Forums > Social Discussion > UK Hunt Ban

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
S'ok.... there's a company in the US that you you will be able to pay to hunt over the internet. They have animals on ranches and you control the site of the gun via the internet and then actually shoot them.

Texas of course.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
Sounds fun! How about Internet Murder! Or Internet Rape! You could start a collective website, offering all the services... "www.reallyf*ckinghorrible.com"..?

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
Im exstatic about this, its taken far too long for this to happen and its about time its been outlawed.

I dont care about the heritage or history of the ''sport'' der is still a defencless littl eanimal gettin torn to shreds at the end which is disgusting.



How bout we line up 300 skin heads on 125cc scramblers with british terriers and dobermans and give the toffs in the riding hats a 30 second lead...that would be fun!

Henry Hill - 'One day the kids from the neighbourhood carried my mothers groceries all the way home, you know why? It was out of respect'...

ahmet_20valve_ahmet(at)hotmail(dot)com
Hope all is well : )

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004


just lost my reply to this.

twice

will come back tomorrow to make some observations that probably won't be that popular here.




cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
That sucks. Even if I wouldn't like your reply I'd still not wish two lost posts on someone. Make sure you do come back.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

May i ask one question what do you think happens to all the dogs on each hunt if its banned........yep you guessed it they get killed because they can never be held as pets so technically by banning it there actually killing more animals. Anyway they hardly ever catch the fox its just the chase they like.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
As I said above, drag hunting will basically replace fox hunting, so they'll still need the dogs and they won't have to kill any of them.

Besides, who says they can't be pets? I know someone with an ex-hunting beagle as a pet.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

Written by: MEERCAT

---

May i ask one question what do you think happens to all the dogs on each hunt if its banned

---

Well, I assume they'll all get shot, like they do after a couple of years when they're too old to hunt effectively. The only difference is that more won't be bred and the cycle won't continue.

I doubt drag hunting will replace fox hunting on the same scale. That said, there really arn't many actual fox hunters in the UK, probably less than a thousand. The rest of the riders at hunts are just subscription payers who are way more interested in a day out on horseback on a course thats unpredictable. They get the same quality of ride out of a drag hunt and will probably switch over when the hype has died down. Hunting is as commercial as anything and there's as much to be made out of drag as there is ripping an animal to bits, so its all a matter of how it's marketted.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

Thought i had better explain my comment more

Hounds are only happy when in a pack, they cannot be kept at home like a normal dog.
Who is going to pay to keep 30 to 50 couples ( thats 60 to 100 hounds for the townies)

There is alot more to this than just a ban on hunting.

Hounds will be put down
Farmers will no longer keep a few horses for hunting

Point to point races will no longer have the backing from farmers, as they no longer keep horses.

100s of people will lose jobs, and if they are employed by the hunt, their house as well.

I CAN see both anti, and the pro side of hunting, but this legislation was not very well thought out.

written by someone on a messg board thought it was very relevent

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
as you've pointed out, nothing is black and white. There is however a lot of disinformation out there about hunting, normally spread by people who've never been on any hunts. There's collateral and job loss when any new law comes in on this scale, but that's life when moving towards a better society. There were job losses and a lot of uproar when the slave trade was abolished, but we seem to have gotten over it now.

As I said, drag hunting would employ the majority of those involved in fox hunting if it is marketted properly. Of course it probably won't, people would rather be emotional martyers than get on with things.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
I never understood the "But people will lose their jobs" arguement.

I understand and respect other arguements but that one doesn't make sense to me.

IF something is deemed morally wrong, than doesn't that trump the employment issue?

"What will happen to the poor slave owners if we free all the slaves?"

"But the poor concentration camp guards will have no jobs if we stop the genicide."

Just as certain jobs become obsolete as technology advances, certain jobs should become obsolete as societal values change.

