foxhunting

[iluvmypets]

what are your feelings on foxhunting? i dont want to cause an argument i am just wondering? :) i know a lot of animal lovers dont like it because they think it is cruel.

i dont foxhunt regularly, but i have been a few times on my cousins horse. people say it is cruel to the fox, but i think it is the best way of manging the fox population, because at the end of the day the fox is a pest and the population does need to be controled and it is the most natural way of doing it. hounds kill a fox in a few seconds, i think this is more humane then trapping, shooting or poisoning, where the fox could be in pain for hours or even days.

i wouldnt like to witness the fox actually being killed and i do think they are baeutiful animals, but i think foxhunting is a good thing because its good exersize for horses and hounds, and its the most humane way of controlling the fox population.

the reason i am asking is because foxhunting has just been banned in the uk, the ban will start in a few months, meaning lots of people will lose their livelihoods, and a lot of hounds and horses will lose their lives :(

so what are your opnions? i dont think my opinions are right or anything i am just interested in hearing peoples points of view. please dont argue because this good be a good discussion, but karen or paul if the thread is too contraversial you can close it :) thanks

[flamepony12]

some of my friends foxhunt but they ¡DO NOT! chase an actual fox.

[Tollers-n-Dobes]

I personally don't agree with it, I don't think any animal should be shot and killed for no reason at all especially when some species of Fox are endagered:(

[Mandy1]

I think any kind of hunting is disgusting and cruel, and I dont know how been chased by dogs for up to an hour just to be killed is humane. I think the average hunt time on one animal is 17 minutes. That 17 minutes of the poor animal literally RUNNING FOR ITS LIFE. I think if there is a problem with the population ONLY THEN do we have the right to intervene, and the only way to do so is if we get a trained marksmen to deal with it. I don't know how people could consider killing a poor innocent animal a sport. This is part of the reason I don't even eat meat. Oh and I do not believe they are "pests" either.
:mad:

[Kfamr]

I don't really know much about foxhunting, but I REALLY do not like the idea of using a dog to kill/attack another animal.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by Kfamr
I don't really know much about foxhunting, but I REALLY do not like the idea of using a dog to kill/attack another animal.

Same here.

I'm not against hunting, but I wouldn't hunt myself. I think it is hypocritical when a meateater is against hunting.

[flamepony12]

I HATE it when people hunt for sport. :(

[CalliesMom]

I could never hunt but have nothing against those who hunt when a population (such as deer) are overcrowded and many die due to starvation and disease.

[CathyBogart]

Originally posted by Orangutango
I personally don't agree with it, I don't think any animal should be shot and killed for no reason at all especially when some species of Fox are endagered:(

As the original poster stated, a lot of foxhunting takes place in areas where foxes are considered pests.


I don't have a problem with foxhunting as such, so long as it's not just for sport.

[Tina]

I'm not sure how I feel about foxhunting as I don't know much about it.

As for hunting deer or turkey it does not bother me much. As I see them a source of food. We have alot of hunters around here and it does not bother me if they hunt for food. But if they are doing it just for the heck of killing a deer or turkey. That really upsets me.

My husband actually never did hunt anything until this year. No he did not get anything but he did hunt. If he had gotten a deer yes we would have used the meat.

I don't really know about hunting other wild animals as I don't know alot people that hunt. I know of one guy went to another state to go bear hunting. I really don't agree with it. But I can't say it wrong either.

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by Orangutango
I personally don't agree with it, I don't think any animal should be shot and killed for no reason at all especially when some species of Fox are endagered:(

The endangered speices aren't hunted (unless illegally poached- which is another story)...because their population is low. Red Foxes are abundant England like deer are in the US- they are far from endangered so fox hunting will not pose a large threat to their numbers. It will just keep them in a reasonable population.

[lisalee]

Yes, totally against fox-hunting. I think it's very cruel and disgusting and would LOVE to see it get banned, as I hear they are trying to do in the UK.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by iluvmypets
what are your feelings on foxhunting?
I'm too old for the bar scene....:confused:

[Jadapit]

:D LMAO. Richard you are too funny!

