"Jonathan" wrote in message
om...
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...


True, but as it's difficult, to say the least, to get a certificate
for a
rifle for use in the open, I have a problem if someone tries to kill
foxes
with a shotgun having come across one that had just died having been
badly
wounded in the hind legs. It must have starved to death in agony over
some
weeks.


You may have a problem with it, but the LACS, the Labour Animal Welfare
Group, and the majority of MPs do not. They wish to ban hunting with
dogs,
and only hunting with dogs. Clearly other methods of control are by
definition less cruel because if they were more cruel the Government
would
be breaking its own rules used to test the need for a ban based on
cruelty
and utility. If there were no utility in killing foxes then killing
foxes
would be banned as is killing badgers, if other methods of killing are
more
cruel than hunting with dogs then these would have been considered for
bans - they were not.

I am therefore quite content to use snares and shotgun to control foxes
and
I'm confident that it's no more cruel than necessary.

Michael Saunby


If the Labour party and the AR's were really interested in fox welfare
they would have made sure snaring was banned before they moved on to
foxhunting. When farmers can't call on the hunt to kill foxes the
first thing they will reach for is a snare - it's simple to set, works
24-7, requires little maintenance and costs very little. It is silent,
unobtrusive and very effective. It is also more cruel IMO than the use
of hounds/lurchers to control fox numbers. Unfortunately, those who
screech the loudest about animal welfare usually have the least
practical experience.


AR and anti-hunting is not motivated by welfare, it's about puritanism,
that's why it's really only found in protestant countries. Read the sort
of stuff these AR folks post, references to "deviant", "pleasure", etc.
Setting snares is no more a sport than setting a mouse trap, and is not
thought by these folks to have an adverse effect on the morality of the
person doing so (with a few extreme exceptions - several of whom post
here). On the other hand chasing a fox for pleasure, or drinking, or
gambling is considered harmful by folks concerned for human morality.

The issue of banning hunting *for sport* is about the sport aspect, not
cruelty. It has always been that way. Similarly ARists try to make a big
argument about the lack of utility in animal based experiments - they know
their puritanical supporters are concerned primarily with bans on what they
consider trivial human endeavors, not the welfare of animals. Many of
these folks don't even keep animals, quite a lot probably don't even have
family, they're just trapped in a world they consider highly immoral -
inside their own heads.

Michael Saunby