/ Fox Hunting...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 29 Dec 2012
I've noticed there's differing opinions on here, putting aside anything to do with class and status and all that rubbish, is it really true that the foxes are generally killed quickly by being bitten on the neck by one of the hounds, as I read on a pro/or at least not anti-fox hunting website?

Hopefully the people who think fox hunting is okay and have some experience of it, might contribute some information.

This is not a troll, but a genuine inquiry after knowledge.

Post civilly folks...?

Ta,

Tim
Wonko The Sane - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: I think you're asking too much to get honesty from those who hunt with this question.
Some deaths would be quite quick. Others more lingering.

I'm sure the hunters will have you believe its mostly over quickly and the anti hunters that it mostly is lingering and horrible.
The truth, as often is the case, is probably somewhere in the middle.
mikekeswick - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: Do foxes always kill rabbits etc quickly?
You have to realise peoples veiws on these subjects have been heavily skewed by media influence for a long time. We live in a society that in general hasn't got a clue how nature works.
Short answer is that the fox will be killed quickly most of the time.
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:

No scientific idea but from what I have seen personally I say no they do not die quickly. I personally find hunting with dogs as a sport to be outdated and cruel and should never be brought back in a modern society.

I once was invited to a hunt in 2002 what I witnessed and what I saw still lives in my mind today. It was basically a bunch of hooligans running around the countryside. In my particular case the fox escaped (or so it thought) outwitted the dogs, the crowd, the hunters etc until the heavies down the hill arrived with shovels to dig it out of the ground. They had watched it with binoculars from the carpark. What happened next was brutal they basically fed it to the dogs.

A tradition maybe but some traditions deserve to be forgotten. Its not even a sport as they don't give the fox a sporting chance or accept it when it wins.

Botswana has just passed a law to make sport hunting illegal. Just goes to show how outdated our country is. Hunting is apparently one of the biggest contributors to their economy and they have decided that an animal is worth more alive then dead. They want to make their national parks etc photographic zones.
Wonko The Sane - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to mikekeswick:
> (In reply to Timmd) Do foxes always kill rabbits etc quickly?
> You have to realise peoples veiws on these subjects have been heavily skewed by media influence for a long time. We live in a society that in general hasn't got a clue how nature works.
> Short answer is that the fox will be killed quickly most of the time.

I think most people have some idea of how nature works.
Yes, animals in nature do things which, if they had the ability to think them through could be considered cruel.
They don't have that ability so it's pure survival.
We DO have this ability, which makes killing for sport wrong.

Many animals essentially rape their mates.
Should we adopt this too?
Wiley Coyote - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:

The honest answer would be it varies; sometimes quickly but never as quickly as you would like, plus there is always the fear I would imagine a fox feels during the chase. However, on the other side I'd say it is probably much faster than poisoning or trapping and very often faster than being shot and wounded by so-called 'expert marksmen'.
If you believe that fox numbers have to be controlled then hunting could be the least worst way.
anonymouse - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:
> I've noticed there's differing opinions on here, putting aside anything to do with class and status and all that rubbish, is it really true that the foxes are generally killed quickly by being bitten on the neck by one of the hounds, as I read on a pro/or at least not anti-fox hunting website?

It depends if you count being chased by men, horses and dogs as part of the killing. I imagine death by firing squad is quick, but there's all that damn waiting beforehand.
rockmonkey1 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: I do have experience of this, and i have to say its great that you asked the question in the way you have, as this to me is the point of the whole debate.
It is always basically discussed as a society or class thing which is a whole different matter!
The key point to recognise is that it is very rare that a fox will be caught by the hounds and then escape them, they will be killed and to be fair it will be quick. The alternative is to shoot foxes, which i find a lesser alternative. My reason for this is that if a fox is healthy and cunning (as they should be) it will escape the hounds, whereas a healthy fox will never escape a bullet.
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to rockmonkey1:
> . My reason for this is that if a fox is healthy and cunning (as they should be) it will escape the hounds, whereas a healthy fox will never escape a bullet.


So how do you explain what I witnessed on the hunt I went along on?
dale1968 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to rockmonkey1: nearly caught a fox in my garden I would have killed it as quick as possible, but it left my beloved saxony duck half dead and 3 chickens all of which I had to use a hand axe on to finish them off.
Foxes are beautiful animals,but they do dish out the pain, they hunt and get hunted, death is seldom easy, either because of old age or been shot or caught by a pack...
rockmonkey1 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M: I cant explain it, it is wrong. I can imagine as with anything there are bad people who take part in all activitys. I think that the hunting has become less about the actual hunting of foxes and more about status and horses. This too is wrong.
I know it probably sounds like im contradicting myself but its not a straight forward debate. My grandad was in charge of a pack of hounds years ago (not a toff, just a builder with deep roots in the countryside) for him it was all about natural selection and discipline. which is what any hunting should be about.
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Can I ask you a question because I don't get your attitude. I live in an area with a large fox population. Foxes are seen in my garden daily and we keep hens and have had ducks. We have never lost a hen or duck to a fox. My reason is I introduced the hens etc it's my responsibility to look after them. I have fixed proofed the best i can. They roam in the garden freely during the day and every evening we go out round them up and lock them away in a fox proof pen. It's a hassle to do it everyday but it's done and we have never lost a bird.

I don't get the thinking to kill a wild animal that is doing what nature intended? You have added the birds so why not put in the effirt to protect them and be in awe of nature andnot want to kill it. If a buzzard took your pet bunny would you leave poison out?
yeti on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:

spot on :)
dale1968 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M: Bully for you, what do think I DID put invites out?

guess what it was 10am all I saw was the cockerel shooting up in the air, I was outside in seconds, and was a foot of catching it as it struggled to get out, with a call duck in its mouth, guess what if it's determined it will get in(this is a back garden with neighbours) I used to say we 'never lost a bird' best of luck to you
and just to correct you, buzzards are generally carrion feeders or earth worms rarely do they take bunneys

Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to dale1968:
> (In reply to Alan M) Bully for you, what do think I DID put invites out?
>
> guess what it was 10am all I saw was the cockerel shooting up in the air, I was outside in seconds, and was a foot of catching it as it struggled to get out, with a call duck in its mouth, guess what if it's determined it will get in(this is a back garden with neighbours) I used to say we 'never lost a bird' best of luck to you
> and just to correct you, buzzards are generally carrion feeders or earth worms rarely do they take bunneys

My post was in relation to your attitude towards the Fox, the fox acts on instinct you have given it an easy meal by your own actions of introducing the birds. So far I have not lost a bird but when I do...guss what?? It will be my fault not the fox, not the hens, not the area I live in...but my fault for making a mistake and not protecting my birds properly. I have neighbours and I am currently looking at fox proofing the fence line to stop the foxes from digging under the fences. Its a relatively cheap and easy task just requires time.

Your post shows that you are not willing to take responsibility for the death or your own pets/animals. I am fully aware that if I ever lose a bird it will because I got lazy, or made an error of judgement that resulted in the fox (nature) taking advantage of an easy situation presented to it. I will not however retaliate by killing a wild animal that has taken advantage of the situation that I have presented to it.