[Pit Chick]

I've seen pictures of a fox hunt and I think it's disgusting the way the hounds rip the fox apart while it's alive after chasing it for miles and at the sheer amusement of the hunters sitting on their "high horse" so to speak, pointing and smiling while the fox suffers. How much of a pest can a fox actually be when they keep the real pests (rodents) under control. Wolves in America have always been considered a "pest" and after decades of being hunted almost to extinction, now deer are overpopulating and we have to justify hunting them for sport to "keep the population down". Maybe if man would leave animals to their natural selection then we wouldn't have so many "pests". It would also help if man would stop developing on so much of their habitats, then the animals wouldn't seem like such pests for wandering on their own territory which is now overpopulated with a new pest...humans. It shouldn't matter that fox hunting is an old tradition or sport, that doesn't make it right or ok. Bull figthing, dog fighting, cockfighting, horse tripping, are all old "traditions" or "sports", but that doesn't make them acceptable entertainment or practices in our modern civilized society. It's one thing to hunt for food, but non of the above mentioned sports produce food, just a bloody mess in which the animals are brutally tortured and left to die in front of an audiance of cheering barbarians.

I know an old tradition/sport we should bring back. Throwing rapists and murders in an arena with a lion, tiger, or bear...oh my. We have so many of these "pests" running our streets and sitting in our jails, what better way to keep their population under control, and it's all natural. :D

[Tonya]

It sounds like foxhunting is cruel to me. I wouldn't have a problem with it if their death was humane. But a dog attacking them sounds brutal.

[Tollers-n-Dobes]

Originally posted by YellowLabLover
The endangered speices aren't hunted (unless illegally poached- which is another story)...because their population is low. Red Foxes are abundant England like deer are in the US- they are far from endangered so fox hunting will not pose a large threat to their numbers. It will just keep them in a reasonable population.

Really? sorry, I didn't know that:o Either way though I still don't like any kind of hunting...

[moosmom]

I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.

[Miranda_Rae]

I have grown up in a family that hunts. Our family uses the meat off the animals we hunt, and barely buy beef. We use our deer for meat. I talked to my dad about this one time, and he said that he thinks that fox hunting is cruel, and I agree with him. There are some hunting that I think is ok, such as deer, pheasants, coyotes, etc. For deer, I live in a area where deer are EVERYwhere. If people did not hunt them they would starve during our really harsh winters and there wouldn't be enough food for them all. As for pheasants, people are only allowed to hunt the roasters. The reason behind that is because the roasters will stand on top of the females during the winter months to stay away from the snow, and then the females die. If all the females die then it would become harder for them to breed. I'm not saying that they would all go extinct but there wouldn't be as many females to have babies. For coyotes, where I live there LOTS of them, and when there gets too many they don't have as much food, and then they get sickly and get diseases like mange, and they just suffer. I don't like hunting, but I don't think its wrong. I could never do it...I cry. Its not my cup of tea, but there are instances where its ok to hunt, but foxhunting is NOT one of them.

[wolflady]

Originally posted by moosmom
I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.

I agree. What kind of sport is it that there is 1 defenseless animal, and multiple people on horseback with guns and dogs? Now, if it was hundreds of animals with guns to fight back...that might be something (I'm being cynical here...)

Hunting for sport is no sport in my opinion. It's just sick.

People who hunt and actually use the entire animal (deer, pheasant, turkey, squirrel, rabbit) is a different story. I personally don't like any kind of hunting, and wouldn't do it, but I don't have as big of a problem with it, as long as the hunter is humane and uses the animal he kills.

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by Miranda_Rae
As for pheasants, people are only allowed to hunt the roasters. The reason behind that is because the roasters will stand on top of the females during the winter months to stay away from the snow, and then the females die. If all the females die then it would become harder for them to breed. I'm not saying that they would all go extinct but there wouldn't be as many females to have babies.

You are allowed to harvest hen pheasants. The ROOSTER pheasants do not stand on top of hens to stay out of the snow- where the heck did ya hear such a thing? :confused: The main killer of pheasants during the winter months is heavy predation (mainly from coyotes), freezing to death, and starvation. Hens do not die from roosters standing on them in the snow.

