Are you boycotting Lush?

[MookySpinge]

I am, but wondered what the rest of you think of their decision to support Hunt Sabs - feel it is on a par with any other terrorist group personally. Should probably do a link but iPhone is behaving badly at the moment.

If a fox can be terrified away by one single gamekeeper, how are they brave enough to decimate chicken populations?

Or is one of those a slight exaggeration?

wtf realesed elsewhere?

wha planet are you on?

only feckless townies do that!

why the hell would you do that?

I give up!

I agree that individual hunt sabs should not harm other animals deliberately.

Here are some other lovely activities hunt people have been involved in, including assaulting hunt sabs
here

'feckless townies'

So imaginative!

Surely even if you have moral objections to hunting you don't just go around intimidating people and animals to make your point, when these people and animals are just out enjoying a perfectly lawful recreational activity?

Why don't they target battery hen farmers, or commercial shoots or puppy farms or people who leave their dogs alone for 9 hours a day or those who transport live horses for meat across Europe. There are not only worthier causes, there are ways of registering your concern for animal welfare within the law that don't involve terrorising people.

er, as previously stated, I am not a townie. Neither am I a middle class wishy washy liberel. I live in a tight knit farming community, and foxes do not do anywhere near as much damage as the provide fun for hunters.

If you are opposed to releasing the small harmless animal (and they ARE harmless, their impact on farming, countrywide, is statistically negligible, despite what one fox can do to one chicken run) - a shot gun to the head should suffice. No risk of gangrene, no having to traipse around looking for them, no poison risk, no snaring - a good clean death. WWhich surely is what hunters are after?

You tell me, Cazboldy, why humane trapping and shooting could not work.

WTF - Boycotting for what, thread should be called 'What are you buying in Lush next week'.

Hunting for food is one thing - Hunting for fun is a complete abuse of our power as top of the food chain, we should know better. All the replies on 'ooh it only a trot around the countryside, harmless fun' display the fair amount of ignorance involved in finding a fox mauled to death by a pack of dogs 'fun'. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Back to the original post of will you be boycotting Lush because they are supporting Hunt Sabatuers then yes i will.

I love lush and get all shower gels/soaps/shampoo/bathbomb etc from there, but hunting is also an issue close to my heart. I cannot understand why, if protecting animals is their aim they would support this organisation over say, the National Trust or the RSPCA (although there are various issues with that one, it is at least a reasonable step)

Not only will i be boycotting Lush, i will be writing to them to take me off their mailing list and giving the reasons why.

It's not just chickens though, deaths of lambs positively soared following the hunting ban - if a pet dog was responsible for that, anyone's pet dog, it would quite rightly be shot.

Although I think the best way of managing that particular problem is to have some alpaca geldings guarding the lambs

Yes, it would be shot.

not chased through miles and miles of land by an enormous pack of dogs and people on horseback, it would be shot.

And for avoidance of doubt I'm talking about perfectly lawful hunting, much of which does not involve spilling a drop of any cute little furry creature's blood, such as drag hunting.

I agree skihorse and drayford, logic must pervail. The law must be upheld.

Sorry if you're muddled raven, in no post did I encourage people to break the law, by so called direct action.

Lobbying is a legal way to have your views heard, and involves contacting your local public representative - and indeed those further away - like the European Parliament. Writing letters, emails, telephone calls and petitions, and meetings are the most commonly used methods.

Trespassing, blocking public roads, creating a disturbance of the peace, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, aggravated assault, GBH, manslaughter, or murder are all crimes, and against the Law.

In no way do I advocate committing these crimes, and breaking the Law.

I know fox hunting / abortion / fur farming / veganism / globilisation / nationalism / even Boden it seems, are all emotive issues, but just to rely on emotion as a Modus Operandi, is just an excuse for for some other destructive agenda.

This is all very well but what about hunt sabs disrupting a lawful recreational activity, intimidating the people (who are often children) taking part - why would any company want to put their name to that? Just leaving aside for a moment the whole fox problem/countryside management thing - I can't believe anyone really thinks it is ok to terrorise people for hunting within the law, just in case they might break the law.

I agree mitchy.

"Look, Dawnybabe, wild animals do nasty things. They eat other animals. Foxes kill animals. And they always will. Keeping your birds secure may be a more reasonable option."

Well obviously.

"Foxes don't kill everything they see out of spite, they do it for the same reason a hunter will not stop at one rabbit - to save having to hunt again tomorrow. We do that too, remember?"

So it's alright then. We all have to kill something to eat/save for later/protect another species.

Glad we've sorted that out.

What was your argument again?

It was that hunting an animal using a pack of hounds is neither a humane nor effective way of controlling a species.

What was yours?

I live rural and don't like fox hunting. If the foxes need dealing with then do it, but don't be dressing in fancy dress and making such a party of it.
I did date a guy who went on hunt sabs for a bit too - until I went along with him once and the vehemence put me off.

I don't think it has to be about whether you are pro or anti hunting to question the morality of hunt sabbing and of supporting hunt sabs. I am not terrifically pro abortion but I wouldn't dream of interfering with anyone's legal right to terminate a pregnancy and I certainly wouldn't contribute financially to any pro life organisation with a history of violent behaviour.

Rubbish analogy I know.

I know what you mean MitchyInge yes, I think that is he point actually.

Pro/anti abortion people can agree that the protesting outside of clinics is abhorrent.

Tis he same with sabs IMO

I think so caz.

But do sabs target clean boot hunting/drag hunting?

Or just the so called legal hunt, where after flushing out Mr fox the hounds politely stand to one side and allow their prey to be humanely shot?

I have alway lived in the country, hunted between the ages of 7 and 13, my father used to raise funds for the local hunt and help with the hounds. We were targeted by sabs when I was around 15, actually specificly me as I was personally threatened with facial disfigurement - so I am well aware of both sides of the story.

As I previously stated I support neither side, but portraying all antis as law-breaking thugs and all hunters as innocent law abiding citizens - just nonsense.

In my teens I worked weekends at a local pub to help fund my horse habit, after a mornings hunt many would come and eat lunch/drink in the pub - often involving games of spoof for bottles of port. I would finish my lunch shift, go home, come back for the evening and the loaded horseboxes would still be in the car park - horses who had run their legs off still boxed up, no hosed down legs, lie down on a soft bed for them - this actually pissed me off way more than the hunting. I called the RSPCA who did little, I lost my job though.

Good post luckyblackcat.

mitchy i get your point - i am with you entirely on the abortion issue

this is somehow different

humans asserting themselves against a creature that cannot fight back... and then flaunting the laws put in place to protect the creature

they think they are above the law - hence others take the law into their own hands