|
-
Dear David Curry MP
If you have read recent messages on the Skiptonweb, which I’m sure you do as you are the Member of Parliament for Skipton and Ripon, you will see that most people here are vehemently opposed to fox hunting. Please can you explain to us why you thought fit to vote AGAINST the recent bill calling for a ban on hunting with dogs, and against the views of so many of the constituents you purport to represent?
Yours – Skipton & Ripon Constituent
26/09/2004 13:06:35
[report post]
-
Probally because it affectsalot of livelyhoods in his rural constituency areas,things that matter to some people as opposed to cute foxes being ripped apart.
27/09/2004 11:23:38
[report post]
-
livelyhoods in his rural constituency areas? ... When was the last time a hunt went through Skipton? And how many businesses are going to close within the craven area due to hunting with dogs ??? RUBBISH ... He was not voting against the bill for the local people he was voting for his fellow upper crust rich folk ... !!!
27/09/2004 17:00:30
[report post]
-
To answer the original poster. Probably because Mr Curry's primary intel' comes from higher up sources than websites such as this (No offense to skiptonweb!).
Then again, you would think that such websites are a great example of 'voices of the community' therefore making the work of Mr Curry 'cut out for him'.
Therefore lets have a vote here and now of FOR and AGAINST. Even if only ten people vote, (which would be disappointing) we may have some idea of the ratio of approval in the community.
Okay people, stop procrastinating and put your money where your mouth is... are you for or against foxhunting?...
27/09/2004 20:50:48
[report post]
-
Against. Anything that upsets the toffs has to be a good thing. Steve.
27/09/2004 23:28:32
[report post]
-
Against. I think it is a sick society that takes pleasure from inflicing wanton pain and suffering. Fox hunting here in Britain, man-hunting in Iraq.
I include boxing in the list of blood sports I'd like to ban. I can see no pleasure in watching men bashing each other to the point of brain damage and knock outs. I'm sure Mohammed Ali's sufferings are all due to his time in the ring. ~ Earlybird
28/09/2004 07:59:33
[report post]
-
The MP for Pendle voted for the bill. That is partly rural too. So put him down for AGAINST.
28/09/2004 08:02:01
[report post]
-
i am against but i think this has had a stupid amount of time spent on it.what next fishing rabbit hunting,butterfly catching.I dont want to see our MPs time wasted like this ever again .
28/09/2004 09:20:02
[report post]
-
definitely for
28/09/2004 11:08:37
[report post]
-
My friends, a simple for or against clouds the issue.
Foxes are destructive savage vermin and they do need to be controlled irrespective as to how that control is maintained.
A hunt does tend to catch only the less fit, older, ill or lame animals. Survival of the fittest certainly applies. Other means, especially trapping, poison and especially shooting are if anything even more cruel to both the foxes and other wildlife.
Poison is indiscriminate and an horrendous end for any animal.
However good the marks(man) shooting can be just as bad. Clean kills are rare, and an injured animal can be in agony for hours or days. It is not just a "Class War" issue. Grandad
28/09/2004 13:09:56
[report post]
-
I'm for fox hunting. I've never done it, but do go fishing and shooting, and the anti blood sports brigade will have to start on these now to justify their existance. If I had my way I would ban football,- what a load of old b******s that is!!!
28/09/2004 14:07:27
[report post]
-
I do think it's a bit tight on the fox. You have to feel it for the little guy.
Having just said that, I don't think foxhunting should be banned - I can understand the viewpoint of landowners and country folk who have an industry based around the sport.
A related, but easily overlooked point also; the animal products I buy may not have been killed (or treated) humanely, I kill flies, moths and anything too big n hairy to be in the house, and I routinely stick barbed hooks in worms.
I use deoderant that may have been tested on animals, and we have leather products in the house - the animals these were taken from could have been blown up with nitro -glycerine, and I wouldn't know.
I don't feel guilty about any of this, and I'm happy to take my rightful place somewhere on the moral middle ground.
I appreciate this won't go down well, it never does, but how many posters here are hypocrites?
Look around your home & lifestyle, think hard, be honest.
~pika
28/09/2004 15:05:41
[report post]
-
Well said!