Also- there is plenty of food for coyotes. We actually need more coyotes to control the small animal population that is getting way out control. They keep entering heavily populated areas though, sadly, which is not good. .The reason why there are so many coyotes, is because there is enough food in the niche to supply them. Their main diet is rabbits, mice, and other rodents- there are plenty of those in Wisconsin and Minnesota!

[Pit Chick]

I agree with YellowLabLover. Most predator animals won't reproduce if there isn't enough prey to sustain them. And it's not our job to keep the wildlife population under control, that's what predators are for. But since we keep driving them away and killing them, then the other animals are going to overpopulate. My uncle that hunts tries to give me that "if we don't hunt them, they'll starve to death" speech. Well in the wild it's survival of the fitest and if they aren't fit enough, they won't survive and I don't see any hunters going after the sickly starving deers to put them out of their missery, they go for the "trophy bucks". I don't have a problem with people hunting for food, it's actually more humane than a slaughter house. But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?

[wolfsoul]

For me it depends on the situation. I don't agree with something dieing so horribly, like a dog ripping it apart. If it was a gunshot to the head, that would be a lot more humane. All of the animal would also have to be used, like the meat, and the fur, and the bones.

Over here, there are tons of deer, bear, and cougar, and the population needs to be controlled, so I agree with hunting them. The number of bear and cougar attacks on people and animals here is outrageous, as well as the number of deer that are hit on the road. We also have TONS of coyotes, but nobody really hunts them.

Personally I can't see the reason behind someone saying they disagree with ALL types of hunting when they, themselves, eat meat. Killing an animal in the wild and killing an animal in a meat pen that was raised to be slaughtered is really not that different. Atleast the animal in the wild got some kind of life before it was killed.


But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?
Over here, everybody does. My dad's friend makes bear jerky out of the bears he hunts..Yum.

[Pit Chick]

Originally posted by wolfsoul
Over here, there are tons of deer, bear, and cougar, and the population needs to be controlled, so I agree with hunting them. The number of bear and cougar attacks on people and animals here is outrageous, as well as the number of deer that are hit on the road. We also have TONS of coyotes, but nobody really hunts them.


It may seem like there are tons, because their habitat is shrinking, leaving them with nowhere to go but into civilization where they hunt what's available. If a road is built in the middle of a deer migratory path, they're gonna cross it. People decide to build a neighborhood in the middle of a couger's territory, then yes, people are going to be attacked, but that doesn't mean the couger should die. People are the ones that need population control, not the animals. They were keeping themselves under control long before humans invaded. With so many people that hunt, I don't see how these animals could possibly be overpopulating.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
People decide to build a neighborhood in the middle of a couger's territory, then yes, people are going to be attacked

There haven't been any new communities built in the forests here for years. Even so, there is so much forest here and tons of room for the animals. Since the fire, there have been way more wild animals showing up in the city area. It's better to hunt them than to let them get hit by cars. Over here, there are no wolves. I don't know if cougars regularly hunt deer, but if they don't, the deer have no natural predators. There is a chart of the deer population in BC, and it's continually rising very dramatically, especially in high-forest areas like Kelowna.

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by moosmom
I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.
I COMPLETELY agree.

[Miranda_Rae]

Originally posted by YellowLabLover
You are allowed to harvest hen pheasants. The ROOSTER pheasants do not stand on top of hens to stay out of the snow- where the heck did ya hear such a thing? :confused: The main killer of pheasants during the winter months is heavy predation (mainly from coyotes), freezing to death, and starvation. Hens do not die from roosters standing on them in the snow.

Also- there is plenty of food for coyotes. We actually need more coyotes to control the small animal population that is getting way out control. They keep entering heavily populated areas though, sadly, which is not good. .The reason why there are so many coyotes, is because there is enough food in the niche to supply them. Their main diet is rabbits, mice, and other rodents- there are plenty of those in Wisconsin and Minnesota!

