Thursday, February 19, 2009

Shock horror: Cats are evil, fox hunters are providing a social service

Did you know that cats in Britain are responsible for 92 million deaths in the UK every year - surely the scale of the carnage makes them equal to fox hunters? An argument I have recently seen on another socialist blog.
So what is so clever about hunting? What's it all about. I don't really mind hunting if you are eating your catch but even then is hunting all that necessary? Cats of course are natural hunters and carnivores, they do not make choices about whether to mouse or not they act on their instinct.

Is hunting a violent form of recreation? Animals for some animals has resulted un extinction for them e.g. Tasmanian Tiger and the Great Auk. Is this OK? Does it matter?
Some socialists are debating about the hypocracy of people keeping CATS because they hunt and comparing it to fox hunting, hare coursing etc.
Now I don't mind a debate on hunting but I can't be bothered with the argument thay toonies don't understand rural society, I just don't buy that the rural community are all out hunting and striking fear in the hearts of random foxes and other animals that are hunted.

I am particularly against fox hunting, mostly because who eats foxes? If you aren't going to eat it then why would you want to kill it - for fun and sport!

Is being chased for several hours to be killed by a pack of dogs cruel? No, say hunt supporters, citing the top dog of the pack's natural instinct to administer a "quick nip" to the back of the fox's head, which they allege kills it outright. I wonder if they really believe that or just say it to people who are horrified or bemused by fox hunting.

Some have presented research that says the average duration of a hunt is only 17 minutes. The fox does not anticipate death, they say, so is not unduly traumatised by the pursuit. (Glad to hear it - the death is just out of the blue after fleeing for its life, what do they think the fox is running for?)

Pro-hunters point to the alternatives - shooting, gassing, snaring or poisoning - all of which inflict much more pain and suffering on the foxes. Already, 10 times as many foxes are shot each year than are hunted to death, they say.

I just can't accept that hunting is NOT cruel - foxes have no natural predators except man, and is therefore not accustomed to being chased. If there are problems with a fox then it can be shot.

However animal rights activists argue "The quick, clean death of the fox, so joyfully spread by the hunting fraternity is, in the majority of cases a lie. They will say that a fox is always killed by hounds with a quick nip on the back of the neck, thus severing the spinal chord. It may finally die this way, but it is likely that it will suffer multiple agonising injuries before the final 'nip' is given.
Many foxes have been recovered with their innards torn out, but no sign of that fatal nip."

The RSPCA's Alex Ross, for the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, added: "We do not believe that foxes are a national pest or a national problem. We believe fox hunting is cruel and unnecessary. If there is a problem with a fox, then a skilled marksman is the only answer. But killing wild animals for pleasure should not be acceptable in this day and age."

Country sportsmen and women are at pains to point out, however, that they make no secret of enjoying the hunt. Huntsman Jeremy Barnfield said: "It is a sport, and it is one that is very much enjoyed - but it's enjoyed for the chase rather than the kill. "We are doing the farmer a service, we are getting rid of the fox that would kill his lambs or chickens - and we get a good day's riding out of it."

Anyway the idea that cats and their owners are as cruel as fox hunters really is the daftest debate for socialists to have.