28/09/2004 15:42:06
[report post]
-
Not to mention the fluffy rabbits killed on roads and hedgehogs and s pheasants, deer, sheep.(incidently are killed in tens of thousands each year)
Just to get in my car is cruel then?
Its a joke the amount of money wasted in MPs time to get a bill like this through parliment.
People who want to Ban fox hunting im sure will wear cosmetics,drive cars.
These two actions alone contribute to millions more deaths and suffering in the animal kingdom than fox hunting will ever do.
Before you ask a group of people to check there own behavouirs,check yours first you most likely will be more damage to enviroment or animal suffering than somone who hunts lovely fluffy foxes as they are so often put.
The shame is the people who maintain a living out of fox hunting are also mainting the rural enviroment and put in more in terms of conservation than any of us.
The (toffs) are ordinary people trying to maintain a living trying to maintain the enviroment.When around them they see double standards.
28/09/2004 16:48:17
[report post]
-
I used to be against fox hunting but i moved into the country the sense of rural disafection is considerable,dangerous roads nothing done about them,rural crime on the rise police dont care,is it any wonder people in the the country are p***** off to finally but the boot in they are told by people who have no idea on how to run the rural enviroment how it should be done.
the next thing we will be doing is seeing increases to our tx to pay for the upkeep of the rural enviroment as know one can make a living of it any more.
28/09/2004 17:35:30
[report post]
-
Agree or disagree with all the comments it cannot be avoided that fox hunting is pointlessly cruel, and there has to be a better way.
D.
28/09/2004 23:27:06
[report post]
-
I loathe and detest hunting wild animals for SPORT. Mother nature has a delicate balance, until humankind messes it up. However, if foxes are a threat to farm livestock then they should be dealt with accordingly to protect the other animals. It's the sport part I don't like. I am pretty sure that the foxes and deer don't think it is much sport. If you want to shoot at things, do some target practice on clay pidgeons or on a rifle range.
Brit/Am
29/09/2004 04:11:51
[report post]
-
Mrs ~pd told me she read in the Sunday Times that hunting hounds are put down once they are retired. Isn't this another demonstration of the cruelty of the sport?
~pd
29/09/2004 08:35:16
[report post]
-
I dont disagree D it is pointless agree to rip little cute foxes to bits it is also pointless to get in your car when it damages the enviroment and wear any form of cosmetics as these two thing combined do more damage and cause more suffering in the animal kingdom than fox hunting will ever do.
The reason why fox hunting has been banned is that it affects only a minority group as opposed to the larger public,of which there would be an uproar if they were told no more cosmetics people,no more driving your car as you might kill ten of thousand of wildlife on the road.
Its a waste of a bill, a waste of our MPs time and there should never,never be a vote on something like this again .
An estimated 600 foxes killed in hunts each year, an estimated 25000 wildlife kille don roads,and estimated 50,000 animals tested for the cosmetics industry that continue to suffer.The sums don`t add up?
29/09/2004 09:12:09
[report post]
-
Get off the animal cruelty theme and keep to Fox Hunting. I think it should be banned AND I agree that its totally barbaric. I'd also like to hunt some of these people down on horseback - that's if I could get on one in the first place! (A horse that is, I'm only 5'2"). Jan
29/09/2004 21:01:11
[report post]
-
Get off the animal cruelty, and keep to foxhunting?????
Jan, is this a serious suggestion?
At which point *don't* the two issues relate to each other?
As I suggested earlier in the thread: "how many posters here are hypocrites?"
People to seem to bang the drum that suits these days. It's soooo convenient.
As for hunting people down on a horse, you could try a Shetland Pony.. :)
~pika
29/09/2004 23:52:36
[report post]
-
So what you are saying is animal cruelty is ok as long its not foxes?,I dont think you are but that is the impression you are giving.All im saying we have spent millions on getting this bill through parliment.Approx 600 fox killed in hunts each year,i agree killing for fun is cruel but so is testing on animals,and road kill is causing massive damage to the animal kingdom in the uk.
Will you or i stop buying cosmetic related products,or driving our cars? course not!it effects us to much to be able to stop.