I must have heard it wrong. I thought my dad said something like that. I'm so sorry. :( I guess I was wrong in what I've heard. As for the coyotes, I guess I was wrong also. I'm sorry for misleading anyone. I guess I got my facts mixed up or something. :o :rolleyes:

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
Well in the wild it's survival of the fitest and if they aren't fit enough, they won't survive and I don't see any hunters going after the sickly starving deers to put them out of their missery, they go for the "trophy bucks". I don't have a problem with people hunting for food, it's actually more humane than a slaughter house. But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?

Please don't throw all hunters into the "trophy buck" category. You don't see any hunters going after any sickly deer- you don't even hunt, so of course you wouldn't see what hunters do. ;) I get really sensitive when I'm included in that group. I do not go for the biggest buck in the woods. A LOT of hunters do take down "cripples" when they run across them so they do not reproduce and pass on their bad genetics and mess up the population- it's called deer management. Personally, our large hunting group as taken a lot of sick deer that we've come across. The DNR in Wisconsin also came up with a new plan called "Earn a Buck" where you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck- this is another method of deer management which benefits the deer more so than the hunters.

Real hunting is incredibly hard, it's not made for everyone. Going on a game farm to get a supplement fed "fake" animal, only caring about the size of the horns- that is not hunting- and should not be viewed as hunting, because it makes REAL hunters look bad and gives hunting a bad image.

(Oh- bear is really good by the way. Especially bear jerky! Way better than beef. I've tried coyote before, it was pretty good, but bear is better.)

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by YellowLabLover
A LOT of hunters do take down "cripples" when they run across them so they do not reproduce and pass on their bad genetics and mess up the population- it's called deer management.
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :X

Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it! And putting them out of their "misery" isn't an excuse to shoot and kill them just to speed up their dying process.
Another thought - Okay, so the deer was born a cripple... So shoot it. But would you shoot a crippled or sick child, so they don't pass on their bad genetics? :rolleyes:

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :X

Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it!

Actually, an old deer will slow down an entire herd or small group making them vulnerable.

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by wolfsoul
Actually, an old deer will slow down an entire herd or small group making them vulnerable.
So why not just let nature take its course?

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :X

Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it! And putting them out of their "misery" isn't an excuse to shoot and kill them just to speed up their dying process.
Another thought - Okay, so the deer was born a cripple... So shoot it. But would you shoot a crippled or sick child, so they don't pass on their bad genetics? :rolleyes:

If I came across an old cripple deer, I would harvest it. Why? It would most likely die during the harsh Wisconsin winter because it would not be able to find enough food, it would be tracked a lot by the wolves that prey heavily on the cripples during winter, and it would supply me with meat. It's benefiting the animal by putting it out of its misery. It's like when you put a pet to sleep to end its pain. When the deer are young and have bad genetics you can tell by the deformities it displays. A young buck with bad genetics might display an odd rack- such as an uneven rack with odd amounts of tines on each side. One side of the rack might have 2 tines and the other side of the rack might have 6 tines. A young doe could display nubby tines/horns which would be a sign of bad genetics. The deer could also display skeletal deformities, such as bowed legs, short legs, knock knee, arched back, etc. You want the fittest of deer, so the ones that get past the hunters stay strong and live a healthy life; producing good offspring do keep a healthy population of deer.

Comparing a sick/crippled child to an animal is just not the same. Many genetic problems that kids have keep them from reproducing, such as Down syndrome, progeria, etc. There is a lot of medical technology to help kids with debilitating illnesses that slow down the progression, rid of it completely, and lower the pain.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
So why not just let nature take its course?

So what you're saying is, you would rather let that entire herd die from natural causes, than let some of them be hunted?

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
So why not just let nature take its course?

Most of the time it does.

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by YellowLabLover
Comparing a sick/crippled child to an animal is just not the same. Many genetic problems that kids have keep them from reproducing, such as Down syndrome, progeria, etc. There is a lot of medical technology to help kids with debilitating illnesses that slow down the progression, rid of it completely, and lower the pain.
Cancer is inheritable and passed on.. Same with HIV/Aids, asthma, etc.

