Hunting culture

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Hi I

I have lodged a petition with Downing Street in the hopes of creating a law to ban the sale of birds, being kept as pets in the UK. If you agree, please take some time to sign the petition via the link below: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanBirdsAsPets/ The petition reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Create a law to ban the sale of birds in the UK Keeping birds as pets is un-regulated and results in birds being kept in cages too small to fly for the majority of their lives. It also contributes to the import of illegal bird types. Keeping birds is unnecessary and cruel and we would

"Gathering" is when you gather berries, apples, or even flowers that are found in the wilderness. Rachel Carlson wrote about deliberate genetic extinction of plant species in her book Silent Spring. The book that stated that the chemical found in non-organic soil that creates a sour taste in carrots is aldrin. "Hunting for meat" sounds like something we learned from the cave men! It should be against the law. Especially when foreigners are often not able to distinguish a "game park" deliberately stocked by rangers from a nurtured "wildlife preserve" where preservationists are trying to raise some youngsters.

Down with anthropomorphism.

OKOK this is gonna be a hard one to argue! Proposition: Does the government has the right to ban meat production/retail and consumption? To make it a little less contentious just consider that the following premises are true and then make a hypothetical judgment: - One may receive a fully sustaining diet without the consumption of meat - All additional vitamin, mineral and protein supplements are accessible and available to all. - Anyone wishing to raise a child is able to receive adequate education. - Consideration to those currently employed in the meat and animal product industry is due given (Not an immediate ban).

My Views on Fox Hunting Fox hunting as a sport is a barbaric reminder of human nature. A creature that is defenceless to our will killed under the name of sport is sickening. Arguments for the specific incidences of culling are not comparable to such

Oh no, here we go again - the animal loving People For The Ethical Treament Of Animals (PETA), the famous liberators of chickens and all things furry, the people who gave us the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign; have taken their nauseating political propaganda to new condescending heights. Except this time, PETA have gone too far, they have accused parents who feed their children meat of being nothing but child abusers . I'd like to know how PETA gets off trying to equate loving parents with being akin to kiddie-fiddlers. It's an insult, and it's enough to turn someone like me into an animal hater. PETA tries to defend their highly dubious position by arguing that they are speaking on behalf of children - according to PETA, children;

A hunting friend of mine once told me that a major reason of why he hunts is deer population control. That, since we've removed the predators, who would normally take care of the prey population, hunters are now taking their place. Let me tell you a story. This is actually one from one of my childhood books, and it applies to the subject very well. Two animals, say a rabbit and a squirrel (since I can't remember the species) found a piece of cheese while walking through the forest, and started fighting over it. Before the arguing became physical, one of them said, "Wait a minute. This will get us nowhere. Let us go and see the wise fox; he can tell us what to do." So off they went.

Animals cannot, and should not have any rights whatsoever, and that is a good thing to. The whole concept of ‘animal rights’ is a pathetic fallacy perpetrated by groups and individuals who have an overblown sense of kindness towards animals. In fact, animals that exist in society are the property of humans, which is why they do not deserve to have legal status. Imagine if animals did have legal status – all hunters whether in the Amazonian jungle or the Scottish highland could be charged with murder, a road kill would be a ‘hit and run’, or worst, manslaughter, pet ownership would be viewed as an illegal slave-market.

The land does not need managing so the hunter can't use that argument. By definition, nature manages itself and best be left alone. A law against hunting is not the most effective approach. That is pitting one value system in gladiator battle with another. The dominant one should dictate, is the effective message. Instead, the anti-hunter should work to share his value system with the hunter. If successful, then nobody will hunt. But there are many side benefits, not easy to predict, but the general thrust is in the right direction. You can think of many. For example, you will appreci

If an impartial observer from some distant planet had visited England on February 19th 2005 with the brief to recommend the banning of one sport, he would have seen two sports highlighted in the news. One was the first foxhunt meets carried out under the new anti-hunting legislation. He would have witnessed thousands of law abiding decent people from all levels of society meeting to celebrate their oneness with nature, and distaste for legislation foisted on us by a vicious left-wing set of backbenchers. These ignorant people have participated in the most disgusting pact with the government whereby they ditched their principles about such items as the Iraq war, hospitals and education, on the promise that they could "have a go at the toffs".

I am more than a little bemused by the sudden influx of 'country people' wishing to defend fox-hunting. I grew up in a mid-Norfolk village within which the Hunt used to meet, the hounds were kenneled in a village about 3 miles away. I remember these strangers to the village turning up with their hunters wearing black and red coats, I also remember the villagers mostly ignoring them. The Hunt died a natural death some time past and nobody, at least as far as I'm aware, grieved its passing. No local jobs or businesses were affected and life went on as normal. What did upset us village dwellers was the low pay of the agricultural workers, the destruction of the hedgerows, the pollution caused by 4x4's, the selling off of land for development and the migration of sons and daughters to the cities. Where exactly was this bucolic paradise and where was this countryside alliance when we needed them? Probably ensconced in their city apartments no doubt.

Hurray for Graham Harvey's article "Hunting Animals is Wrong," with which I agree wholeheartedly. Shame on all you hunting advocates who use spurious logic to justify your blood lust. I am not talking about hunter-gatherers, who actually NEED what they kill, but about hunters who use unfair methods simply to kill off the dwindling wildlife of the world, and don't NEED to eat them -- the hunters who have plenty to eat without killing wildlife. The only need hunters from the developed world have is to prove their masculinity, their dominance, as if there is no other way to assuage their insecurity than killing hapless animals. As Paul Watson said of those who hunt wolves in British Columbia, "You must have some serious sexual hangups."

Rupert Isaacson's insightful comments regarding the unsiversal appeal and socio-environmental benefits of hunting are right on the mark. How can this government sign the Rio Declaration which commits them to guarantee the survival of traditional hunting in environmentally sensitive areas, and then turn around and ban hunting in their own country ? Isaacson also mentions changing the language of debate which is crucial. The famed professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky said "He who controls the language of debate wins the argument". The rural community has been forced to debate in the bizarre, Orwellian language of our opponents where those who love animals and wildlife are portrayed as cruel, poor people are portrayed as rich toffs, those who devote their time and money to improving the environment are depicted as selfish, etc.

Douglas Murray, Rob Passmore have really got on to it, so let me just say somthing, Douglas you think you know what you are talking about but you dont and your plainly an 100% IDIOT! Rob.... knows what he is talking about. That is 100% of the truth

First of all, all of you PROFESSIONALS are about to take the biggest sit-down of your pethedic professional lives. You idiots! God put them on earth for us to eat not to look at and have fun with. We have been doing it for years! What is wrong now. NOTHING! You just sit at home looking for somthing to complain about so you put it on hunting! Well let me tell you somthing, you shoulda picked another subject because you didnt just mess with some hick hunters, or some stupid sotherners, you just messed with an angry bee hive and you ass will be kicked so hard you dont know what has hit you. WE may live 1,000 miles apart but you know what all hunters stand together and we didnt get this right from backing down.

Is it wrong??????

Why is Fox hunting a good idea?

The days when we had to hunt to survive are gone. Yes, some say that hunting is good for the countryside - foxes are 'pests' - but so are domestic cats - killing 300 million smaller animals a year - do we race them across peaceful countryside for miles and then tear them to pieces? I can't believe that all hunters take part in such barbaric sports to "control fox numbers" - its a sport - people enjoy it; people enjoy cruelty - that I find immoral. If we better protected farms and stopped destroying foxes' habitats then they would keep away and stop being 'pests'. Mr J Andrew