I mean what ever happened to all the exocutioners, and what did they do with their hoods? Oh yeah, the moved to Texas.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
I promised myself i would not get to involved in any hunt ban debates but i was curious about one more thing having been on a few hunts myself and being surrounded by people that do all the time i can safley say the only marketing this group in society understand is BRITISH TRADITION which yes is silly but do we as a nation want to lose our identity and become run by another? sorry straying somewhat from the subject but i think thats the thought process behind alot of stuff like this



And alot of the people that work for the hunt dont actually kill anything so yes i dont think they deserve to lose there jobs

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
maybe I should disclose my credentials; I was bought up in a hamlet in rural west sussex (farm on one side of the house, woodland on other). I had (recently deceased) farm owning relatives. I attended public school where I knew a lot of pro hunt supporters and participants. I then became a Hunt Sab for several years, have attended about 20 hunts around the South of England, have never been arrested or knowingly broken the law at a hunt.

Hunts can't exist without money, so yes, money is a factor. As far as I know (maybe someone who has one can correct me), the subscription to an average hunt as a rider is over a thousand.

I agree that for some it is tradition, but as NYC pointed out, but traditions come and go as we evolve. There's lots of traditions which we've had in the past, but have gotten to the point where we've been able to get together and say 'hey, maybe it isn't morally right to do this anymore' and passed laws to stop it. There will always be people who protest in such cases. I'm happy to say that I live in a country which has since abolished its traditions of witch burning, corperal punishment, torture and capital punishment. I think it's important for our country to retain some of its identity, personally I'm against loosing the Pound and switching to the Euro. It's good to feel a sense of individuality (provided it doesn't involve unnessecary pain and suffering to other beings).

Now, back to the point. I'm not pro anyone loosing their jobs and livelyhood. I'm not interested in hunting as a class or political issue. I'm regretful that prominant pro hunt supporters have said that they will break the law if the ban is passed, as it tarnishes the whole of hunting community (who even I don't beleive are all evil and not normal living people). That said, I've also never met a violent criminal Hunt Sab, although the group has managed to be tarnished by the acts of a minority (who of course as with football hooligans arn't the dedicated fans who participate week in week out, year in year out, they latch onto it thinking they can use it as an excuse to be violent). So it's ironic to see the tide's turned.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

thats great but i am really confused how you ended up being against hunting with that sort of background

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

Spanner dont take offense at that that whole passage was written by another poster on another site as written at the bottom of my post Sorry shoulds have used "quotation" marks

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

Written by: MEERCAT

---

thats great but i am really confused how you ended up being against hunting with that sort of background

---

It's simple really. I got involved in anti hunting because having looked at the evidence I find it cruel. Of course not wanting to beleive the views of a group of hippies who are clearly biased, I made sure I got to see it for myself. So yes, I have seen from a few meters away foxes disembowled and dragged along whilst still alive in the name of sport, and I still find it cruel. Despite what the Countryside Alliance (who despite claims of "campaign for the countryside, country sports and the rural way of life" have actually spent over 95% of their fund for years on pro fox hunting propoganda) may have you beleive, animal abuse has nothing to do with where you live, what 'class' you're from, how much money you have or any other nonsense factors like that.



As I've mentioned in my previous posts, very few people actually hunt at hunts (red coats). The rest of the riders are subscription payers who come from all backgrounds (generally richer because it is expensive, but it is possible to do otherwise) and locations. Then there's people who follow on foot, who get dressed up in their wax jackets and go for the day out. As a totally unsupportable statement, most foot followers arn't from the country at all, they just fancy themselves as being and like to have an excuse to take their prestine 4 wheel drives off tarmac (if you ever go to a county show or farmers market you'll understand what i mean). Then there's terror men, whose job it is to block holes to stop foxes going to ground in chase. If they do, to dig them out or put dogs down them to get it out so the chase can resume.



