PalenQ

<Of all the fatheaded ideas dreamt up during the 20th and 21st centuries, the idea that animals - whether foxes or the animals they sadistically and pointlessly murder - have rights has to be up there with Marxism-Leninism.>

I disagree and think that animals do have rights - rights not to be abused (am though i'm opposed to hunting in general i'm not wading into the English fox hunting question and land owners centuries old traditions that keefatnitty rather well defended

that said flanneur i think you really cannot, or hope you cannot defend your statement that apparently there is nothing humans do to animals that laws can make illegal

Michael Vick would love you (NFL star jailed for dog fighting and cruelty to dogs)

and we could re-create Colosseum like lion baiting and wild animal battles, etc.

where do you draw the line - seems like a blanket endorsement of animals have no rights - NONE.

KateIP

As someone mentioned earlier, it is possible to join a hunt for a day. However, only serious horsemen would consider doing this, as Foxhunting is not a 'beginner sport'. The hunt gallops at high speeds, and jumps high and solid fences and hedges. I suppose a less experienced rider could 'hilltop' and follow at a distance. But this is not an activity for a non rider.
There are companies that arrange such tours in Ireland and England. Usually it's a tour of several hunts interspersed with regular tourist sightseeing.

flanneruk

Where on earth can these preposterous "rights" possibly derive from?

PalenQ

where do human rights possibly derive from

same source for both

so you would not outlaw animal torture - if someone wanted to charge money and then torture dogs, etc. to death you would say the state has no right to enter

if so it's quite an outrageous stance IMO

you do not draw any line - we can treat animals anyway we want

Michael Vick would indeed love you

Cholmondley_Warner

Animals don't have rights. Humans have responsibilities. Big difference.

sashh

PalenQ

I'm puzzled.

You started by saying you wanted to join a hunt, but now you are talking about animal rights.

If animals have rights then don't foxes?

PalenQ

please go back and read what i said, really said

i never said I, me, wanted to join a hunt

i was asking if it were possible for a tourist to join a hunt

it's about the last thing i would want to do

though i am personally against hunting i would not legislate it out of existence and would also be attentive to the traditions in place for centuries - that does not mean i endorse it

yet i may like to see what it's all about

so go re-read what i wrote and then you can better judge me

PalenQ

<Animals don't have rights. Humans have responsibilities. Big difference.>

NO difference IMO unless you are saying that people have license to torture animals

like bear baiting in shakespearean times on streets of London - are you really saying that you would not legislate that type of activity out - or would you leave it up to human responsibility, which thru the ages means allowing the lowest of the lowest of moralities do their own thing

perhaps we can have a corgi hunt?

robjame

PQ - I think if you reread your own post you can see the confusion:

<<as a tourist could i ever hope to see a fox hunt or even could i, if i were an equestrian i guess, participate in one>>

As for Animal Rights - I think this was an initiative started by animal activists and maybe a bit of a stretch...
" the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law " (accepted human rights)

PalenQ

robjame
- yes if you look at the first quote where i was not clear in my meaning - but after that someone thought the i then clarified, i thought at least, that i was not personally interested - was asking for general tourists - not I:

<No i am not personally interested but wondered if it were possible for a tourist to participate in an English hunt - i thought it might be totally the privelege of estated folk who have the grounds to hunt on>

robjame

<<Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of the moral community>>

PQ - if these ideas are what CW is against, I think I side with him. These concepts are pretty hard to swallow.

robjame

I think it is a great question (about joining a hunt).
I had an opportunity to ride in a "hunt" in Canada a (great) number of years ago. It was really nothing more than a ride through the countryside (no fox invoved that I ever saw). There was always an opportunity to ride around the fences and ditches.

PalenQ

<<Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of the moral community>>

i don't agree with all of that

animals are IMO property and property owners have a moral and to me legal obligation not to misue, abuse or torture, etc. them - it's not like owning a pet rock

i believe animals can be treated as resources for human purposes - i.e. meat or fish, etc. but should be treated and killed as humanley as possible - i would make some things like fois gras production illegal because it inflicts excessive animal suffering

and i don't think animals, except perhaps L Helmsley's millionaire dog, have any legal rights inherently - people has legal obligations not to abuse them

that said foxes rip animals to death everyday so maybe it's just as just to rip them apart once in a while.

So No if your quote was what CW was objecting to i would to in large part.

robjame

<<Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property,>>

hmmm... I wonder what that does to pet ownership

I have no problem with foie gras as that is my choice (and I do)
I have more problem with people who think I should put up with their pet ownership (much the same as your smoking argument). Their animals yapping, fouling my yard, biting people.

It is interesting that PETA has chosen foie gras (largely a Europen thing) to champion. Ever seen a pig bled? or the conditions in a beef pole barn? or a turkey farm? or chicken factories?

[rant over]

PalenQ

And Canadians slaughtering baby seals by hitting them over the head?

this type of activity leads me to thing that animals have rights not to be so abused especially in the seal thing for the benefit of so few

robjame

<<Canadians slaughtering baby seals by hitting them over the head?>>

Another great example... although isn't it interesting we accept the word "slaughter" for baby seals but we talk about the "deer hunt"? In fact it is even given the euphemism "harvest".

You could almost make a better case for people earning a livelihood by the seal "slaughter". Few need to really shoot deer to live.

As a deer hunter I know what it costs me to "get" a deer each year... and the number of wounded deer that aren't killed cleanly.
But of course, the American public would never buy into that sort of campaign, would they?

It is a lot easier to rail against the fox hunt, seen as the pastime of the rich in a far off land or foie gras eaten by some foreigners who didn't support the war anyway....

PalenQ

sorry i was not aware that hunting down deer fawns was legal

that too, like clubbing defenseless baby seals - this is not a hunt in any sense of the word - should also be illegal in MO

though i am against all hunting i would yield to hunters to keep things as are in deer hunting, etc. because like fox hunting its so traditional part of the culutre, needed or not

clubbing baby seals to me crosses the line even though it may be a tradition going back centuries as well

you obviously draw no line on what humans can do to animals and i disagree, sincerely, with that idea

robjame

<<hunting down deer fawns was legal>>
absolutely... and hunting bunnies, and squirrels, and killing calves for veal, and stealing hen embryos (eggs)
It is all what you are used to and accept because it is part of your culture

<<you obviously draw no line on what humans can do to animals and i disagree, sincerely, with that idea>>
a silly comment... PQ you are better than that

PalenQ

there is IMO a difference between hunts (Fox, Deer, etc) than slaughters - clubbing baby - yes BABY seals without any chase involved

the baby seals sit there on the ice and folks come up and club them over the head again and again until they are dead.

To me there is NO defense of that, illegal or not.

Animals may not have rights on par with humans but how we treat them is a legitimate role of our legal system IMO

and I do respect your opinion, believe me.