Your are correct Buzzards are "generally" carrion feeders but for your information a Buzzard will take a bunny, having grown up with Buzzards for 20 years out of my 29 on the planet I can confirm that wild Buzzards will go for and will take one I have seen it with my own eyes whilst out monitoring numbers etc.
Tom Hutton - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> No scientific idea but from what I have seen personally I say no they do not die quickly. I personally find hunting with dogs as a sport to be outdated and cruel and should never be brought back in a modern society.
>
> I once was invited to a hunt in 2002 what I witnessed and what I saw still lives in my mind today. It was basically a bunch of hooligans running around the countryside. In my particular case the fox escaped (or so it thought) outwitted the dogs, the crowd, the hunters etc until the heavies down the hill arrived with shovels to dig it out of the ground. They had watched it with binoculars from the carpark. What happened next was brutal they basically fed it to the dogs.
>
> A tradition maybe but some traditions deserve to be forgotten. Its not even a sport as they don't give the fox a sporting chance or accept it when it wins.
>
> Botswana has just passed a law to make sport hunting illegal. Just goes to show how outdated our country is. Hunting is apparently one of the biggest contributors to their economy and they have decided that an animal is worth more alive then dead. They want to make their national parks etc photographic zones.

I've never wanted a 'Like' button as much as I do for this post - well said that man.
dale1968 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:
I know and not one over 500g fyi,heres a link to the RSPB. As you have all the answers but appear to know more than the RSPB http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/b/buzzard/feeding.aspx I watched them for for over 30yrs well bully for me eh! we have done everything that's reasonable I don't take responsibility, it s just life they kill we kill, that's hunting I would much rather eat something hunted than kept
do i care how foxes are hunted? no
john arran - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:

Whether, how much or for how long a fox will be in pain as a result of a hunt is entirely irrelevant and a convenient but spurious argument.

Neither is it about land or population management.

Allowing (or even encouraging) people to derive enjoyment from the pursuit and killing of a living creature is just fundamentally wrong.
gunbo - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: I grew up in the countryside have rode horses for years lived and worked on farms. I've seen all sides of this argument before (including going on hunts) I disagree with fox hunting. The fox is chased for hours until it gets to its earth/den at that point it'll be cowering in its hole then dragged/dug out and maybe killed quickly but most Probally grabbed by multiple dogs and torn limb from limb as they fight over it this does happen. Or it's ran to ground until exhaustion takes over and then it can't go any further at that point it'll be grabbed by multiple dogs and torn to bits. Shooting them I have seen done multiple times and its always been quick none of this chasing until exhaustion takes over dragging out of their home or tormenting them in general.
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to dale1968:

I havent got all the answers, I was shocked at your original attitude to the fox. It killed your duck so you wanted to kill it if you caught it. You should take responsibility but we all have different morals so I accept that there is no right or wrong.

My take on it, nature will adapt and take advantage of easy situations and by putting a prey item in a confined space with no fox proofing is asking for trouble. My way around this (which is working for me so far) is to fox proof the garden and round the birds up each evening and confine them to a fox proof pen. My next method that I am aiming for is to stop foxes from getting in to my garden totally. I plan to do this by fox proofing under the fences to stop them from digging underneath.

I introduced the birds to my garden, an area with a fox population. I enjoy watching the foxes and the hens so it is my responsibility to keep them separate and safe as best I can.

Buzzards can and will take a rabbit. Read the Scottish National Heritage document on Common Buzzards, the BBC, search google, youtube, many books etc. I agree weight and size plays apart in the Buzzards prey and what it can hunt but as Rabbits come in various sizes just like all animals I stand by a Buzzard can take a rabbit.

jonnie3430 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Allowing (or even encouraging) people to derive enjoyment from the pursuit and killing of a living creature is just fundamentally wrong.

In your opinion; backed up by what, your feelings? In my opinion, and backed up by history and practise throughout the world, people derive a lot of pleasure from "pursuit and killing of a living creature," even of our own species. Bury your head in the sand by all means, but you really should accept human nature for what it is.
John_Hat - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to john arran)
> [...]
>
> In your opinion; backed up by what, your feelings? In my opinion, and backed up by history and practise throughout the world, people derive a lot of pleasure from "pursuit and killing of a living creature," even of our own species. Bury your head in the sand by all means, but you really should accept human nature for what it is.

You can, on the basis of history, opine that it is human nature to make war, kill thousands, rape, pillage, thieve and murder all to the glorification of personal power and greed. You could add that it is also "human nature" to kill thousands of other animals, keep others in intolerable conditions, and accelerate the extinction of many. If you still had breath after all this you could mention poisoning the planet and defiling its natural flora.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, or support it. In fact I would hope that we would do everything in our power to stop it.

We might be the peak predator on the planet, but we've also got intelligence and can choose to act not just for our own self-gratification, and define, for ourselves, what is or is not acceptable.

Obviously that line in the sand is drawn in different places for different people, but generally I'd say that most people find other people inflicting pain on other animals for their own amusement to be abhorrant(1).


(1) Unless their tastes run that way, in which case, get a room :-).
john arran - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:

Based on very simple common sense and respect for the world we live in. It really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

I'm under no illusion that the world will change much any time soon but plenty of other barbaric practices people have done for a very long time are no longer seen as acceptable so one day hopefully torturing animals will go the same way.
IPPurewater on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: I saw a fox torn to pieces in Langdale in the eighties by a pack of hounds. It took a minute or so for the thing to die and it was obviously rather stressed before the first dog got to it.

jonnie3430 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
> [...]
>
> You can, on the basis of history, opine that it is human nature to make war, kill thousands, rape, pillage, thieve and murder all to the glorification of personal power and greed. You could add that it is also "human nature" to kill thousands of other animals, keep others in intolerable conditions, and accelerate the extinction of many. If you still had breath after all this you could mention poisoning the planet and defiling its natural flora.
>
My point entirely.

> Doesn't mean I have to like it, or support it. In fact I would hope that we would do everything in our power to stop it.

As we don't it suggests you are in the minority, or that other opinions have greater power.
>
> We might be the peak predator on the planet, but we've also got intelligence and can choose to act not just for our own self-gratification, and define, for ourselves, what is or is not acceptable.

Climbing is self gratifying. I choose to do it and get really cranky if someone tells me I can't, I have never been fox hunting, and don't live in a fox hunting area, but can understand that they'd get cranky when people that haven't fox hunted, don't live in a fox hunting area and have no more connection with foxes than with lambs, say that you can mass produce, kill and eat one with little thought to the welfare of it, but you can't kill the other which feeds on the first (amongst other things,) that the same people are encouraged to grow.
>
> Obviously that line in the sand is drawn in different places for different people, but generally I'd say that most people find other people inflicting pain on other animals for their own amusement to be abhorrant(1).

If this was the case there would be a fair few more veggies!? It's human nature, deal with it. Or go against it, but then you'd be in the wrong because you'd be acting against human nature.

jonnie3430 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
>
> on but plenty of other barbaric practices people have done for a very long time are no longer seen as acceptable so one day hopefully torturing animals will go the same way.

Yet the change is to spending your day stuck in front of a computer screen, earning enough money to pay for sky tv, a fancy car and a mortgage is now seen as a worthwhile way to spend your working life? Great new world for the masses this is. (The masses have always suffered anyway...)