Of course, I'm totally biased. As with any information you read on the internet, I emplore readers of my posts, anti hunt and pro hunt propoganda (which exists on both sides) to take them with a pinch of salt and to find out for yourself. I can only really report on my observations and that is that most pro hunt are nice normal people, as are most anti. Thus I really don't want any arguments with anyone over facts which have been debated to death previously. I'm totally aware that there's a lot of pro hunt campaigners who are very emotional at the moment and for the same reason that I got into animal and human rights (compassion for all other living beings) it's not my intention to play on and provoke.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004

Written by: MEERCAT

---

Anyway they hardly ever catch the fox its just the chase they like.

---

That's the argument that confuses me the most.
If killing a fox at the end isn't what people enjoy, there wouldn't be much of a fuss about banning it, since there are always other ways to make a good chase.
I imagine running a hunt involves a fair amount of logistics, but I don't reckon it'd be very difficult to set up a scent trail for the hounds to chase that didn't end with a fox.

If that were to happen, no foxes would be getting torn to shreds, there would still be jobs and whoever likes riding around on a horse can still do so. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?


Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I've read interviews with pest control officers who endorse hunting since it's supposedly a much cleaner way of killing the fox to keep the population in check. They say that ultimately, it's much more humane than a shotgun (they might not do the job cleanly, leaving nasty wounds), or a trap (the fox either starves to death or injures themselves trying to get out, which also leaves a nasty wound).

But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
I don't have an opinion on fox hunting - I can't, I don't know a damn thing about how they're carried out, whether they're actually need agriculturally or economically or anything about the distress caused.

However something that I've picked up (not here but elsewhere) is that the hunting argument doesn't seem to have much to do with animal welfare.

Labour's election promise to ban fox hunting seemed to be centred around "getting one over the toffs," using fox hunting to hook votes due to the misconception that only toffs are involved in hunting.

A couple of interesting things that I noticed in an article (I think it was in the Telegraph) were that it is illegal to hunt hares with dogs but it is legal to hunt rabbits with dogs. I doubt the dogs care about the difference. The research behind the Bill acconoledged that snaring causes more distress than hunting with dogs yet snaring reamains legal. Why these inconsistancies if this Bill is about welfare?

I don't want an argument and I appolgise if any of the facts are wrong but it's a point of view that hasn't been mentioned

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Posted: 22nd Nov 2004
Domino: it's a fair comment. Hunting has been on the labour manefesto for a long time, including when the conservatives were last defeated. It's also only really getting this amount of press coverage since Labour have threatened to use the parliament act. As you say thou, I'm much more in favour of banned snaring than I am hunting - without a doubt it causes more animals pain and distress. Factory farming causes way more suffering than fox hunting, but it's not on the front page of our newspapers. Your average anti hunt person isn't vegetarian let alone vegan, so yea, it is incredibly silly to get so worked up about such a minor thing when there's way more pressing issues. However, we're now at a stage where it may be banned, we're at a stage where for whatever reason it is being debated and therefore it is a great oppertunaty to get it over with. It takes a *lot* of time and effort to get laws passed like this, especially when we have a body of undemocratically elected people who ratify laws and who in this case don't agree for personal reasons.

Bovril: It appears you have much to learn young monkey. It's for the same reason that we can't all just hold hands instead of having wars - the minds of people who are upset and worked up arn't rational ones. But yes, drag hunting is extremely simple to operate using the existing hunt infrastructure.

Hunting isn't of course about population control, its far more effective to just do lamping with a shotgun if you're into population control. I don't know whether the hunt I used to witness (who shall remain nameless) was particularly incompetant, but on the 20 or so hunts i attended they made 2 kills. Without sabs there that figure may have been as high as 15. Some days they simply didn't get a chase at all. Not getting a chase can be a problem, especially when you have VIPs like royalty there. Some hunts have been caught red handed breeding foxes to be released so a chase can be ensured (i've personally seen a fox in a crate on the back of a terrior man's pickup which we found on a roadside). I don't personally beleive foxes need controlling, but if people continue to insist on eating meat and farmers who don't properly fence off their area insist there is a problem, I'd much rather it be done by a professionally trained marksman than hunting.

