Seems to be the case with you at least.

Maybe you are finding it pointless as you refuse to see anything for what it is, other than your interpretation of blood lust as I can not agree with you and think you mistake everything as 'blood lust'. Others seem to agree your interpretation brings up a joy of killing, this seems to be quite acceptable to you and that is beyond me. It is your blind sighted view that is pointless unless you can see other things come into play it is not for the joy of violence or blood shed
here is the meaning of blood lust
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...8151&dict=CALD
Ummmm there have been people around thousands of years before society as we know it existed, you can still take courses here today on Aboriginal culture where you go out into the wild and are shown how to find food many are roots and berries and leaves. And nomadic traditions would come in to place dont you think?
Survival is one thing and torture for profit, is another, do you not agree?
This is the barbaric trade that is going on for a bit of fur. Is that not wrong?
Cannibalism has occurred and has been used as a means of survival.
To seek revenge is not blood lust again, your thoughts on this are too closed minded for anything else other than 'blood lust' Everything that involves killing to you is 'blood lust' it is not the case if it is for survival it is just that, to kill for the sake of it and no other reason and be able to smile about it that is blood lust. If those people in the video can live with themselves after what they did to that feeling animal then they are truly people to be scared of as they have no remorse for making an animal suffer for profit and unnecessary.
Do you not see that somethings based on survival do not bring joy but are required to survive and no joy is taken in it. American Indians killed buffalo but did they do it for fun, no they didn't, did the English yes they slaughtered them to almost exstiction. There is a big difference.

well said agree

Not super human, human and one that is allowed free thinking.


again the interpretation you have for blood lust Gnasher is mixed in with survival and here is another one trying to get you to see the difference



No you say blood lust find the definition on it and see you are saying you are getting a kick out of killing, that is what i have been trying to say to you, your interpretation of it is wrong, open up and see that not everything is blood lust.
We are not animals the same as a dog, cat or horse. I am thinking you dont fully understand human abilities compare to animals.
For starter humans have a higher thinking ability than that of another animal, we have free thinking, have the ability to know right from wrong, to think of consequences to our actions, make up a moral stand point, other animals do things out of instinct or conditioning, humans do have the nature vs nuture debate too but we can add that we can think things through, I don't think animals can do it to the extent we do otherwise we might be the ones on the leash or in the zoo. In that being said I have said for many years we may have higher thinking but that we are ones that have the ability to inflict more damage to our own kind, other animals and to the environment and just because we have a higher brain ability does not mean we put it to good use and are destroying ourselves and the earth even though we need it to sustain life.

I would like to see some evidence too, it is easy for those against it to increase the hype on the pain and those who are for it say it is not painful or cruel. But to be chased and running for your life and in most cases killed all for the name of sport I find quite horrific in any circumstance.

I used to be pro hunting, but am now anti hunting and have been for years. One thing that made me very anti was how cruel some hunt members can be - to humans.

The wonderful photographer of wildlife, Eric Ashby, was persecuted by the local hunt for a long time when he tried to stop them from crossing his land. They made his last years on the forest a misery - this was all local news and knowledge, there is no doubt that this occurred. Dead animals were left on his doorstep and so on.

I've seen video footage (I do not believe it was edited) of a fox being dug out and then, alive, chucked to hounds. It was dead presumably within a short time, but it was not given to one hound and was not shot before hand.

It is almost impossible to envisage a tired chased fox being caught by one hound and killed instantly. Depends on how the pack is running, it could happen - but just as likely for one hound to grab it and the others to pile on so that there is no one hound who can despatch the creature quickly. I suspect one scenario is as likely as the other...

Ethologically, foxes are not evolved to run for miles, so it's not surprising they suffer when forced to do so.

Wys
x

good post and you raise some interesting points. i have seen similar footage and literature regarding the often violent death of the hunted fox.

i find it hard to understand how anyone can call themselves an animal lover and yet actively participate in hunting.

from the information i have seen and researched on the subject, as with most things, you get the extremists. so it is not just the fox who is the victim in this. the foxhounds can often be left with life threatening injuries following a hunt. horses too will be pushed to the limit as the 'thrill' of the chase takes over. some hunters will stop at nothing until they have sought out their prey and seen it ripped to pieces.

and these same people will view squirels, rats, pigeons, crows, magpies etc as vermin and in their eyes these creatures need to be destroyed. i suppose that is the major difference. i feel every animal has a right to life and i don't see that we have the right to take that away just because it may make our lives a little easier.

Woohoo, you can call me by name Its directed at me. And yes I shoot vermin regularly too.

i kow what you mean, would be interesting to hear some proof that they die within a second

i agree, some people think you have to witness something yourself in the flesh to understand it... i feel i can do that by reading and watching footage.

excellent post! i agree.

i agree with that all, and to me, that is no animal lover! as for injuries etc to the hounds and horses, i found this information.

that is way to high!

I watched it.

Is there a particular reason for skinning them whilst they're still alive ???

I would image its cheaper than killing them first and no blood on the skin. Economics I expect.

No-one can ... because of course the fox does suffer all those emotions. I don't think even the most avid hunt supporter could claim that the fox suffers only very briefly. It was the fact that hounds do not dispatch a fox quickly, but tear it apart, that caused me to think again about being a hunt supporter. Having never been in at a kill, I had no idea that dogs do not always kill immediately - frequently their prey is torn apart, or eaten alive.

Having said all that, I still consider this death to be preferable to a much longer, slower more lingering death at the hands of badly placed lead shot.

Whatever. I can't be bothered to argue any more ... I've got some serious partying to do !!

I know that were I ever in the situation where I was dying of starvation and for whatever reason there were no plant food sources available, and my only choice of eating was killing an animal, I would kill it with my bare hands if I had to and celebrate with a war dance. If this makes me a cruel, cold blood killer, revelling in the death of some poor innocent animal, then so be it, I am The Devil Incarnate for wanting to save my life and live at the expense of a helpless animal's death.

Now ladies, I think it might be Group Hug Time ... happy new year and all that?

I really hope that this next decade is better than the current one.

A VERY HAPPY HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL DOGSEY-ITES !!