Not torturing, fox hunting. You may class fox hunting as torture, but it is not. They do not set off chanting "lets go torture a fox to death!" They track it down and kill it.
jonnie3430 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Allowing (or even encouraging) people to derive enjoyment from the pursuit and killing of a living creature is just fundamentally wrong.

But it's in people's nature to enjoy it! How can you not allow people to enjoy something in their nature? (Christians have tried this with sex for years, see what it did for them...)
John_Hat - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:

Are you seriously arguing that if, to take a random example, I see, say, some old lady attacked in a street I would be in the wrong if I went and did something about it, and that I should just "deal with it", as its "human nature".

The big difference between climbing and, say, fox hunting, is that the person you are choosing to harm climbing is yourself. In fox hunting the thing being killed is not the animal who is choosing to do it.

Incidentally, based on your opinions to me, and others on this thread, I would be grateful if you would export yourself somewhere a long, long way away and re-apply for admission to the human race as and when the opportunity arises.
deepsoup - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to mikekeswick:
> (In reply to Timmd) Do foxes always kill rabbits etc quickly?

I'm pretty sure they kill rabbits etc. without a human audience gathered round to get their vicarious jollies from it.
jonnie3430 - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
>
> Incidentally, based on your opinions to me, and others on this thread, I would be grateful if you would export yourself somewhere a long, long way away and re-apply for admission to the human race as and when the opportunity arises.

Not a very nice thing to write! Because I disagree with you and have spent the time illustrating my point you respond with that? I need to re-apply to the human race? You sir, are a loony.


> Are you seriously arguing that if, to take a random example, I see, say, some old lady attacked in a street I would be in the wrong if I went and did something about it, and that I should just "deal with it", as its "human nature".

No, not my example at all. My example is if you hear from someone, or read somewhere (that may or may not be biased, you choose,[hint 'it's biased,']) about "something," that sounds bad and you decide that the "thing," should be stopped without trying it out or speaking to anyone involved in it.

If in your example, you did that and found that the old lady had just stolen the attackers child, what would you do?
>
> The big difference between climbing and, say, fox hunting, is that the person you are choosing to harm climbing is yourself. In fox hunting the thing being killed is not the animal who is choosing to do it.

Don't forget sport climbing, that harms the rock and I am anti that. I take it you are vegetarian then? You don't wear leather, or use any other animal products that cause the death of an animal? If not stop being a hypocrite.
John_Hat - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:

Honestly, can't be bothered to argue the point with you. have plenty more important things to do. In this case, two wash loads to finish before Lady Blue comes home from work, and am mid-way through re-oiling the worktop.
John_Hat - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to John_Hat)
> [...]
>
> Not a very nice thing to write!

Compared with what I was actually thinking, it was a model of decorum.
Jim Hamilton - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
> I'm under no illusion that the world will change much any time soon but plenty of other barbaric practices people have done for a very long time are no longer seen as acceptable so one day hopefully torturing animals will go the same way.

what are the UKC antis views on shooting and fishing etc
Goucho on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: I got arrested many many years ago, for dragging a Hooray Henry from his horse, and kicking seven shades of shit out of him, after he hit me across the face with his riding crop during a fox hunt in Derbyshire, because I ran in front of his horse (I was out running).

I think it's fair to say though, that being chased by 20-30 dickless, chinless wonders on bloody big horses, accompanied by a hundred snarling barking dogs, is hardly a quick a stress free way to die.

Maybe we should set up a new kind of sport, which involves 20 - 30 Inner City gang members, accompanied by a hundred Pit Bulls, chasing a an old Etonian through the streets of Moss-Side at 2 in the morning!!!!



redsonja - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: the foxes are generally torn to bits. its disgusting. we are supposedly a nation of animal lovers. but some people seem to think its ok for big people on big horses to chase after small animals and kill them in a sickening way
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Timmd) the foxes are generally torn to bits. its disgusting. we are supposedly a nation of animal lovers. but some people seem to think its ok for big people on big horses to chase after small animals and kill them in a sickening way

We are not a "WILD" animal loving nation. We love dogs and some love cats and maybe a few like hamsters but thats it. We are not even as forward looking as Botswana when it comes to wildlife protection laws!!!!
redsonja - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M: yes, you're right. there are many second and third world countries who make our "first" world county look like something out of the dark ages. i am always embarassed to tell people i am english!
loopyone on 29 Dec 2012 - host217-42-138-50.range217-42.btcentralplus.com
In reply to heidi123: I always get embarrassed of the 'right on', 'soap dodging', 'tree hugging' lefties who are dragging this country to the dogs by their ridiculous mission to make everyone in the country hold the same views as them.

Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Alan M) yes, you're right. there are many second and third world countries who make our "first" world county look like something out of the dark ages. i am always embarassed to tell people i am english!

It makes me sad as well, make no mistake if the elephant or the lion or the tiger was native to the UK it would be extinct. It would be seen as a pest that needed to be controlled before it murdered someones chickens!

There is a Scottish conservationist called Roy Dennis I went to see him a few years agao give a talk about Osprey and wildlife conservation etc He got on to global views and he said himself that he is embarrassed giving advice to other countries especially emerging and 3rd world countries about wildlife conservation when they ask what we do in Scotland and the UK as a whole. Unfortunately attitudes to wildlife doesn't seem to have changed much since man destroyed our populations of wolfs, bears, lynx etc and has put many other species on the brink.

The UK and its constituent countries nees a whole sale change in views on wildlife for things to get better. A group of anglers wrote to the environment minister asking for a cull of beaver in Scotland to stop them spreading to England and destroying our rivers and fish stocks. They have also called for a cull of Otter!! People of this country make me sick some times!!
TheDrunkenBakers - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Timmd) I got arrested many many years ago, for dragging a Hooray Henry from his horse, and kicking seven shades of shit out of him, after he hit me across the face with his riding crop during a fox hunt in Derbyshire, because I ran in front of his horse (I was out running).
>
> I think it's fair to say though, that being chased by 20-30 dickless, chinless wonders on bloody big horses, accompanied by a hundred snarling barking dogs, is hardly a quick a stress free way to die.
>
> Maybe we should set up a new kind of sport, which involves 20 - 30 Inner City gang members, accompanied by a hundred Pit Bulls, chasing a an old Etonian through the streets of Moss-Side at 2 in the morning!!!!

Haha, funny. But in all seriousness, I dont generally agree with the notion that all fox hunting is perpetated by posh twits on expensive ponys. Like badger baiting and hare coursing, many of the imbeciles are inbred ne'er do wells with very little between the ears.

Nevertheless, I applaud your creativity and hereby add my vote to make this a national sport. I also volunteer to become the lead 'huntsman' and any animal killer who manages to escape the clutches of the bloodthirsty hunt shall be senselessly and unsportingly dragged from the relatively safety of their home and then bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.

Perhaps after a good season I would earn a CBE.





Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to heidi123) I always get embarrassed of the 'right on', 'soap dodging', 'tree hugging' lefties who are dragging this country to the dogs by their ridiculous mission to make everyone in the country hold the same views as them.


No one has come across like that in this thread.

What I hope for in a modern supposedly progessive society is that we can learn from our mistakes and adpat our behaviour and our views. Some activities may be traditions but as society changes those traditions become outdated and need to be changed or amended.

Fox hunting with hounds is one of those for me. Its an activity that isn't needed and serves no purpose in a modern society.

