On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:34:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

No.



**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

Finches love them. Ours are attacked by Greenfinches almost before they
are ripe.

--
Malcolm Ogilvie

In article ,
(Jaques d'Alltrades) wrote:

Nothing to do with foxhunting: it's a gamekeeping thing.

It's a fox welfare thing

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

In article ,
Steve Harris wrote:
In article ,
(Jaques d'Alltrades) wrote:

Nothing to do with foxhunting: it's a gamekeeping thing.

It's a fox welfare thing

Which is precisely why rational people oppose the abolition of
foxhunting. What evidence of fox welfare there is (and the question
was - oh, so carefully - omitted from the infamous Burns report) is
that abolishing foxhunting will probably increase the suffering of
foxes. As well as probably doing ecological harm, too, but what
anti-hunting campaigner gives a damn about THAT?

I call upon all people who care about reducing the suffering of
foxes to oppose the ban!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 8 Dec 2003 19:35:22 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Harris wrote:
In article ,
(Jaques d'Alltrades) wrote:

Nothing to do with foxhunting: it's a gamekeeping thing.

It's a fox welfare thing

Which is precisely why rational people oppose the abolition of
foxhunting. What evidence of fox welfare there is (and the question
was - oh, so carefully - omitted from the infamous Burns report) is
that abolishing foxhunting will probably increase the suffering of
foxes. As well as probably doing ecological harm, too, but what
anti-hunting campaigner gives a damn about THAT?

Each and every one of us. Stop making up tall stories, nobody is
falling for that bullshit any more, only simpletons like you and your
pro hunt weirdo friends..

I call upon all people who care about reducing the suffering of
foxes to oppose the ban!

Howl at the moon all you want, you and your pervert ways are history
and it's being brought about by the common man.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

"Malcolm Ogilvie" wrote in message
...

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of
my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

Finches love them. Ours are attacked by Greenfinches almost before they
are ripe.

I thought I saw a greenfinch as well, but I was not certain enough to commit
myself. Tomorrow I will have a good look, armed with binoculars.

Franz

--
Malcolm Ogilvie

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:34:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of
my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

No.

You are wrong yet again.

I say, Loud Snotty, you write far more than is justified by the amount of
stuff between your ears.

Franz

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:34:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of
my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

No.

You are wrong yet again.

I say, Loud Snotty, you write far more than is justified by the amount of
stuff between your ears.

Doesn't stop you taking it all in you gullible kraut ****.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:34:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Dec 2003 13:48:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Jonathan) wrote:
|
| 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
|
| If the fox hunters were really interested in fox welfare
| they would have made sure snaring was banned if they believed it
cruel.
| After all, they know so much more about these things :-)

You have confused the fox hunters with the government. Once upon
a time, that would have been excusable; now it shows a level of
ignorance that is unusual even in the UK.

Most fox hunts strongly discourage the use of such things, and are
especially down on the very cruel leg-hold traps. It is the
anti-hunting brigade that are encouraging their use.

"The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to
the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Thomas Macauley

Nothing has changed.

There are many reasons why it will be banned and it's persuance is
contemptible, any one will do to ban it, as long as it is banned.

So you are out as pro hunt, dont suppose you have sex with children
too, the pattern is usually the same.

I noticed today that the tits and chaffinches were very active in two of
my
shrub roses. Unfortunately the light was not good enough to make out for
certain what they were rooting for. Do they eat the seeds from the rose
hips?

No.

You are wrong yet again.

I say, Loud Snotty, you write far more than is justified by the amount of
stuff between your ears.

Doesn't stop you taking it all in you gullible kraut ****.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Sorry Franz there is no attachment.
Anthony
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Why is there an attachment associated with your contribution, and what is
in
it?

Franz

"LordSnoty" wrote in message
news
Hi Snotty

So you are not going round to try and intimidate the lady, very good, my
mistake, I apologise.
That said, my invitation still stands for you and your vigilante mates to
come and 'visit'.
Seeing as you cannot find out my name or address from having clues such as
having my name!
How about another idea, you come to see me at a local hunt meeting. The hunt
is the Denbigh and Flint,
I don't know the dates of meets, but I am sure a man of your means will be
able to find out.
Then you can show your distaste of hunting and meet me, thereby killing two
birds with one stone.
You seem to talk the talk, lets see you up here, where we can discuss this
further. Unless there is some
pressing reason why you can't, any meet date to suit you will suit me.
How about that Snoty?