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
glad i went away overnight.

flid expressed pretty well what i wanted to say:

Written by: flid

---

Of course, I'm totally biased. As with any information you read on the internet, I emplore readers of my posts, anti hunt and pro hunt propoganda (which exists on both sides) to take them with a pinch of salt and to find out for yourself. I can only really report on my observations and that is that most pro hunt are nice normal people, as are most anti. Thus I really don't want any arguments with anyone over facts which have been debated to death previously. I'm totally aware that there's a lot of pro hunt campaigners who are very emotional at the moment and for the same reason that I got into animal and human rights (compassion for all other living beings) it's not my intention to play on and provoke.

---

well said

i'm pro hunting as i do not believe it is cruel.

in my opinion hunting with a pack is less like lots of humans chasing a fox around and more like lots of people chasing a pack of hounds around that are hunting a fox - i.e. the humans don't actually do the hunting, they just follow dogs that do the hunting for them.

as for keeping hounds after the packs are broken up, this is simply not possible for most.
they are not pets, they need lots of exercise and they are expensive to keep in good health.
they will be destroyed.
beagles make great pets - but a beagle is *not* a foxhound!

the argument that the fox population is stable and self-regulating, i don't buy into personally.
the information used to back that argument up is usually the foot and mouth disaster - fox hunting was postposned during this period to try to help contain the disease and at the end of the crisis, the fox population had not increased significantly (we would expect it to have increased if fox hunting was an effective population control method).
this argument fails to mention the increase in the use of snares and traps during the crisis (both of which in my opinion are far crueller and definitely more painful methods of killing animals).
not to mention the fact that fox population figures don't seem to account for the apparent rise in the number of foxes living in urban areas...

i personally don't believe there are any more humane methods of killing a fox than a hunt.

flid has expressed his views eloquently and although he continually says he is biased (which i undoubtedly am too), i think he has done very well to keep this bias in check and put his point across honestly and concisely.

so i would like to also explain where my bias stems from, and it is this:
my overriding concern is the ultimate target for the 'anti-bloodsport' campaigners.

pressure groups do not disband overnight because they have achieved thir main goal.
these groups will now move their prime target to the rest of the fieldsports - stag hunting and game shooting will be targeted next.
fishing will be on the agenda further down the line.
will they go further?

the crux of the hunt debate is not if the method of killing is humane or not - if this was the main point, the anti-hunt lobby would be lobbying to replace it with a more humane method to 'reduce suffering' but it is not - it is happy to see foxhunting banned and know that it will be replaced by traps and snares which i believe to be far crueller methods of pest control.

the base argument in all this is 'the activity uses animals to provide humans with pleasure and is therefore morally wrong'.

if the campaigners keep applying the same line of thought - 'this activity invloves putting an animal through stresses that we could prevent by simply choosing to make the activity illegal' - i wonder where it will all stop...
with this as the base premise, how is something like horse racing any less 'cruel' than hunting?

horse racing is a big money business that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs (including all the bookies) and gives millions of the betting public enjoyment.
but several horses a year are put down due to being injured in races - even if it is one horse a years, why does human enjoyment come above an animal's welfare?

is the practice of keeping pets morally right when we see there is an excess in such animals and the extent of suffering of the unwanted thousands?
take a look at the number of terminations necessary at dog shelters around the country each year and tell me that the breeding of animals for pets does not cause unnecessary death and suffering...


i don't like where this legislation leads nor the message it sends by being passed in this way

i think the use of the parliament act stinks in this case and since it is the only application so far, i have deep reservations about the act itself.


cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004

Written by: NYC

---

I mean what ever happened to all the exocutioners, and what did they do with their hoods? Oh yeah, the moved to Texas.

---

if there are days when NYC doesn't like being teased, then he should probably do things like lighten up on Texas.



glass houses and rocks you know

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
I never said I don't like being teased.

You can make fun of me, my city, my state, my country. I certainly do.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004

Written by:

---

the base argument in all this is 'the activity uses animals to provide humans with pleasure and is therefore morally wrong'.