Talking about wildlife and land management etc. Our natural heritage belongs to the nation and is for the enjoyment of the country and its current and future populations. With the damage that we have done to the native wildlife over the years we should have learnt our lessons by now and adapted our behaviour accordingly. Action seems to only be taken last minute and with prestigious wildlife i.e Buzzard, Otter, Red Kite, Osprey etc they all got to the verge of extinction before we did anything about it.

Our wildlife conservation laws are aimed at pleasing the wealthy land owners and the few. The laws should put an onus of land owners and land managers i.e game keepers etc to maintain healthy native populations in progressive native eco systems not to maintain landscapes in artifical states. Lamd owners should be seen and also see themselves as guardians of our natural heritage and not owners of it able to sell it and dictate which animal lives and which one doesn't.

By now as a nation of people in a supposedly first world country we should be able to live alongside our wildlife and realise that in a lot of situations non lethal control measures can be used and should be used first before repsorting to control by death.

Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:

"The shooting of wild game for sport and trophies is no longer compatible with our commitment to preserve local fauna," (Botswana Ministry of the Environment, 2012)

A major point to look at in terms of revenue the selling of hunting licences is second only to the mining of diamonds for the economy of Botswana and they have banned it. Shows you how forward looking they are as a nation when it comes to wildlife protection and conservation. We in the UK should be ashamed.
Bobling - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Anyone? Should shooting and fishing be banned too?
redsonja - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M: i am ashamed. this is what i meant when i said i am embarassed to be english. i wasnt trying to force my views on anyone.
robmack - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Bobling: I'm against fishing for Salmon with a shoal of shark
USBRIT - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:I used to follow the Blencathra foot pack ..as it got you out on the fells.. Most times the fox escaped.. good for him. I now see little hope for the fox population in the UK now that shooting, gassing and trapping has taken over from the fox hunts . I guy I used to know in Burmingham for example worked in pest control ..he often killed up to 30 foxes a week ..found mainly under garden sheds.. Many more than most fox hunts used to kill in a year.I support the fox ..its a superb animal .I now do not support the killing of foxes by any method ,but the carnage that has now been inflicted on this animal caused by the anti hunt capaign I really do find disgusting.One example that the anti fox hunt people approve of ..get a whistle that imitates a rabbit in distress,when the fox runs towards you blast it with a shot gun..When a farmer for what ever reason wanted Baders removed from his land it was only possible with the use of terriers to catch the Badgers alive and unharmed and relocate them . Of course now that also is illegal...so is a sometimes used alternative method gassing the whole set.Hunting foxes with 40 hounds is easy to see and an easy target for protesters ...but think of all the many more foxes (and badgers) that are now being slaughtered in private due to the success of the anti.
USBRIT - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to USBRIT: and by the way many hunters are not that interested in the kill ...those that ride horses usually just like to ride horses and others like to see the dogs work (as with sheep dogs).In my experience more often than not the hunters were disappointed when the fox was killed and the hunt was over.More pleased when a fox gave a great chase and escaped...as he was there for another day.Sure beats getting trapped or poisoned
Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Bobling:
> (In reply to Jim Hamilton)
>
> Anyone? Should shooting and fishing be banned too?

Me personally I would like to see all hunting for sport banned, but, as that is not likely to happen I realise that a compromise is the best solution.

For me I disagree with hunting with hounds and never want to see it legalised in this country again. Its an activity that has been and gone and as a tradition it should be forgotten. Other modern control methods non lethal and lethal should be considered with non lethal considered first and have an actual scientific acknowledged merit.

I disagree with a lot of game estates in their current format, the breeding of animals purely to be releasesd, chased out of the bushes and then shot is morally wrong. I disgree with the rearing of non native wildlife on these estates and releasing them in to the wild to be shot etc. I disagree with the maintaining of the moors and uplands in an artifical state etc etc etc

I dont understand fishing catch a fish pull it out of the water and release it!! sounds odd to me even though I did course fish quite extensively throughout my teens. Havent fished for about 10 years now though, other than a few years ago caught a red fish for tea while sea kayaking and wild camping in the 10,00 Islands of Florida.

In an ideal world all hunting would stop but I am willing to accept that some people like it for some strange reason, so would accept carefully managed hunting seasons of sustainable native stocks, with carefully managed controls on licences and numbers with humane methods. Chasing a fox with 30 hounds 20 blokes on a horse and 100 people on foot carrying shovels and sticks and screaming like a teenager at a party is not humane and not needed in a civilised and modern society.

Alan M - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Alan M) i am ashamed. this is what i meant when i said i am embarassed to be english. i wasnt trying to force my views on anyone.

Dont worry about it I think the other poster was just trying to get a rise from you. It was quite clear from the context what you meant with your post.
stroppygob - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: Fox hunters are the lowest form of scum.

Give me twenty of Hell's Angels on Dirt bikes, and a pack of Rotties, and let me hunt the c*nts in red jackets, let's see how much fun they find it.
james mcclung - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd: The fox will be killed quickly
it will escape unharmed or be killed un like other methods
fox hunting is just like ratting no one bothers to much with that
Bobling - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:

Why the venom?
jonnie3430 - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to Bobling)
> [...]
>
> the breeding of animals purely to be releasesd, chased out of the bushes and then shot is morally wrong.

I don't understand how you can say this is morally wrong? We have changed entire species by breeding to make them more suitable to be farmed so that they and the 100 generations before and after will never be released, only fattened up as quickly as possible before being killed to go in some crap burger. Is this morally right in your world? There is no survival of the fittest. Hunting is more natural than a factory farm and some animals in a disgusting condition that will be slaughtered for your chicken tikka wrap or hot and sour ribs.
>
> In an ideal world all hunting would stop

It depends on your ideal world. Mine is with a bit more space so I can grow my own fruit and veg and fish (not for the sport, because I love the taste of it!) a pig at the bottom of the garden for scraps and Christmas and if I'm offered a leg of venison from a friend that stalks, then I'll happily take it (and not turn it into sausages or a burger.)
JSA - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:


I used to live on a working farm and from time to time the local hunt would cross onto the land and would worry the livestock.

One new year hunt crossed onto the land and we were ready with the shotguns, between three of us we dispatched 7 hounds. The hunt threatened prosecution but given that they were actively discouraged by my mate(the farmer) by way of letters and warnings that if hounds crossed onto the land they would be shot, it didn't get any further.

My opinion is it's a barbaric 'sport', my mate on the other hand doesn't particularly like foxes and says they should be shot, but the hounds distressing his livestock is more of a concern.

The local hunt no longer goes near his land!
anonymouse - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to rockmonkey1:
> The key point to recognise is that it is very rare that a fox will be caught by the hounds and then escape them, they will be killed and to be fair it will be quick.

Quick? How long, exactly, is the fox chased?
Ridge - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Alan M) yes, you're right. there are many second and third world countries who make our "first" world county look like something out of the dark ages. i am always embarassed to tell people i am english!

Yep, I often look at third world shitholes where lopping arms off with machetes, necklacing with car tyres, emptying your AK into the neighbours hut then chainsawing off a rhinos horn while it's still alive are commonplace and wish England was more like that.
anonymouse - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
I think you may have missed the point.
Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
>
> I don't understand how you can say this is morally wrong? We have changed entire species by breeding to make them more suitable to be farmed so that they and the 100 generations before and after will never be released, only fattened up as quickly as possible before being killed to go in some crap burger. Is this morally right in your world? There is no survival of the fittest. Hunting is more natural than a factory farm and some animals in a disgusting condition that will be slaughtered for your chicken tikka wrap or hot and sour ribs.
> [...]