Anthony

"Anthony" wrote in message
...
Sorry Franz there is no attachment.

There certainly was one by the time your note reached me. I am damned if I
know whi inserted it and where it was done.
Since it is of dubious origin, I have deleted it, so we will all remain
ignorant of what was in it.

Franz

Anthony
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Why is there an attachment associated with your contribution, and what
is
in
it?

Franz

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

"green earth" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden wrote:



Ah! But if they did react what method would they then use to kill said
fox/foxes and would it be guaranteed to be always more humane than
hunting
with dogs?


It could hardly be any less humane could it?


Ms Earth,

Are you saying that in your personal experience use of snares, shotguns,
and poisons are always more humane?

Of course mounted hunts account for only a small number of foxes killed
each year, far more are killed in cities by pest controllers. Are you a
pest controller, can you explain why your methods are so much more humane
than those used in the countryside?

Michael Saunby



It's curious how people confuse so easily "humane" with tradition, killing a
fox using a pack of dogs is the same as the method employed in the mediaeval
days to kill someone you really didn't like. I don't think we execute many
people using packs of dogs these days but then again maybe that has nothing
to do with humanity.

Basically there are a few obvious facts;
1) We don't hunt bears in the country anymore
2) We don't hunt wild boar in the country anymore
3) We don't allow people to follow badger baiting, apparently it's inhumane
to kill a badger with a pack of dogs
4) We don't allow otter hunting with dogs anymore
5) In the wild and without mans influence foxes would have no real
predators, nothing hunts foxes to eat. They were controlled simply by
available land and food resources much like every other living thing, except
man. This seemed to work for several millions of years.
6) If you are going to introduce easy prey for a predator then you have to
take action to protect that prey. People in India live in the shadow of
Tigers, and take precautions against being eaten. If you keep chickens and a
fox kills them all it is because YOU made a mistake, not because the wily
old fox is evil, it's a wild animal get over it.
7) Fox hunting does little or nothing to control fox populations and can
thus only be justified because the people taking part enjoy it. That is
pretty much the definition of a "cruel sport", it's pain for pains sake. If
they simply enjoyed the day out and the ride, then drag hunting is a
perfectly viable alternative.
8) On another seperate note, badgers do not infect cattle with TB, TB is a
disease contracted and spread by keeping too many animals/people in close
proximity in poor air circulation conditions. So farmers cram all their
cattle into tiny little sheds for the whole winter period and like to blame
badgers when their cattle get diseased.
9) Foxes main food source is actually earthworms, and since this is
uk.rec.gardening, and since earthworms are a major contributor to the
success of gardening I am amazed that nobody has not tried to justify
killing all foxes because they stop their carrots growing quite so well.

People have long sort to control nature, but natures best control is itself,
people can and indeed used to learn to live alongside nature, we seem intent
on controlling it and forcing it into our ideal. We want to kill anything
that might harm our ability to make money from the countryside, and yet we
all profess to want a countryside which is beautiful. I truly believe that
anyone who has ever jumped over a fence only to land alongside a fox, and
have it turn to look at you and then walk away would not find the sight
amazing and wonderful.

Ah well rant over, and yes I have no doubt whatsoever that some of you will
respond, "a fox killed my chickens", "foxes are evil", "foxes carry mange",
"hunting one dog with a pack of other dogs is natural", and it's a shame,
since the vast majority of people in this country would consider football
more important than keeping our countryside healthy, so when a debate on
hunting turns up, and a football match is on the other channel we can be
sure which most of you will be watching.

Duncan

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:34:51 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:


"LordSnoty" wrote in message
news
Hi Snotty

So you are not going round to try and intimidate the lady, very good, my
mistake, I apologise.

Shame you were forced into it troll by exposing your yellow
underbelly.

That said, my invitation still stands for you and your vigilante mates to
come and 'visit'.

I don't have any vigilante mates, with my career I couldn't afford to.
Tough guys don't invite people, especially without a name and address.
s******.

Seeing as you cannot find out my name or address from having clues such as
having my name!

Seems that's not quite true after all!

How about another idea, you come to see me at a local hunt meeting. The hunt
is the Denbigh and Flint,

Cluck, cluck.

I don't know the dates of meets, but I am sure a man of your means will be
able to find out.

