Lemming - you may be too young to remember this, but farmers used to try your solution.
They shut up all their chickens in intensive rearing units.
And people like you shouted "that's cruel - let them run free". And there was a big backlash against factory farmerd chicken. And of course, it was compeltely tasteless anyway, so nobody in their right mind would want to eat it anyway.
To my knowledge intensive rearing units were cramped, and thats why they were called cruel, that was far from what i suggested.
The things your sophisticated urbanites
I would hope your not grouping me in that, i live in the countryside and foxes are beautiful in the wild, and it is very cruel to hunt them.
So what exactly do you propose the farmers do to keep the predators at bay from their free-range poultry? Do you have any ideas? And are they both effective and cost-effective? Or are they both hopelessly impractical and guaranteed to drive the farmers out of business?
How stupid do you have to be not to realise that placing a solid wooden fence will keep foxes out and free range chickens in, no need for cruelty to anything then.
the best way to stop predators taking their poultry. It's easy really. You have an ongoing cull of predators, to keep their numbers down at a level where they are not going to cause you major problems.
The predators come back, again and again, try keeping them out then they wont come back as they cant get anything, and get it through your head their numbers wont go sky high, the population can only go as high as the availability of their prey, which as it is must be pretty high if these chickens are such easy prey for them.
And no, they don't wait until the foxes are actually taking their poultry and then "call in the cavalry". They take active steps to prevent it, all year round. If they're out with their gun and they see a fox, they shoot it.
I disagree with that practice aswel, and this isnt helping your case, they shoot foxes without them doing anything, thats even worse.
prevention of predation before it takes place
And its not the only way so dont use this arguement.
The farmers want us there to control their pests.
You said yourself its prevention, their not even pests yet and your still killing them, they havnt done anything you just go out and 'prevent' them from doing anything, by your logic i can kill you to 'prevent' you from killing a human(which you may or may not do, see the problem here?).
We want to be there because it is fun.
Tell me something i dont know.
If you pretend that it is ONLY happening because it is fun - then you are mistaken. If you deliberately turn a blind eye to this fact havign had it explained to you, then you are willfully misrepresenting the truth. But then, I'm sure you'd never do that, woudl you now? Perish the thought!
You wont consider any alternatives, because it would prevent your sport and fun, your just cruel and a poor excuse for a human.
Every piece of meat I eat comes from an animal that has been killed. I don't have a problem with this.
When you eat the fox maybe i'll let you kill it, you dont, you do it for fun.
It is there to fulfil a useful rural function - the control of predators.
Its not the only method, its just the most fun method for you, and thats why you do it no matter what you claim.
40 or 50 horses don't cross your land in winter without causing it a certain amount of damage. If they're doing you a favour, you tolerate that damage. If they're not, why should you?
They wouldnt have the damage if they kept the foxes out in the first place.
Back to the Rentokill man who kills cockroaches, is that OK? If so, does it make any difference to how OK it is if he actually ENJOYS killing cockroaches? Is it a job which should only be done by somebody who hates every moment of his job?
Of course it's not.
If you can come up with a way to keep them away i'd prefer that to killing them, same goes with foxes and there is a way to keep them out, you just wont look for it.
But your sophisticated urbanites have suddenly decided that there IS a problem with it.
Again with that word, use it on someone else please.
What's cruel? The fact of killing, or the method?
Killing when theres a reasonable alternative without killing, the fact its done for sport only, and the method is very cruel, you dont hunt the cockroaches do you? Your not content to shoot foxes you must hunt them, that says something about you.
An argument that I will take from a committed vegetarian, but not from somebody who happily includes dead animals which SOMEBODY has killed in his diet, and doesn't condemn THAT as cruel.
You dont kill the fox for food, you do it for fun, nice try.
because if a vegetarian thinks it's OK to kill animals to protect his vegetable crop
I'd hope the vegetarian would be smart enough to protect his crops without the need for shooting innocent creatures before they even touch his crop.
So they fall back on "why kill foxes at all" - but we've already covered that, have we not?
Yes and you confirmed you do it for fun, before the fox has even done anything.
Then others at all just spit venom about us being rich (I'm not), privileged (what does that mean to somebody who has no chip on his shoulder then??), or making fatuous comments about red coats (which seem quite popular in the context of other British institutions such as the Brigade of Guards and the Tower Warders - so plainly there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a red coat).
Never heard the red coat arguement, cant say i agree with it, and its mostly undertaken by rich people but i dont give a shit if your rich or poor your still barbarically cruel.
Now, Lemming dear - do me a favour will you and stop trying to tell me what I think.
You admitted all you needed to, and i never said what you think, i said what i think about your practice that you admit is for fun.
But to present your own prejudices about me as though they were fact and refuse to listen to what I actually say about the matter is not the way to carry on civilised debate, is it? And I thought these forums were about civilised debate?
If i wasnt listening i wouldnt be responding to you, i'd be saying im right your wrong nanana, did i do that? I think not.
But I'm happy to buy a steak in Tesco and eat it
Again you eat the steak not the fox, and you dont hunt the steak for fun.
including those urban sophisticates who are baying for the criminalisation of my healthy outdoor winter recreation (and probably bemoaning the couch potato tendencies of their own uncouth offspring in much the same breath).
Again with those words that dont always apply, and theres a large difference between not being a couch potato and being a hunter for fun, just because its an active 'sport' doesnt give it anymore credit.
If the charge is that I think I am above animals, and the fact that I am prepared to kill or be responsible for the death of animals is sufficient proof of that charge, then yes I'll plead guilty to that
Actually i think the charge is you kill for fun and ignore alternatives that dont involve killing and so wouldnt satisfy your bloodlust, if you wish to raise a fox for the sole purpose of food and kill it please do, but dont find a wild one and hunt it for fun and no other purpose, it is cruel no matter what you claim, there are alternatives but you dont wish to explore them, or even look for any because you like the way it is. Theres a difference between raising cattle for steak and hunting a creature for fun, the problem is you fail to see it, you are not defending anyones livestock as you said earlier you do it for prevention aswel, the fox doesnt have to do anything to incur your wrath except be living, if people are reincarnated i hope you come back as a fox.