Re: FN-FORUM [OT] Hunting and Countryside (was drip dry moby)

date posted 26th September 2002 14:25

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darran Shepherd" [EMAIL REMOVED]
To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: FN-FORUM [OT] Hunting and Countryside (was drip dry moby)


> > Its not exactly a massive industry and there are many who
> > will believe that an industry based on what can be percieved
> > as cruel practices shouldn't exist. Be interesting to see if
> > anyone makes comments about that.
>
> I guess. It just means that there'll be more poor bastards forced to
> leave the countryside they know and love to try and find a job in a city
> somewhere.
>

In this day and age, when we have technology to allow more home or local
office working, it is ridiculous that this should end up being the case. I
hate the fact that most employers insist on having us in their offices when
we can often work better from home w/o the attendent wast of travelling
time, increased physical dange of dealing with the tube or the M25
(substitute local alternatives) and the resulting waste of resources and
increase in pollution. There is little reason why most of us can't work in a
moer amenable environment where we would be more productive, saner and maybe
a little greener :)

> You do have to. That's why the fact that hunts will take out the
> problem animals are, in my opinion, better than flushing every fox,
> shooting them and eradicating them completely.
Which ultimately is what would happen if those people who object to
profiting from animals had their way.

>
> I had an interesting chat with a guy who runs a bird of prey centre the
> other week. He was talking about an ofsted inspector that went along to
> a rural primary school. He took his childrens favourite book, Peter
> Rabbit, to test the kids reading ability. Half way through reading it
> one kid pipes up "It's not the rabbit you should feel sorry for, it's Mr
> McGregor. We had rabbits go through a whole field of cabbages. We shoot
> 'em!". To which one of the little girls in the class replied, "Shooting
> them's no good, we gas 'em."
>
Just look at all the evil things that Bugs does to poor old Elmer! Can
anyone doubt the evil inherent in these creatures :)

The big problem with these matters is that there are too many people who are
so divorced from the reality of nature that they like to believe a fairy
tale sanitised view. Wonder how long it would be before they started to
complain when their children are starving after the farmers and custodians
of the countryside have all been hamstrung.

> Not at all. I think this has been one of the most productive and
> respectful discussions I've ever had on the subject.
>
I know I've enjoyed it :)

> I couldn't agree more. It was just a point outlining the fact that
> there's a lot of fuss being made over banning one pursuit when many
> others cause just as much, if not more suffering.
>
> I guess it's kind of analogous to Blair and Bush war-mongering against
> Iraq because they have an interest in it (oil), whilst ignoring the fact
> that North Korea is pretty much identical in it's possesion of WMD and
> dictatorship.
>
You can't fault the human being for its dilligence to the ideal of hypocracy
:)

> I wonder if the fact that we both agree on the real issues, just
> disagree on some of the finer points of the hunting issue is more
> widespread?
>
> Maybe the countryside alliance really would get a lot more support if
> they split the hunting aspects from the other issues.

I've always felt that. Unfortunately, those for whom the real issues are
important are often too busy trying to keep their heads above water, while
those who have the time to pursue hobbies/sports such as hunting do. After
all, if they were too busy, then they wouldn't be hunting :)

Also, the growth in urban population and the blinkered view it often has
makes for a hard time in getting a point accros. The fact that the media
rather go for a story that tickles their views/readers immediate fancy
doesn't help, either.

I'm not really sure what the answer would be.

Mark