But we have actively discriminted on one section of the community ints pursuit of a blood sport when we contribute far more to misery and death to the animal world.
The people who live and work in rural communities that arrange fox hunts are killing foxes in a barbaric manner no doubt,they are also making a living out of it.
we sit in judgemnt of thier actions when they do far more conservation work on their own land than any of us.
It was a waste of our MPs time!!!!!
30/09/2004 08:27:05
[report post]
-
I think it's unhelpful to conflate the two issues of hunting and roadkill. The point is that hunting is something done deliberately, for sport. Killing animals on the roads is not done deliberately for sport. It's the motivation that is important, not the numbers. The point of the hunting bill isn't animal population levels, it's cruelty in sport. Steve.
30/09/2004 09:39:21
[report post]
-
You mean its unhelp full to your argument steve!the truth is as a delibrate result of your actions of driving to work you may cause roadkill,as a delbrate result of purchasing a cosmetic related product you may cause suffering in to many animals.Now who is doing more damage by his delibrate actions.
why do you still drive and still buy cosmetics when you know above ,surely this is cruel now you know this happens!
30/09/2004 12:34:50
[report post]
-
Hunting with dogs as an activity has the main aim of killing prey. Driving to work has the main aim of getting to work without hurting anyone. I personally can't remember the last time I hurt anything (beyond bugs)with my car. I still think you're unhelpfully confusing two (possibly three) separate distinct activities, with radically different motivations. Only one of which is under legislative review at the moment. Why complicate things? Steve.
30/09/2004 13:24:24
[report post]
-
Good question. Let me try to uncomplicate it.
Fox = living creature.
Bug = living creature.
If yours or my driving meant we had 50 dead foxes on the bonnet of our cars each time we got home, would we still drive, whatever the motivation? Could we then comment against foxhunting?
Fluffy = cute, deserves to live.
More than 4 legs = insignificant, ok to die?
Human perception, it's so fickle.
Sorry, not trying to be awkward, but I do feel this is important.
It's a bit like having an opinion on preserving fish stocks in Lake Windermere, whilst owning a sewage works that pumps raw effluent into the North Sea. If you see what I mean.
:)
~pika
30/09/2004 14:28:34
[report post]
-
Re: Fox=living creature. Bug=living creature. Pika, sorry but thats much more confusing than ever, now. Let's start back at the beginning. 1. There is a new law currently under debate, regarding the activity of hunting with dogs. 2. We all have the right to discuss it and have an opinion on it, because the law will affect us (and our children) in the future, and we live in a democracy. 3. You are arguing that we should not discuss this new law unless we first go off and formulate a series of consistent opinions on all other conceivable animal cruelty issues. eg where do we stand on the use of animals testing cosmetics. 4. Ok, assuming you are correct, continuing your logic, lets add more animals. Four legs... more legs... no legs... what about bacteria, is it right to make bacteria suffer by using toothpaste? Is it right to kill plankton? Is it cruel to kill infections by using anti-biotics? Tell you what: I hereby declare that no-one can discuss the new hunting law unless they first declare their views on cruelty to viruses. You see how long this could take us? The hunting law is unrelated to all this. You have to draw a line somewhere, stop, and decide if this new law is a good law or not, on it's own merits. Since this law does not involve windcreens, bugs, cosmetics, effluent, fish, sewage or indeed the word 'fluffy', I think for me this is all just complicating the issue. Again, apologies, not trying to be awkward, but I do feel this is important. Steve.
30/09/2004 15:15:21
[report post]
-
It does steve as effects a minority of the rural community who maek a living out of it despite the fact its cruel buying cosmetic related products is far cruel by its indirect action who is gonna stop buying them though.
Tax man wont wont it,public wont want it as we are all vain.
So instead we go for the only vulnerable group, the rural community who have suffered enough with rural crime, foot and mouth ect ect.
Lovely fluffy foxes!!!!!!Dont kill them.
You can 10,000 time more damage and suffering by buying cosmetic related products.
30/09/2004 15:41:42
[report post]
-
steve i think plancton is over complicating the argument we are talking about animal cruelty are we not.