Easy to claim it as morally wrong it's done as a sport. Hunting is a survival instinct not a sport. The breeding of animals and maintaining them in an artificial wild landscape to only benefit them, while other native wild creatures struggle and decline in those environments is morally wrong.

>
> It depends on your ideal world. Mine is with a bit more space so I can grow my own fruit and veg and fish (not for the sport, because I love the taste of it!) a pig at the bottom of the garden for scraps and Christmas and if I'm offered a leg of venison from a friend that stalks, then I'll happily take it (and not turn it into sausages or a burger.)


You have missed out the rest of my post which clarifies that I accept hunting and will always accept hunting but just not in its current format. For what it's worth I agree with most of what you say.
jonnie3430 - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
> [...]
>
> Easy to claim it as morally wrong it's done as a sport.

But if the bird or deer is then eaten is it still a sport? I'd rather eat deer that's been on the hill than deer reared in a factory farm.
Trangia - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
>
> >
> One new year hunt crossed onto the land and we were ready with the shotguns, between three of us we dispatched 7 hounds.

Well done!!

You thereby lowered yourselves to the same level as the hunters.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
>
> But if the bird or deer is then eaten is it still a sport? I'd rather eat deer that's been on the hill than deer reared in a factory farm.

I don't know if it's a post I made on this thread or the other but generally agree I'd rather hunting was from sustainable wild native stocks with proper hunting controls in place ie licences, off seasons, number controls etc than how it is currently managed on estates.

My gripe with current practice in game estates is that the landscape is maintained artificially to promote the game/hunt species. The uplands should not look how they do hence why other native upland species are in decline. Landowners are guardians of our natural heritage the laws of this country should put an onus on them to manage the land to the benefit of our wild stocks with the aim of getting them become sustainable. Too many of our raptors and predators for example are on the brink mainly due to landmanagement practices and pest control. Birds of prey on game estates are persecuted our moors and uplands are practically void of life apart from specifically bred game birds.
jonnie3430 - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:

I would say your argument falls flat when you consider that a farm only looks like it does because the farmer grows crops there, or grass for cattle etc... So these people farm birds or deer? Why is that so different that you think they in particular should be told to protect native species and wild stocks? What has happened to all the hedgerows and copses that were the natural habitat of many species throughout the UK? When are you going to campaign for more hedges on some of the big Cambridgeshire arable farms?
yeti on 30 Dec 2012

there's only one answer... cull the humans


i'll get me coat
Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Alan M)
>
> I would say your argument falls flat when you consider that a farm only looks like it does because the farmer grows crops there, or grass for cattle etc... So these people farm birds or deer? Why is that so different that you think they in particular should be told to protect native species and wild stocks? What has happened to all the hedgerows and copses that were the natural habitat of many species throughout the UK? When are you going to campaign for more hedges on some of the big Cambridgeshire arable farms?

It doesn't fall flat you just didn't ask a specific question. What you point out is the point I'm making land management techniques are the problem. There are farmers and some landowners finding a balance between meeting our consumption needs, commercial activity and improving biodiversity but this is because they personally have that interest. For me our countryside and wildlife protection laws need to be changed to force all landowners, farmers and game keepers to manage the land in sustainable and bio diversity increasing manners. You are able to have domesticated animals, farm animals, wild animals, predators etc living in the same environment. The spaces is there for the competing needs and in many situations the habitat can be shared. Take farmland birds numbers have crashed ie tree sparrows down 94% reason land management techniques!

Going back to land management practices upland game estates are renowned for persecuting birds of prey. Why? money!!!

I am not against anything I just want to see the UK take wildlife conservation more seriously and improve the biodiversity of our natural world.
Wiley Coyote - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Alan M) i am ashamed. this is what i meant when i said i am embarassed to be english. i wasnt trying to force my views on anyone.

No probs. Emigrate.

Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> (In reply to heidi123)
> [...]
>
> No probs. Emigrate.

I think you are being a bit unfair. Think you may have missed the context of the post but never mind!
Wiley Coyote - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)
> [...]
>
> I think you are being a bit unfair. Think you may have missed the context of the post but never mind!


Not at all. Just trying to be helpful. If Heidi is 'embarrassed' to be English subsequently ramped up to 'ashamed' to be English it seems the solution to her predicament to go somewhere she will feel more comfortable and perhaps one day overcome her feelings. After all there is no shortage these days of countries where a UK citizen has the right of residence.
Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
>
>
> Not at all. Just trying to be helpful. If Heidi is 'embarrassed' to be English subsequently ramped up to 'ashamed' to be English it seems the solution to her predicament to go somewhere she will feel more comfortable and perhaps one day overcome her feelings. After all there is no shortage these days of countries where a UK citizen has the right of residence.

I think it's clear in her original post that she phrased her thoughts incorrectly. The ashamed to me relates to ashamed of attitudes.. Her amended post follows me stating we in the UK should be ashamed, which is in relation to my comparison of recent laws passed in Botswana.



redsonja - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge: yeah. and our "first world country" is so quick to go to help, just like in bosnia, rwanda, sierra leone, syria....
Ridge - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Ridge) yeah. and our "first world country" is so quick to go to help, just like in bosnia, rwanda, sierra leone, syria....

Are you saying we should or shouldn't get involved, as your examples cover just about any combination of the two options?
Ridge - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to anonymouse:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> I think you may have missed the point.

The point being Botswana has better standards of animal welfare and conservation than the UK? I'll bet it doesn't, the local markets will be stuffed full of tasty endangered species, no matter what their government claims.
Alan M - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to anonymouse)
> [...]
>
> The point being Botswana has better standards of animal welfare and conservation than the UK? I'll bet it doesn't, the local markets will be stuffed full of tasty endangered species, no matter what their government claims.

Thats not the point. The point is in the direct quote taken from the Botswana Ministry of the Environment. The point is that a country a lot poorer than the UK has taken an activity which in terms of revenue is the second highest contributor to the economy of that country and made it illegal. They now feel that the said activity is not consistent with their modern aims and aspirations for conservation matters.

Whether they implement it fully in 2014 and whether the law has teeth or not is a side point at this moment in time. What it shows is forward thinking in relation to wildlife protection and conservation.
happy_c - on 30 Dec 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNKfucd0HYo

Have no experience of fox hunting, but f*ck being chased by this lot, that instead of being exited to feed, want to kill me! At my mates farm they are shot, a lot. Not because they kill chickens as there are none, they go crops, but they piss the local kenel owner of sending the dogs mad snooping around. How ever they also get pissed of because there are too many rabbits! Ironik and a bit wierd me thinks!

Im not sure how 'efficient' it is as a culling method, as opposed to sitting there waiting to shoot one, all week every night etc so i wont comment on that.

