally posted by krizon@Mar 3 2005, 03:04 AM
Archie, I think that the fact that there are omnivores on here doesn't entitle HT to call them all shite.
Click to expand...
Kri, my parents, wife and daughter all eat meat (as I once did) so can you point out where I said that.

All I can find is " Some day though you will all be viewed with the same loathing and disgust as they were (as will all meat eaters who have an alternative). [You being fox hunters - they being the slave traders]. What is your problem with that?
 
HT - you have really disappointed me - in the main your posts are informative and often very funny. But you DON'T have the sole right to any moral high ground - nor do you have the right to determine what my conscience level should be regarding my personal attitude and participation in some field sports and farming - that's for me to determine, not you!

This thread is utterly pointless anyway - as Archie says, it simply isn't an important issue in the grand scheme of things.

What does annoy me, though, is fanatical zealots who have a viewpoint that they insist on imposing on others - the word 'tolerance' just doesn't feature in their vocabulary. It appears in evey facet of our existence.

I couldn't care less about whether or not someone wants to be a veggie, vegan, carnivore or whatever - that's their choice and a matter for their conscience. As long as they conduct themselves in a caring and kind way to their fellow human beings, their eating habits are an irrelevance, as long as whatever they do eat is humanely produced!

So far, this government has firmly said it won't pursue any other field sports than those already banned - hopefully, they will keep their word but unhappily, on present performances, that's unlikely. But the general public will do well to realise that those who actually do the hard labour in creating the sort of countryside environment that the public harp on about preserving will only do so while there's something in it for them, either financially or in enhancing their way of life and if you keep removing large chunks of it (hunting/shooting/fishing/and even animal husbandty if HT gets his way!), then I predict we won't like the end result....
 
I'm pretty disappointed with a few people on here myself Julie. It's one thing people burying their head in the sand rather than look at the true consequences of what they're doing but some of the "justifications" for blood sports (or even meat eating) I've read on here would make you vomit.

And I'm not on any moral high ground. I merely pointed out that in the future they'll show pictures of slaughter houses and fox hunts and the people watching them will wonder how any human being could be so cruel. If that disturbs people, and it clearly has given some of the reactions, then all the better.
 
Back
Top