If you drive your car you cause road kill,if you buy cosmeticts you do more damage to the enviroment and cause more suffering to animals than any fox hunter.
please stick to argument animal cruelty, which fox hunting is one form.
30/09/2004 15:51:17
[report post]
-
Equal rights for plankton now! Equal rights for plankton now!
30/09/2004 16:01:42
[report post]
-
No thanks, I'd rather not stick to your 'argument of animal cruelty'. I'm arguing about the new law on fox hunting - thats what this thread is about. The new law has nothing to do with road-kill or 'cosmeticts'. So what's your point anyway? You want me to stop driving my car and stop washing? You first. Steve.
30/09/2004 16:06:26
[report post]
-
Fox hunting is not animal cruelty? why ban it steve if it is not animal cruelty?I only wish to participate in your discusion on fox hunting? i cant belive you dont think fox hunting is animal cruelty.Of course it it is.
we should have a discussion about fox hunting because steve doesnt think fox hunting is animal cruelty.
Can any of skiptonwebs users please confirm to steve if fox hunting is animal cruelty as i dont think he understands to concept of animal cruelty
30/09/2004 17:16:14
[report post]
-
Ahem. Sorry, but I see fox hunting more as a class issue than as an animal cruelty issue. I'm not trying to save foxes. I don't actually care about the foxes. There is so much suffering in the world, I find it hard to get excited about foxes. But. If there's a (privileged) minority out there having fun killing things, and our elected representatives tell them to stop, then I think it's important they stop. My reasons have nothing to do with furriness, cuteness or indeed animal cruelty but much more to do with power, class and democracy. Steve.
30/09/2004 18:25:19
[report post]
-
Stop the cruelty! Some of my best friends are fluffy bacteria
01/10/2004 09:10:07
[report post]
-
You are discriminating against a particular class of person.
01/10/2004 10:50:45
[report post]
-
Correct. Steve.
01/10/2004 11:05:05
[report post]
-
"Anything that upsets the toffs has to be a good thing"
**** the fox, that isn't the issue?
How bizarre.
Will we be outlawing BMW's next???
My point, in case you missed it, was animal cruelty and mass hypocrisy. It smells worse than dead foxes.
:)
~pika
01/10/2004 12:04:10
[report post]
-
Ban Steve-baiting.
Lobster
01/10/2004 12:48:01
[report post]
-
Lobster, I thank you, but I enjoy this. No Pika, I didn't miss your point, it simply does not apply to me. To you hunting is an animal rights issue, and only that. To me, it is a class issue. We differ. But I'm not calling you a hypocrite. Hunting is not just about animal cruelty. Hunting is about history, feudalism, tradition, fashion, employment, conservation, class, vandalism, poaching, law, forests, peasants, royalty, privilege, land, power, rights, food, many many things. Not just cruelty. I want hunting banned for political reasons that are more about class, power, privelege and democracy, than about cruelty. You may call my reasoning 'bizarre'. I prefer to call it 'more complex than yours'. BMWs should remain legal. People being a success and earning money is fine with me. Spending money on cars is fine. It's privilege that I don't like. Political power gained through the accident of birth - that's the bit I don't like. Steve.
01/10/2004 14:01:09
[report post]
-
Steve.
OK, can't argue with that. If that's your motivation for the ban, then no, what I'm on about doesn't apply to you. But it does to many others, and there's a distinct lack of replies to this theme from the cute n fluffy brigade. Those who like to pretend they're puritans usually aren't.
There are all sorts of issues surrounding the whole foxhunting debate - and they are relevant.
If you feel they complicate the matter, well, maybe that's because they do. You can't just simplify everything so it feels easier for you to deal with.
Now that you've explained it in a little more detail, I can see (kind of) where you're coming from.
But surely, if the end goal is to take away automatic privilege, or to somehow put 'toffs' in their place, there must be better ways than this one. The protestors stood around in London and Brighton were the ones about to lose some of their livelihood. They generally didn't look like 'toffs' to me.
Anyway, foxhunting is to be banned. By your 'more complex' reasoning, why is this going to be a good thing? I mean, what will it do for toffdom, people in high places? How will it change the world? How will it make our lives better? Who will benefit, besides the fox?