---

I think the argument is more activity that involves animal cruelty as a means to provide pleasure to humans is morally wrong. I can't categorically prove in this post that hunts involve animal cruelty, I have seen it though (which as this is a family board i won't post details). There's lots of info available online, including from more respected groups like the RSPCA. The average rider at a hunt doesn't get to see the actual kill, they can be hundreds of metres away in adjoining fields when the kill is made. I don't beleive that foxes are killed by a quick nip to the back of the neck, there's enough autopsy evidence available to prove this and the very fact that it's not uncommon for domestic animals to get killed by fox hounds proves that the hounds arn't always as 'professional' as you may think. I've seen out of control fox hounds running across major busy roads before, and remember an instance (caught on video) where the hounds caused an intercity train to slam on its breaks.

I think you'll find many people involved in anti fox hunting are already involved in other groups, but there's a reason why charities focus on one issue at a time - its harder to get support if they have their nose in too many issues at once. The main Human Rights charity that i'm involved with (including chair of my uni group for the previous 2 years) is Amnesty International, whose mandates specifically states that it must remain politically impartial. AI is not anti war, it's not anti dictatorial governments, it's not pro democracy. This is really important, because despite what the personal views and allegence with other groups of its workers, it enables it to do a lot more work and gain more access to a hell of a lot more countries than other charities and NGOs. You'll find a lot of people involved with specific anti hunt organisations also involved with the League Against Cruel Sports, whose manefesto also includes angling. I have no problems saying that I don't like angling.

So why fox hunting? Well, for me it isn't a class issue, but i'm sure at some level for people it is and it has helped it along. There's also the fluffly wet nosed syndrome - foxes look a bit like dogs and dogs are cute and lovable. Pigs (for most people) just don't hold the same appeal, so its ok to eat them. Is keeping pets potentially way more cruel than fox hunting? Definately. There's way more cases of animal cruelty that are easily proved. Is the pet trade in trouble? I'm glad to say that you can no longer buy cats and dogs from pet shops now, only from breeders. I'm also glad to see that awareness of animal rescue shelters has risen and more people now adopt rescued animals. But other than minor things like that, I don't think so, for the same fact that I don't think that fishing is in any threat in my lifetime - it's so widely accepted and a part of peoples lives. Double standarded? Absolutely, but that applies to so much in life (of which i'm certainly not exempt - amonsgt other things it isn't proved that plants don't feel pain and i eat an awful lots of them).

As for the parliament act, I have a problem with it too - it defeats the whole point of the house of Lords. That said, i think the house of lords needs a complete overhaul, it's supposed to uphold democracy yet isn't democratic in the slightest.

Yikes, i should really do some work at some point

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
Coleman, good points well made..

But how is it morally justifiable to gain gratification from watching a pack of dogs tear a fox apart? I understand the pack needs to be followed - but by people who come from miles around just to chase it? What about the practices of... smearing the foxes blood on people's faces and stuff like that?

I haven't been on a hunt, nor would I as I think it would probably upset me deeply, being as I am a bit of a wimp and with a great love for animals. I realise this may seem hypocritical and fair enough. I do, however, live in a vallage where a hunt often passes through, where there is game breeding and shooting and just down the road there is a large tract of land where deer are bred for stag hunting (or so I'm told). I don't believe it is right to breed animals for human pleasure. I also do not believe it is right to attempt to control natural populations of animals.

However idealistic this is, I feel that humans and animals have an equal right to space, food and life. If I was being attacked by an animal, that's a different matter, but if an animal was getting at my crops/livestock I don't believe it is justified to kill that animal by any means. Discourage it, fine, make it so the animal can't get at your stuff, fine, but it's a bit like saying "You stole a loaf of bread - death penalty", or even "You robbed a bank - now you must die".

The fact is foxes and dogs and every creature lived in the wild at some point, and it is only human intervention which now places them "outside". We put them there - it was our introduction of enclosed crops and livestock that made them "pests". What gives us the right to kill them? What gives us the right to take their lives? And, above all, what gives us the right to gain amusement by watching them die, in a drawn-out and probably quite terrifying manner?