Ok yeah, deer eat our crops, reproduce, etc, but they're just trying to survive, like we as humans are.. I mean, they live on this planet too.. The earth does NOT belong to PEOPLE... We all have to share it. Every species has its problems. There's about 6 BILLION people on the planet now... According to one study, the number of people on the planet could rise to more than NINE billion in the next 50 years!!!! :eek: Do you actually believe every one of those people will be healthy, free from disease, and well-fed? Of course not! People starve to death, and people get sick and died too. So why not kill the homeless and prositutes? They just make more unhealthy, poor people.

:rolleyes:

[Desert Arabian]

Well, I'm just doing my part to help keep the animals I leave behind healthy and keep my belly fed. If you want me to leave the sick animals alone so they can suffer and live a horrible life, I'll just do that.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
According to one study, the number of people on the planet could rise to more than NINE billion in the next 50 years!!!! Do you actually believe every one of those people will be healthy, free from disease, and well-fed? Of course not! People starve to death, and people get sick and died too. So why not kill the homeless and prositutes? They just make more unhealthy, poor people.

Actually the numbers are decreasing rapidly in most parts of the world due to China's new one child per couple rule, and the newer birth control methods. The only thing that's slowing us down now is India's population growth. Personally it is my belief that anyone with an inheritied disease should not be able to procreate, but that law will never be enforced anyways.

As for the homeless and prostitue thing..you lost me there. Sure, lots of people are unhealthy and die as a result. Lots of deer are unhealthy and are hunted as a result. So I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Pit Chick]

Originally posted by wolfsoul
So what you're saying is, you would rather let that entire herd die from natural causes, than let some of them be hunted?

A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members. They aren't going to sacrafice the masses for one. They let nature takes it's course and if that one can't keep up, the rest of the herd keeps moving. If hunters really do pick off the sickly ones to "put them out of their misery", then a meal was just taken away from the predatory animals who depend on the sickly ones to survive, leaving them to wander on to farms and kill pinned farm animals, which in turn pisses off the farmers who demand that the predators be killed. So who really benefits from hunting here? Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.

Like I said before, nature was doing fine on it's own, before humans came on the scene.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members.
Not when they are running away from prey no, but generally they do keep at a slow pace for it's old or challenged.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.


Well I'm assuming tha here in Canada you are only allowed to hunt a certain amount as well, and I know people that hunt deer that have had better days (not sick deer, but injured or physically retarded ones).

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members. They aren't going to sacrafice the masses for one. They let nature takes it's course and if that one can't keep up, the rest of the herd keeps moving. If hunters really do pick off the sickly ones to "put them out of their misery", then a meal was just taken away from the predatory animals who depend on the sickly ones to survive, leaving them to wander on to farms and kill pinned farm animals, which in turn pisses off the farmers who demand that the predators be killed. So who really benefits from hunting here? Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.

Like I said before, nature was doing fine on it's own, before humans came on the scene.

Ok, think here...

There are so many injured and old animals in the woods, far more than a hunter can kill, leaving the predators with more than enough food to get. Not all wolves go for deer, they also go for smaller animals which are easy for them to obtain. Not to mention the little helpless fawns in the spring time which they prey on all the time. A wolf pack can easily take down a healthy deer- that is why they hunt in a pack- it's called teamwork. The wolves wander on to the farmers land because the farmer took away their land/territory to raise his family and herd- cows are an easy target for a wolf- and they are in their territory. Either way you look at it- there is no clear winner of the hunter/animal "game"- it's all ups and downs.



Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.

I'm trying to watch my temper, but it is extremely hard in situations such as these.

You do not hunt. You have never been hunting. You honestly don't have a CLUE about hunting (from experience). I hunt- I know what I am talking about. It is not a waste of ammo to put a sick deer out of it's misery. Hunters do have a heart you know, shocking as it may sound to you. We are human, we do have feelings. Thank you very much. Why do you think hunters spend so much time sighting in their guns? To make sure they are shooting accurately so they can ensure a quick kill that won't cause the animal to get away and suffer! Obviously, sometimes that is always not the case and some are injured, sadly. A hunter WILL "waste" their time and ammo to go after a sick deer. Here in Wisconsin you can only shoot one deer during the regular 9-day season. However, you can go to a DNR registration station and purchase "bonus" tags to get more deer. There really is no limit to how many you can purchase- why!? Because they need no limit- it is extremely hard to get more than 2 deer in the season. If hunters were coming out of the woods with 10 deer a piece there would be a very strict limit. I have gone the last 3 years without getting a deer- can you believe that? Probably not. Hunters don't always walk out of the woods with an animal. This past deer season, I had two doe 20 yards away from me- NEVER saw them until they smelled me and ran away (saw their white tail). That happens ALL THE TIME!