One quesiton though,

Do foxes have to be culled? And why?
Eric9Points - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to happy_c:
> (In reply to Timmd) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNKfucd0HYo
>
> Have no experience of fox hunting, but f*ck being chased by this lot, that instead of being exited to feed, want to kill me! At my mates farm they are shot, a lot. Not because they kill chickens as there are none, they go crops, but they piss the local kenel owner of sending the dogs mad snooping around. How ever they also get pissed of because there are too many rabbits! Ironik and a bit wierd me thinks!
>

Yes, I've always thought that foxes must be good for arable and cattle farming as they keep down rabbits and mice. A farmer once told me that rabbits are estimated to take about 10% of grass grown for pasture. Surely having foxes is going to get that number down.
JSA - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to JSA)
> [...]
>
> Well done!!
>
> You thereby lowered yourselves to the same level as the hunters.

And just how did you come to this conclusion? We shot hounds that were worrying livestock, not chasing a fox with 100+ hounds just because it's fun.

redsonja - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge: should. im obviously not very good with words as you are all taking what i say the wrong way. this was an attempt at sarcasm, as usually our government just make fancy speeches but dont actually do a great deal until its too late. srebrenitca springs to mind
dissonance - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to yeti:
>
> there's only one answer... cull the humans

well you would say that wouldnt you? But who would be next, the loch nest monster?
hola - on 30 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:I was born and brought up in the country side i have seen hunts and shoots etc
The fox will die a (sometimes slow) painful death tired and in fear
Birds shot from the sky if not hit properly will die flapping and looking a bit confused (i know its a bird but they do look confused) till they die being bashed on the head.
I'm not sure about fish but they are probably puzzled being pulled from the water then thrown back.
Yes being killed by a pack/hunter will be painfull and the victim will suffer
I think hunting is wrong even though i have seen it as part of my upbringing, Various animals will need to be culled in the country side if it is to be maintained as a food producing area and not left to find its natural balance of predators/prey.
I am more puzzled seeing peoples attitude to industrial farming methods i know people who moan about hunting but will happily munch on a mass produced chicken/pork 'grown' in a factory by the thousand and there really are thousands of animals dying every day in these factorys
TomO - on 31 Dec 2012
In reply to Timmd:

Only just noticed this and posting in haste as already late for the pub. However, if you could do worse than take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z5mzTkac1k .

For the record, I hunt with hounds (and shoot) and have done so for about 30 years. Quite happy to try and give honest answers if anyone has any questions and will check back.
john arran - on 31 Dec 2012
In reply to TomO:

That video is a perfect example of self-delusion of the highest order. Of course it's cruel. Of course the poor creature is traumatised for the entire duration of the chase - completely unnecessarily and purely for the senseless gratification of the tw@ts in red.

As I said a long way up the thread this has nothing whatsoever to do with population control and everything to do with base instincts that responsible individuals and a developed society should no longer be tolerating.

Sickening.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Alan M - on 31 Dec 2012
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to TomO)
>
> That video is a perfect example of self-delusion of the highest order. Of course it's cruel. Of course the poor creature is traumatised for the entire duration of the chase - completely unnecessarily and purely for the senseless gratification of the tw@ts in red.
>
> As I said a long way up the thread this has nothing whatsoever to do with population control and everything to do with base instincts that responsible individuals and a developed society should no longer be tolerating.
>
> Sickening.

The video is tame compared to what I witnessed during a hunt I was invited on. That day in 2002 still lives in my mind now. I am not anti population control if required, I am anti technique used. Hunting with hounds is a tradition that needs to consigned to the history books and only remembered as a dark point in the history of this country in relation to crimes against our natural heritage.

From my personal experience and that video confirms it, it's a sport.

I was told by a hunt goer that in some parts of the country hunts have been known to provide dens and feed foxes to ensure foxes to hunt. Blows the pest control argument out of the water if it's true. I am also reliablly informed that in some areas were game keepers etc had reduced foxes to unsustainable levels a life fox would he bagged in one area and transported to the hunt area. Apparently though in a few cases the hunt leader would get a gob on in these situations as a shipped in fox provided no sport......how sporting of the hunters to show concern!!!

Can anyone confirm?

happy_c - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Only just noticed this and posting in haste as already late for the pub. However, if you could do worse than take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z5mzTkac1k .
>
> For the record, I hunt with hounds (and shoot) and have done so for about 30 years. Quite happy to try and give honest answers if anyone has any questions and will check back.

Ive tried to look at both sides of this arguement, and I understand there are two sides. Ive seen and taken part part in other forms of hunting and not keen, although I understand that it must be done.

However watching that link has brought me to a conclusion that fox hunting is sick. That animal clearly suffered, now if there where no other alternative, fair enough, but there is.

I dont mean this is an ignorant way, but that is truely sickening. And i have no respect what so ever, for any cruel wanker that seems to think that is ok!

TomO - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to John Arran, happy c and Alan M:

Thanks for the replies. You may not be surprised to know that I don't agree with your views. but you are of course welcome to hold them. Maybe I'm just a self deluded sick wanker...

I'm genuinely interested in responses to this. The video is an accurate representation of the closing seconds of a pack of foxhounds killing a fox. Other than the obvious differences in terrain and the lack of horses, this is what used to happen at any one of the 250 registered hunts in the UK (and at quite a number of unregistered packs as well).

I don't think anyone would deny that there is cruelty involved - in fact I seem to remember that the huntsman in the video says as much. The important bit seems to be the amount of suffering involved (if we acept that foxes need to be controlled, which is a wider conversation).

In a spirit of provoking debate I wondered if anyone who finds the activities portrayed in the video objectionable would consider answering the following questions;

Do you eat meat?
Do you think that the fox died quickly?
Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one caught in a snare and left for say three hours?
Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one that was shot in the rear legs with a shotgun and crept away to die of starvation a couple of weeks later?

I'm really not trying to catch anybody out or judge anyone here - I just find people's attitudes and responses to stuff like this fascinating. Off out for the rest of the day but will check back later...
Wonko The Sane - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:
> (In reply to John Arran, happy c and Alan M)
>
>
>
>
> Do you eat meat?
> Do you think that the fox died quickly?
> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one caught in a snare and left for say three hours?
> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one that was shot in the rear legs with a shotgun and crept away to die of starvation a couple of weeks later?
>
> I'm really not trying to catch anybody out or judge anyone here - I just find people's attitudes and responses to stuff like this fascinating. Off out for the rest of the day but will check back later...


I find it fascinating that hunters do not understand the concept that many anti hunters are against it not because they are in any way squeemish about the suffering which goes on in nature, but what it says about a human being who will inflict that suffering for pure sport.

At least with deer hunting, the deer is used for food, and not particularly stressed if the hunting is done well.

But ripping an animal to pieces for the fun of it?


Someone else earlier suggested that because suffering is natural in nature, it's ok for us to also engage in it.

I mooted that rape is also quite normal in nature. Many animals mate by simply taking what they want.
I asked, should we adopt this also, just because it happens in nature?
No one answered.

TomO - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:

In response to a couple of your points:

1) Yes, 'bagged foxes' and restocking of foxes in certain areas were practices that were carried out to a reasonable extent, particularly in the 19th century. Famously, Leadenhall market in London used to do a thriving trade in foxes. Both practices died out as the twentieth century advanced. 'Bagging' foxes is a disgraceful activity that has been outlawed by the Masters of Foxhounds Association for about 50 years. It breaches one of the fundamental tenets of hunting with hounds in the UK which is that the quarry species is hunted in it's own environment. Anybody found indulging in such an activity should have the proverbial book thrown at them.

