Fee-Paying Schools

[The Gaffer]

I guess it's a matter of whether you think it's morally acceptable to kill animals for pleasure. If society as a whole has decided that it is immoral, and made it illegal, then the fact that it's your land is neither here nor there.

What gets my goat is that the kind of people who moan about us townies not understanding the ways of the country are quite happy to pocket massive handouts in the form of agricultural subsidies. In fact, so massive that they get more subsidy than the whole of the rest of (UK) industry put together.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
What gets my goat is that the kind of people who moan about us townies not understanding the ways of the country are quite happy to pocket massive handouts in the form of agricultural subsidies. In fact, so massive that they get more subsidy than the whole of the rest of (UK) industry put together.

So is the entire aristocracy 'on the dole' over there - and not the royals alone? At least the landed aristocracy... if that isn't redundant.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Think of the wonders hunting does for the rural economy, though. And if a chap owns the land he hunts on, then why should he not be allowed to hunt whatever he damn well pleases on it?

And why shouldn't he be allowed to soak a cat with gasoline and set it on fire, alive? I mean, after all, if it's his cat and his property, and he gets pleasure from it... why not?

I can't understand why you don't see how this is just so wrong.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I guess it's a matter of whether you think it's morally acceptable to kill animals for pleasure. If society as a whole has decided that it is immoral, and made it illegal, then the fact that it's your land is neither here nor there.

I agree with this.

What gets my goat is that the kind of people who moan about us townies not understanding the ways of the country are quite happy to pocket massive handouts in the form of agricultural subsidies. In fact, so massive that they get more subsidy than the whole of the rest of (UK) industry put together.

Wow! I just don't understand how the Brits can tollerate all of this.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Valandil
So is the entire aristocracy 'on the dole' over there - and not the royals alone? At least the landed aristocracy... if that isn't redundant.

The aristocracy is actually enjoying rather a boom at the moment. The landed aristocracy is far from redundant- vast acreage is still possessed by families and the Duke of Westminster is the richest man in the country.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Ruinel

I can't understand why you don't see how this is just so wrong.

That's rather a narrow minded thing to say now, isn't it? Tell me, have you ever been hunting? I have. Although, as I said above, I was never great shakes at riding, there is something exhilerating about being in a pack of riders, the dogs running ahead of you, exciting cries all around and after it all a good dinner and a reception, etc. What's wrong with that? It does no real major harm- we kill a relatively small number of animals and it's very popular and enjoyable, so...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And why shouldn't he be allowed to soak a cat with gasoline and set it on fire, alive? I mean, after all, if it's his cat and his property, and he gets pleasure from it... why not?

I can't understand why you don't see how this is just so wrong.

I can't understand how you can use a way out there example to try to support your belief. Lighting a cat on fire is much different than fox hunting.

I have no problem with fox hunting or hunting in general - as long as the animal is not endangered.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
The landed aristocracy is far from redundant- vast acreage is still possessed by families and the Duke of Westminster is the richest man in the country.

Here we call them Blue Bloods. They're descended from the original founders of NJ, mainly the proprietors and still own a lot of NJ.

The oldest corporation in America is The West Jersey Proprietors. The General Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey was dissolved in 1998. Even today, any unclaimed land has to be settled through the proprietors.

East and West Jersey Proprietors - Archives
Quaker West New Jersey: Democracy in 1677

Slightly off topic - but it demonstrates that New Jersey is still tied to it's colonial past. Quakers are still here. A meeting house in Princeton from the early 1700's is stil in use by Quakers. Fxo Hunting is still a tradition here, although it is much more limited.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Slightly off topic - but it demonstrates that New Jersey is still tied to it's colonial past. Quakers are still here. A meeting house in Princeton from the early 1700's is stil in use by Quakers. Fxo Hunting is still a tradition here, although it is much more limited.

Hooray!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Hooray!

Well - even though we are still tied to our colonial past and I am interested in Colonial, Revolutionary and early American New Jersey History - I am 100% American and am very happy we had the Revolution.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well - even though we are still tied to our colonial past and I am interested in Colonial, Revolutionary and early American New Jersey History - I am 100% American and am very happy we had the Revolution.

We've noticed I take your point though

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
We've noticed I take your point though

Just didn't want any misunderstandings on where I stood. Not that I think there could be any - but you never know.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
That's rather a narrow minded thing to say now, isn't it? Tell me, have you ever been hunting? I have. Although, as I said above, I was never great shakes at riding, there is something exhilerating about being in a pack of riders, the dogs running ahead of you, exciting cries all around and after it all a good dinner and a reception, etc. What's wrong with that? It does no real major harm- we kill a relatively small number of animals and it's very popular and enjoyable, so...

jeezus! Narrow minded? I think we get the picture of who's narrow minded here. Look at yourself? How narcissistic! You look at this from an egocentric point of view, only from the view of your own pleasure, with no empathy for the fox at all. You have a great time at the expense of killing some fox for the pleasure of just seeing it ripped to shreds?

Go riding with a bunch of people, go riding with the dogs... but do you have to get your jollies from something so barbaric?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
jeezus! Narrow minded? I think we get the picture of who's narrow minded here. Look at yourself? How narcissistic! You look at this from an egocentric point of view, only from the view of your own pleasure, with no empathy for the fox at all. You have a great time at the expense of killing some fox for the pleasure of just seeing it ripped to shreds?

Go riding with a bunch of people, go riding with the dogs... but do you have to get your jollies from something so barbaric?

The dog doesn't kill the fox. The dogs show the hunter where the fox is and then the hunters follow it. They shoot the fox. The fox is not ripped to shreds by the dogs.

[EDIT] It seems as if the dogs do kill the fox, but they do not rip it to shreds as Ruinel suggests. The dog bites the fox on the back of the neck, where it seems to die instantly.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I can't understand how you can use a way out there example to try to support your belief. Lighting a cat on fire is much different than fox hunting.

I have no problem with fox hunting or hunting in general - as long as the animal is not endangered.

The point that is trying to be made by Radagast is that the fox is owned by the hunter, the fox is being hunted on the hunter's property... and even though the fox is caught by the dogs, and the hunters watch while it is literally torn into shreds to it's gruesome death... it's ok, because the hunters get great pleasure from this act.

How is this any different than dog fighting? How is this any different than killing an animal for your own pleasure on your own land? I just don't see it.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The dog doesn't kill the fox. The dogs show the hunter where the fox is and then the hunters follow it. They shoot the fox. The fox is not ripped to shreds by the dogs.

[EDIT] It seems as if the dogs do kill the fox, but they do not rip it to shreds as Ruinel suggests. The dog bites the fox on the back of the neck, where it seems to die instantly.

For your viewing pleasure... a site with lovely videos of the fox hunt... make sure you view #6 and #10... they're my particular favorites.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~icabs2/videos-f.htm

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
For your viewing pleasure... a site with lovely videos of the fox hunt... make sure you view #7 and #10... they're my particular favorites.

It's from a Ban Fox Hunting site - they're going to have the worst ones possible. You can also come up with bad senarios for all hunting where the animal isn't killed cleanly.

[Ruinel]

This is a nice clean nip on the back of the neck to instantly and humanely kill the fox.

[Ruinel]

Another quick, clean nip at the back of the neck.

[Ruinel]

Food for thought... if only one dog gives a clean, humane bite to the back of the fox's neck to quickly and painlessly sever the spinal cord and kill it, then why aren't the rest of the dogs muzzled to prevent the excited dogs from tearing at the fox?