Hunt debated
In Mailbox July 22, Robin Johnson wrote that he would like to see the hunting ban repealed.
His main reason was that it is a magnificent sight to see the dogs tear off followed by riders in scarlet. Does he think it is a magnificent sight to see those same dogs tearing a fox to bits which those riders in fancy dress look on with pleasure and blood lust.
Mailbox July 26, in a very long letter, Michael Clayton tries to tell us a pack of hounds would catch a fox and kill it immediately.
He tells us he has followed foxhounds all his life. He obviously has never been close up at the kill, or else he closed his eyes and ears so that he could not hear the screams as the hounds try to get to the fox. One against forty-odd.
He then says it is lawful to kill a rat or a rabbit with a dog, but not a hare or a fox.
A rat is killed in a second. One bite at the back of the neck. Otherwise the dog would end up with a bloody painful nose.
So there lies the difference. Plus the rabbit and rat are not killed just for the sake of blood lust and sport.
G A Wright, Leicester.
7 Comments
by Rory, Leicester
Thursday, November 04 2010, 5:37PM
“Right Reuben, in response to your question: Labour's incompetence in drafting a proper act worked in the hunts' favour. Hunting continues as before and so, luckily, the rate at which hounds are put down and the rate of employment amongst hunts has remained the same.
As for the writer of this article: I think that respecting each other's views is very important and that people may have a gut feeling about a subject without being an expert on it. However, G A Wright, Esq is not only not an expert but also really couldn't understand fox huntuing less. As Mr Bryant points out, he is talking out of his backside. His lack of understanding does nothing but weaken his argument, and his lack of understanding and knowledge is clear for anyone who has ever been involved with hunting to see: firstly, terminology. HOUNDS, not dogs. Secondly, he is in NO position to be critical of any opinions the much experienced and intelligent Mr Clayton holds. To claim that the long-time editor of Horse and Hound and general hunting enthusiast "obviously has never been close up at the kill" is a ludicrous assertion. Mr Wright, after decades of fox hunting, he obviously has. This assertion is almost as ludicrous as the one that "riders in fancy dress look on with pleasure and blood lust" and again, unfortunately for him, this childish attitude does nothing but to weaken his argument.
The fact that it is "forty odd" hounds against one fox is a good thing. I assure you that if it was one on one the fox would have a much more drawn out death.
His final implication that foxes are killed "just for the sake of blood lust and sport" is pleasing to read, as it once and for all demonstrates that he is an utterly ignorant twit and undermines all he has to say.”
by Reuben Reynolds, Enderby
Thursday, August 05 2010, 1:27PM
“I am still awaiting a response from any-one of the pro-hunting fraternity to tell me how many hounds were 'put down' and by how many did unemployment figures increase following the ban on hunting, as prior to the ban this was the
forecast by 'pros' of what would happen.”
by NORMAN BRYANT, west sussex
Wednesday, August 04 2010, 5:24PM
“I totally agree with Pete, New Forest, the writer of this letter is talking out of his backside asa most of those do who oppose hunting with hounds, they come out with statements about hunting yet have never been or seen a hunt, please talk about what you know not what you think.”
by Pete, New Forest
Wednesday, August 04 2010, 9:12AM
“This letter is a joke yeah? The writer claims to know something of huntinng but he says Michael Clayton probably has never been in at a kill? Does he realise who Michael Clayton is? Anyone who knows anything about Hunting does know who Michael Clayton is!
Foxes do not scream when killed by hounds. This is anti rubbish! He says "A rat is killed in a second. One bite at the back of the neck. Otherwise the dog would end up with a bloody painful nose". The same is true of the hound and the fox. They are killed by one bite. Mr Wright accepts that Rats are killed by dogs in this way but tells us its different for foxes?! what rubbish. Its the same for all these quarry species.
Why don't the antis just give up. Its clear they know nothing of hunting!”
by karin, Oadby
Tuesday, August 03 2010, 3:18PM
“The idea of hunting is repellent to anyone with a modicum of decency. Irrespective of the 'kill', imagine how traumatic the chase must be. The car serves as a very good predator of foxes, I am continually seeing young inexperienced foxes either at the side of the road or on it. Fox hunting is, however, a wonderful spectacle and deserves a prominent position on pictures, plates, teatowels and the like..”
by paul, Houghton
Tuesday, August 03 2010, 12:36PM
“fox hunting is a outdated sport If you can call it a sport. Before the ban came in pro hunters used the logic that it was the only way to cull the foxes and keep the population down. Then they changed there stance and said very few foxes where caught. The bottom line is that those who followed it where there to see the hounds rip a helpless fox to pieces.If the fox went to ground they would dig it out and in most cases throw it to the pack. it is and aways be a barbaric past time and it should never be brought back.”
by David, Great Easton, Rural Leicestershire.
Tuesday, August 03 2010, 10:40AM
“And just how many "lucky" hounds find an "unfortunate" fox?!!
The way you antis paint the picture anyone would think the countryside is littered with ripped foxes and strewn carcases, that simply isn't the case.
We all know this iniquitious Bill wasn't introduced to save the obliteration of the fox population. It is not an endangered specie, just a vermin!!”