Being a pro hunt loon you would know everything about the hunt so stop
lying, nice to see we flushed you out of your set at last, although
it's not too hard to spot a pro hunt extremist after a few sentences.

I'll pass your details and threats onto the locals to add to the file
on extremists, hope you don't mind?

Then you can show your distaste of hunting

I thought I did an excellent job here?

and meet me, thereby killing two
birds with one stone.

It's all been heard a thousand times before, suddenly backed out of
inviting people to your home, never a wise idea especially for a
pervert.

Do you abuse children as well as abuse animals?

You seem to talk the talk,

Thanks, I try my best.

lets see you up here, where we can discuss this
further. Unless there is some
pressing reason why you can't, any meet date to suit you will suit me.

Threats and intimidation, not good if you hope to keep your freedom
and your ISP.

How about that Snoty?

Like I said if you're feeling that brave chicken george you'd have
published your real name and address when sending out the invites,
that's what real tough guys do.

cluck, cluck chook kook.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

"Druss" wrote in message
...
"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

"green earth" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden wrote:



Ah! But if they did react what method would they then use to kill
said
fox/foxes and would it be guaranteed to be always more humane than
hunting
with dogs?


It could hardly be any less humane could it?


Ms Earth,

Are you saying that in your personal experience use of snares, shotguns,
and poisons are always more humane?

Of course mounted hunts account for only a small number of foxes killed
each year, far more are killed in cities by pest controllers. Are you a
pest controller, can you explain why your methods are so much more
humane
than those used in the countryside?

Michael Saunby



It's curious how people confuse so easily "humane" with tradition, killing
a
fox using a pack of dogs is the same as the method employed in the
mediaeval
days to kill someone you really didn't like. I don't think we execute many
people using packs of dogs these days but then again maybe that has
nothing
to do with humanity.

Basically there are a few obvious facts;
1) We don't hunt bears in the country anymore
2) We don't hunt wild boar in the country anymore
3) We don't allow people to follow badger baiting, apparently it's
inhumane
to kill a badger with a pack of dogs
4) We don't allow otter hunting with dogs anymore
5) In the wild and without mans influence foxes would have no real
predators, nothing hunts foxes to eat. They were controlled simply by
available land and food resources much like every other living thing,
except
man. This seemed to work for several millions of years.
6) If you are going to introduce easy prey for a predator then you have to
take action to protect that prey. People in India live in the shadow of
Tigers, and take precautions against being eaten. If you keep chickens and
a
fox kills them all it is because YOU made a mistake, not because the wily
old fox is evil, it's a wild animal get over it.
7) Fox hunting does little or nothing to control fox populations and can
thus only be justified because the people taking part enjoy it. That is
pretty much the definition of a "cruel sport", it's pain for pains sake.
If
they simply enjoyed the day out and the ride, then drag hunting is a
perfectly viable alternative.
8) On another seperate note, badgers do not infect cattle with TB, TB is a
disease contracted and spread by keeping too many animals/people in close
proximity in poor air circulation conditions. So farmers cram all their
cattle into tiny little sheds for the whole winter period and like to
blame
badgers when their cattle get diseased.
9) Foxes main food source is actually earthworms, and since this is
uk.rec.gardening, and since earthworms are a major contributor to the
success of gardening I am amazed that nobody has not tried to justify
killing all foxes because they stop their carrots growing quite so well.

People have long sort to control nature, but natures best control is
itself,
people can and indeed used to learn to live alongside nature, we seem
intent
on controlling it and forcing it into our ideal. We want to kill anything
that might harm our ability to make money from the countryside, and yet we
all profess to want a countryside which is beautiful. I truly believe that
anyone who has ever jumped over a fence only to land alongside a fox, and
have it turn to look at you and then walk away would not find the sight
amazing and wonderful.

Ah well rant over, and yes I have no doubt whatsoever that some of you
will
respond, "a fox killed my chickens", "foxes are evil", "foxes carry
mange",
"hunting one dog with a pack of other dogs is natural", and it's a shame,
since the vast majority of people in this country would consider football
more important than keeping our countryside healthy, so when a debate on
hunting turns up, and a football match is on the other channel we can be
sure which most of you will be watching.

Duncan



Another point I heard the other day for consideration was that one major
influence in foxes raiding habits in the 20th century was the introduction
of miximitosis which killed a lot of the easily available food stock.