jasy said:
Think you will find that very few foxes each year get killed by hunts. The shotgun kills more but is not always gauranteed to kill immediately, maims more, so the death is slower.
Oh, that's what the redcoats (not Butlins) say, but it is wrong. A mate of mine is a very keen hunter. I have been woken up by him in the middle of the night, shooting in the woods round the back of me. But when I asked him about "the hunt" he was disgusted. He is an advocate of hunting with dogs, in that you shoot whatever you are hunting, and your dog runs after it
on the offchance it is still alive. But the idea of biting the hell out of a fox seems to rile him somewhat. His approach is, you shoot it, aim your best to kill it, if it is still wriggling about
THEN the dog gives it a good biting on the neck. But, trying to kill an animal through bite-wounds alone is cruel.
It is a strange relationship, those who hunt often love animals. They have a great respect for the animals they hunt, and they see great beauty in them. True hunters do not want to cause suffering for their prey. Part of the skill of hunting is killing your prey without causing it suffering. There are chefs in Korea who take great pride in the fact they can butcher a fish so skilfully that the fish doesn't even realise it is missing 90% of its body when put back in the water. Now I can't say the fish are particularly happy about it, but the fact is, a
good hunter is so precise that there is no suffering. These red-coats are not hunters, they follow a blood sport. Do they actually EAT the fox? Surely that is what hunting is all about?!
The overweight low-IQ horsey to**ers spoil things for everyone: they make posh people look bad, they make horse-fanciers look bad, they make hunters look bad. Hell, they even make people who like to wear red blazers and white jodpers look bad