Sorry if I'm offending anyone, and I realise my argument isn't sound and probably doesn't follow. I can see some pro-hunt points, and have read this thread with great interest, but nothing yet has swayed me. Horse Racing IS a cruel sport by nature. Shooting a horse when it falls because you've pushed it to jump and it can't make it - that's cruel. I'm not denying it. Much better that horse could live free as it would have thousands of years ago. Impossible in today's society, of course, and that horse was bred for human enjoyment (or, more to the point, human profit). I don't think that's a good thing. You wouldn't "breed" a human baby to see how fast it would learn to walk, and then destroy it after a few years or when it reaches maturity. Sentience is sentience, at least in my eyes. And in the eyes of many, many people.

A beagle isn't a foxhound, no. I hadn't thought that through, sorry.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004

Written by:

---

'the activity uses animals to provide humans with pleasure and is therefore morally wrong'

---

*quickly minimizes the Sheepheaven.com window*

Oi, and if you think smearing fox blood on faces is bad, in the south they make you either drink the blood or wear the testicles around yer neck of the first deer you kill.

Not to piss on tradition, but I always thought it was one of the silliest 'sports' I've ever seen. If you need an exscuse to dress up and ride your horses around, why not have some sort of cross country race instead? I hunted when I was growing up a few times. We hunted deer, boar, doves, quail, and ducks. And what was killed always ended up on the dinner table, and we tried to waste as little as possible. I can't say that _everything_ was used. I don't hunt anymore, I just don't have the urge to shoot defenseless animals that I don't really need to survive. It's pretty boring too, perhaps if they shot back or something.

First intention, then enlightenment..
Ars Pyronomica

" Life is programmed. Whether death is programmed or not is yet to be determined."

Posted: 24th Nov 2004
I love horse riding. I got to stage 3 of dressage.

Does that make me a girl?

A good long gallop across heathland... give me that any day. It would just be ruined for me if an animal had to die to give me that pleasure.

I hit a fox with my car once, and I had to go back and make sure it was dead. Not fun.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 24th Nov 2004
i'm all for the banning of killing in any form but in many cases killing foxes is nessecary. And in some cases hunting with dogs is the only way to do it. Shooting can't be done in some places its just impossible. I think all sides of this argument are being nieve (including myself probably) in this age we cannot continue this unjust sport as wide spread as it is. But we cannot simply say ta da ban it totally without any form of alternative being offered. I don't know enough avbout it to get all preachy its just some people feel so strongly about it they flat out disgard the opposite view which can't take us forward only backward. I hope i haven't trodden on any no doubt highly sensitive toes.

Does this site actually exist? Or am i talking to all my other personalities?

Posted: 24th Nov 2004
i bet you wanted to smear its blood all over your face though didn't you?

go on, admit it...

sorry - obviously a joke in bad taste but when you couple your comment on the (imagined) rituals of the (obviously crazed and debauched) huntsmen bonding (through the pain and suffering of an animal) by painting their faces (with the warm blood of their latest kill) and then go on to say that you've never actually been to see a hunt with your own eyes, i have to wonder where you got that absurd idea from...


cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 24th Nov 2004
Anti-hunt websites (unreliable, obviously), and the testimonies of people who have been on hunts and loved them, and described these things to me in more detail than I ever really asked for.

I don't think huntsmen are crazed and debauched (although their attitude whilst riding is pretty disgusting and I wouldn't put it past most of the people I've seen on hunts). I've never been to see a hunt but I live in a small village that the hunt passes through several times a year, so I've seen enough to know that I think it's a pretty pathetic tradition.

To me the fact that grown men want to charge around the countryside dressed in ridiculous outfits pursuing a creature to its death with as much glee and pleasure as they do sits quite easily with these rituals. Obviously not in all cases, but some hunts, certainly.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 24th Nov 2004

I always thought the outfit wasnt that far off a dressage outfit but with a red coat??

cant look that silly