I get so sick and tired of having to explain myself as a hunter all the time, and defend my fellow huntsmen, and correct the dumb, false, comments anti-hunters make. It's like people talking bad about Pit Bulls- when they don't even own one or really have a clue about them......

[Pit Chick]

If you are a responsible hunter and not a trophy hunter doing it for the pure "sport", then you shouldn't get so defensive because it doesn't really apply to you. I've heard the "population control" excuse from my uncle who hunts and while that may sound like it's all for the benefit of the animals, then why does he have heads mounted on the wall? I see the "heart" in that :rolleyes: Again, if it wasn't for the overpopulation of humans then there wouldn't need to be population control for wild animals. True, I don't hunt, I don't have the heart to take an animal's life myself. I don't have a "clue" from experience, but I've heard enough from hunters themselves. While you may have the heart to put a sick animal out of it's misery, your average knuckle dragging barbarian looking for that trophy buck doesn't. (I haven't ever seen a sick deer mounted on a proud hunter's wall.)

Before this heated discussion goes any further, lets just agree to disagree. Hunters and non-hunters have all made their points and they are getting no where with each other.

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
If you are a responsible hunter and not a trophy hunter doing it for the pure "sport", then you shouldn't get so defensive because it doesn't really apply to you.

Of course I am going to get defensive when one makes blanket statements about hunting and hunters. It does apply to me. Please do not tell me you eat meat and wear leather whilst bashing hunters and hunting?! Just wondering...

Just because you have a head on the wall doesn't mean you are a trophy hunter- it's HOW the animal was obtained. Was it on a game farm or from the wild? Did the hunter purposely seek it out, or was it just out of chance?

My last comments, hopefully.

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by Pit Chick
Again, if it wasn't for the overpopulation of humans then there wouldn't need to be population control for wild animals.
That's what I was trying to say..

I personally would never have the heart to kill an innocent animal. I don't understand how someone would have the heart to shoot an innocent being and just watch it die. :( That just seems really cold to me.

But, like Pit Chick, I am willing to agree to disagree. I understand that you were raised to believe those things and I respect your decision to hunt. No one is going to change anyone's views on the subject, so I also believe just agreeing to disagree is the best way to end this heated discussion.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by BCBlondie
I personally would never have the heart to kill an innocent animal. I don't understand how someone would have the heart to shoot an innocent being and just watch it die. :( That just seems really cold to me.

And yet billions of dollars per year are spent to pay for the deaths of millions of slaughtered animals that end up on our plates. Atleast when you shoot a wild deer, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that this wild animal had a life of freedom --- when you buy a nice big slab of beef, do you get satisfaction in knowing that you just paid for an animal that was kept in a pen too small to turn around in, for it's entire life? Does this mean that we don't have hearts? What's more cold?

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by wolfsoul
And yet billions of dollars per year are spent to pay for the deaths of millions of slaughtered animals that end up on our plates. Atleast when you shoot a wild deer, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that this wild animal had a life of freedom --- when you buy a nice big slab of beef, do you get satisfaction in knowing that you just paid for an animal that was kept in a pen too small to turn around in, for it's entire life? Does this mean that we don't have hearts? What's more cold?
Both seem cold to me, and I'm a vegetarian due to that reason... I don't buy "big slabs of beef."

[wolfsoul]

I'm not just talking about you, but the general population of people. It is a fact that almost every single person in this world eats meat or animal products, most of which come from horrible places. To me it seems harsh to call almost every single person heartless.

[cloverfdx]

the reason i am asking is because foxhunting has just been banned in the uk, the ban will start in a few months, meaning lots of people will lose their livelihoods, and a lot of hounds and horses will lose their lives

:( I am horrified, and know what will happen to a large ammount of those hounds. But no i do not agree on using dog to kill another animal.