~pika
01/10/2004 17:29:25
[report post]
-
The number of people who hunt and are "toffs" is actually very small. The vast majority of hunting people are "ordinary" people (what ever one of those is), teachers, etc. There are several miner's hunts as well as foot hunts, ie: the hunt is followed on foot not horse back, doing away with the expence of a horse. If judging by some of the comments here and nationally the hunting ban is a chance to get at toffs, they have picked the wrong activity to do it. Foxes are still hunted by dogs in Scotland (where they have a ban) but is then shot, before the dogs get it, (hopefully). The main people to suffer will be poeple whose jobs will be lost and these are not wealthy people.
So to sum up, jobs of "working class" folks lost, foxes still chased and killed, net benefit-nil, except to Labour politicians who will be able to strut about telling us how they stuffed the toffs.
01/10/2004 20:41:02
[report post]
-
Hunting is indeed a very complex issue - that's why I think it's unhelpful to try and lump it together with other separate and unrelated issues. I think it's a sufficiently emotive and complicated issue on its own. No, I dont expect foxes to benefit much from the new law, they'll just find themselves being killed in a different way. How will it change the world? It won't. I'm not sure I have the time or energy to detail here everything I'd like to see happen to the UK countryside over the next few hundred years. But yes, it does seem to me that banning hunting is a good place to start. It sends a signal. Tell you what, lets talk about you, for a change. Why would the world be a better place if hunting went on? Who would benefit? How would it make our children's lives better? Steve.
02/10/2004 20:39:36
[report post]
-
Q:Why would the world be a better place if hunting went on?
I didn't feel the world was a bad place because of foxhunting.
It won't make any difference to most of the world or foxes. But some rural jobs would be saved. Oh, and there will be less bad marksmen running around the English countryside. Make your own decisions about that one.
Q:Who would benefit if hunting went on?
The rural economy. Labour's opponents. National express.
Q:How would it make our children's lives better if hunting went on?
It won't make a jot of difference to my kids.
Yes, let's ban it, it does seem a good place to start err, start, umm... yes, start something that.. send signals? Yeah, that'll show 'em.
It's a bandwagon. Govt. bolt it together, the media give it a shove, and the public hop on. (Surprise surprise, the formula still works.)
I'm sure it has nothing to do with becoming popular in time for a general election, by capitalising on class & animal issues popular with the masses.
But it certainly isn't part of a 300 year countryside plan, is it?
~pika
02/10/2004 21:49:50
[report post]
-
It's gonna be banned, not before time, now get over it. Anyway, if it's not actually about killing the fox, like so many seem to claim, then surely they can still ride around in fancy dress blowing their own trumpets to their hearts content.
03/10/2004 09:46:14
[report post]
-
Its minority disicrimination, even it is agains one class of people,people who buy cosmetic related product including me are being cruel to animals the same way fox hunters are.But i dont see us waging a campaign on the same grounds as fox hunting.#
Lovely fluffy foxes!!!they win in the end!!
04/10/2004 08:54:06
[report post]
-
I think its time to consider banning some things that cause real problems in society rather than wasting time and money on fox hunting.
Football for example. Not only is it a very silly activity carried out by people in daft clothing, it is associated with an enormous amount of violence. It's very nature encourages aggressive behaviour. An average match is considered "quiet" by the police if only one person gets knifed. Also it ties up an enormous number of police who should be preventing my car being stolen. It should be banned.
Pets. Not only do dogs foul the pavements (causing children to go blind as a result of Toxacaris) they also eat many babies each year (according to the papers). Also, it is unfair to keep animals against their will. Pet ownership should therefore be banned.
OK so some people will be upset at the ban and lose their livelyhoods, maybe have to give up what they considered an "innocent" pastime. The important thing, though, is the principle involved. Football, and keeping pets, are inherently barbaric activities.
Neil
04/10/2004 17:53:42
[report post]
-
Neil - Shut up !
05/10/2004 10:05:19
[report post]
-
I agree with Neil
05/10/2004 16:55:51
[report post]
Messages 1 to 48
of 48
help
|
contact skiptonweb
change font size
add to favourites
email this page to a friend
search the web