2) Yes, a number of hunts did used to maintain artificial earths and feed foxes in the vicinity. They were used to support a population of foxes in areas where, for whatever reasons foxes had died out. The ultimate intention of course would be to hunt one of those foxes on a hunting day. You have to put this in a context of hunting with hounds playing a part in keeping a fox population at a level acceptable to farmers, keepers etc, not wiping out foxes entirely. Creating an environment to foster the growth of a native animal which might then get hunted if it's around on a hunting day and might then get killed isn't something I particularly have a problem with.
BoulderyDave - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Wonko The Sane: rape isn't actually that common in the animal kingdom and I am struggling to think of any of the larger mammals that procreate that way.

Anyway, I still remain in favour of legalising both hunting and saboteuring. Leaving those who care to enjoy their weekends sitting on either side of the fence and annoying the other. Personally I will be climbing.

Happy New Year everyone.
john arran - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:

I'm with Wonko on this. As I've said repeatedly it's not about population control and it's not about eating meat - it's about barbaric practices carried out in the name of sport.

To illustrate:

Let's just imagine for a moment that hunting with red coats and dogs had never happened before and that the fox population was adjudged to be too high and in need of reduction, for reasons not important here. A discussion would then be had as to the best way to achieve this. Do you honestly believe chasing foxes one by one with whole packs of dogs and horses would even be considered as a sensible option?

I'm certainly no expert but it's obvious to me that there must be better ways than any of your options. If we have enough cats and don't want any more we neuter them. It isn't perfect but it's a damn sight more humane than chasing them for hours then setting dogs on them.

Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to TomO)
>
> I'm with Wonko on this. As I've said repeatedly it's not about population control and it's not about eating meat - it's about barbaric practices carried out in the name of sport.
>
> To illustrate:
>
> Let's just imagine for a moment that hunting with red coats and dogs had never happened before and that the fox population was adjudged to be too high and in need of reduction, for reasons not important here. A discussion would then be had as to the best way to achieve this. Do you honestly believe chasing foxes one by one with whole packs of dogs and horses would even be considered as a sensible option?
>
> I'm certainly no expert but it's obvious to me that there must be better ways than any of your options. If we have enough cats and don't want any more we neuter them. It isn't perfect but it's a damn sight more humane than chasing them for hours then setting dogs on them.

Exactly, for me I am not against hunting or population control.....if required. I am against the techniques used. Chasing a fox with a pack of hounds is outdated and no longer required and should remain illegal. Its been banned for a number of years now and rural fox population estimates that ive seen keep the figures at roughly the same as when the hunts occurred. I admit some of the techniques used now leave a nasty taste in the mouth but thats for government to legislate against.

Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: I love hunting and I love hunting with dogs. I love to walk over a rough piece of ground and have the dogs working ten feet in front of me and to shoot whatever they flush. I also enjoy hunting foxes with terriers and hunting with hounds.
I have no argument with people who believe it to be wrong but what I will say on the matter is the reason it was banned in this country is because Tony Blair wanted to throw a bone to his backbenchers for their loyalty. I think it's more to do with the fact that people are anti toff.
mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: in the past ive been to pack hunts with no horses,guns and hounds/terriers
i can 100% say that none of the people were concerned about the fox's suffering.
infact the opposite,they reveled in it.
in response to the video link and the bloke saying the dog bites the fox in a certain spot to kill it instantly,that is also bull shit.
i have hunted with dogs and the dog never aims at a certain spot.it just tries to grab the animal where ever it can.
a fox hound is not big enough to kill a fox instantly.my old lurcher was a 27 inch 4 1/2 stone big dog and when she cought rabbits which in comparison are tiny.she never killed one instantly.

i dont hunt animals anymore intentionally,even though i still own a lurcher.which caught a rabbit the other week,and even though its a nasty dog at times.it didnt kill a small rabbit instantly.
IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Generally most dogs I've known kill instantly.. never seen a fox killed but we had an hound type things who basically killed for fun.. always just snapped the neck..

It's pretty instinctive and evolutionarily driven, why play with the prey risk it attacking, injuring them or escaping.

So I can very well imagine they are killed instantly, foxes are small compared to these dogs too.

IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s: Ours always snapped the neck, we cut up a few rabbits to feed the dogs and the neck was always dislocated in almost exactly the same point.

Gem the hound was 20-25 kilos and always killed instantly, even took a cat one day and that went the same way.
Wonko The Sane - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> I think it's more to do with the fact that people are anti toff.


I can't speak for everyone, but it certainly isn't that for me. I have no envy or jealousy when it comes to other people's status.
I'm a firm beleiver in if you want something, go work for it, not complain that someone else has it.

mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: ive hunted hares rabbits foxes with terriers and lurchers and hounds and not seen an instant kill.
when ive seen a dog flat out behind an animal its grabbed it as soon as it could,usually its back end.never run along side to grab its neck.
the last one my dog killed a month ago.the rabbit lost its balance and the dog savaged it but it wasnt instant as it squealed
TheDrunkenBakers - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Only just noticed this and posting in haste as already late for the pub. However, if you could do worse than take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z5mzTkac1k .
>
> For the record, I hunt with hounds (and shoot) and have done so for about 30 years. Quite happy to try and give honest answers if anyone has any questions and will check back.

I the spirit of being objective about this debate, I watched the film, even though I knew it would turn my stomach. Im not squeamish but this is hideous. If you still hunt with foxes, which is now illegal, do please post you address details on here so that we can inform the appropriate authorities.

Vile, vile human being.

IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s: Well that's as instant as it will be in some situations, Gem would always take the neck, but the dog wants the animal dead and motionless. But she was a quick hound but also a clever hunter, the best we ever had by a long way, even as a big dog she could catch mice, rats etc.

I've heard them squeal, but that's to be expected too, but I do struggle to imagine dogs would rip a fox alive for any reason. As soon as they can get the neck they'll take it, like an animal in the wild would.

I'm neither against nor for hunting in general, I think it should have been done hunt by hunt, specific case by specific case. I can see arguments for both.

IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I think you can still hunt with hounds, just with limitations?
TheDrunkenBakers - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:
> (In reply to John Arran, happy c and Alan M)
>

> I don't think anyone would deny that there is cruelty involved - in fact I seem to remember that the huntsman in the video says as much. The important bit seems to be the amount of suffering involved (if we acept that foxes need to be controlled, which is a wider conversation).

So why suport it? Are you heartless to this cruelty.
>
> In a spirit of provoking debate I wondered if anyone who finds the activities portrayed in the video objectionable would consider answering the following questions;

Very much so.
>
> Do you eat meat?

Yes, its killed for food, not sport and I choose organic, free range produce which has a decent standard of living during its life and as pain free and instant a death as possible. POintless irrelevant question anyway.
> Do you think that the fox died quickly?
Not sure of the excact timing as the editing was probably cut to not show the worst of it but as the fuirst two dogs did not kill it, I would hazard a guess at at least a minute. Is also clear for those idiot who say that they go for the neck this this is tosh. The dog grabbed it midriff.

> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one caught in a snare and left for say three hours?
Straw man and pointless question. In both cases the fox is probably killed with suffering and trauma.
> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one that was shot in the rear legs with a shotgun and crept away to die of starvation a couple of weeks later?
Again, straw man. Culling with guns should only be done at close range where there is better than average chance of death. This method is still not ideal.
>
> I'm really not trying to catch anybody out or judge anyone here - I just find people's attitudes and responses to stuff like this fascinating. Off out for the rest of the day but will check back later...

Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to Timmd) I love hunting and I love hunting with dogs. I love to walk over a rough piece of ground and have the dogs working ten feet in front of me and to shoot whatever they flush. I also enjoy hunting foxes with terriers and hunting with hounds.
> I have no argument with people who believe it to be wrong but what I will say on the matter is the reason it was banned in this country is because Tony Blair wanted to throw a bone to his backbenchers for their loyalty. I think it's more to do with the fact that people are anti toff.

Some maybe anti toff but for me it's a simple case of I think our society has moved on. Chasing an animal with a pack of hounds, horses and footpacks for fun is no longer acceptable it's barbaric and needs to be forgotten.

On a side note, can anyone give me figures showing the economic damage to farmers, estate owners etc resulting from fox predation compared to other predators, poachers, ferel dogs and just natural loss. I am still to be convinced that fox predation is a big of problem as made out.



mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: agree,im also not squeamish but that is not good watching.
there just seems lots of contradiction.
if its for sport use 1 dog
if its for pest control,why manipulate the countryside to suit foxes and why not use something far more effective like a .223 and a lamp
ads.ukclimbing.com
TheDrunkenBakers - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> I've heard them squeal, but that's to be expected too, but I do struggle to imagine dogs would rip a fox alive for any reason. As soon as they can get the neck they'll take it, like an animal in the wild would.
>

As I have stated before. Dogs do not kill by biting the neck like large cats. They hunt in pack, like hyena, and kill by the pack overpowering not the single animal.
IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: That's what I'm saying, I've only ever seen my dogs kill.. and cut up the carcasses, the neck was displaced, it had been snapped. So either I have cat like dogs or dogs do take the neck..
TheDrunkenBakers - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to Timmd) I love hunting and I love hunting with dogs. I love to walk over a rough piece of ground and have the dogs working ten feet in front of me and to shoot whatever they flush. I also enjoy hunting foxes with terriers and hunting with hounds.
> I have no argument with people who believe it to be wrong but what I will say on the matter is the reason it was banned in this country is because Tony Blair wanted to throw a bone to his backbenchers for their loyalty. I think it's more to do with the fact that people are anti toff.

The toff argument is weak. I will caveat your comment as perhaps wanting to troll. If not, then as with TomO, if you are still in the activity of hunting foxes with hounds then please posts your details so that the appropriate authorities can be informed. Put your money where you mouth is. Its illegal, cruel, innecessary and those whom support it should be fined heavily or locked away with no permission ever to own animals again.

IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: It's legal to use dogs as flushers isn't it?

I'm not a fan of it as I've known a few shoot their dogs... but I did think the use of dogs in that fashion was legal.
mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I thought beating with dogs was still legal.all types of coursing and organised hunting animals banned.hunting fox with terrier banned.think you can hunt rabbit and rat with dogs still.
Moley on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to TomO)
>
> I'm with Wonko on this. As I've said repeatedly it's not about population control ...

There were 8 gun packs within 20 mile radius of where I lived, they hunted on foot and all killed from 170 - 230 a year. Let's say 200 average, I would say that was population control not sport.
Dominion - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

> is it really true that the foxes are generally killed quickly by being bitten on the neck by one of the hounds

It depends on whether you count the time being chased by the hounds as part of the time taken to kill it.

If so, it's not quick, is it? It's minutes or possibly even hours of being hunted, and running in fear and the terror of being killed.

The actual kill at the end is just a tiny part of it.

Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Why would I want to post my address on an open forum ya clown. It is still legal to hunt with dogs, ie terriers, as long as there is someone present with a shotgun. It is also legal to hunt with hounds in certain situations so I don't appear to be breaking any laws.
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s: I think you'll find hunting with terriers is still legal.
john arran - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Moley:

> There were 8 gun packs within 20 mile radius of where I lived, they hunted on foot and all killed from 170 - 230 a year. Let's say 200 average, I would say that was population control not sport.

If you could get dozens of people to pay handsome sums each for an afternoon of laying poison in known fox lairs then I'll agree it's about population control. Otherwise I would say it was sport not population control.
james mcclung - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers) It's legal to use dogs as flushers isn't it?
>
yes its legal you can use 2 dog for flushing to gun in England and wales as many as you want in scotland just 1 below ground .

think posting names on websites would be illegal

i am very passionate about hunting dun it all my live it is hard to argue
about fox hunting but i bet i have more respected for the fox than anyone
on the other side of the argument .

hunt saboteurs are the worst kind of people they have dug up graves and damage grave stones of dead huntsmen now that is sick .


grave



Dominion - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran:

> Otherwise I would say it was sport not population control.

Yep, if it was about eradicating foxes, we would almost certainly not have foxes any more.

And there certainly wouldn't be cases of the hunters protecting and rearing fox cubs, or importing them into a county so that there was a fox population available to be hunted.

Not sure what the outcome of these cases were...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/784736.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/masters-of-hunt-deny-rearing-fox-cubs-1168534.html
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to james mcclung:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
> yes its legal you can use 2 dog for flushing to gun in England and wales as many as you want in scotland just 1 below ground .
>
> think posting names on websites would be illegal
>
> i am very passionate about hunting dun it all my live it is hard to argue
> about fox hunting but i bet i have more respected for the fox than anyone
> on the other side of the argument .
>
> hunt saboteurs are the worst kind of people they have dug up graves and damage grave stones of dead huntsmen now that is sick .

I enjoy all aspects of hunting myself and some of the people I've had the pleasure to meet along the way are great conservationists.
I'm a member of BASC and the shoot I'm a member of put down 100 partridges every year and don't shoot any.
Fox hunting aside, I find it ironic that a large number of RSPB members are city dwelling cat owners who wonder at the lack of song birds, whearas shoot members and hunters are passionate about the conservation of species and habitat.

>
>
> grave

robmack - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy: how many RSPB members are city dwelling cat owners?
readysalted - on 01 Jan 2013
I live in Herefordshire, I'm not from a rich family, or a farming family, but I an an agriculture student and farm worker.

From what I've seen fox hunting is a big bone of contention, even amongst country folk. I often find it ironic that people generalize farmers and country people as the harbingers of death to precious countryside animals, when it's them who infact are responsible for the maintenance of such a wonderful habitat for so many species, let alone, their own stock, who they all have a vested interest in looking after well.

I've never been involved in a hunt so am basically an outsider, but I see no problem with it. In the wild plains of africa, many wilder-beast will be clawed and mauled to death by large cats, and when this is shown on David Atinborough (sp?), it's seen as a matter of fact, window into the world of the wild. Fox hunting is basically that, in so far as it is using another animal, to chase down, and despatch of the old and the lame, of another species. It's a completely natural process. However the way that the hunts carry such a sense of occasion, and the huntsmen and ladies seem to enjoy the hunt could be seen as a sort of macabre enjoyment in seeing animals killed. A different way of viewing it would be that it's a nasty job to have to do, but if it has to be done, you may as well make a day of it, and dress up, which is surely how the tradition began. It's worth also taking into account that good things are built on tradition... but if it is at the expense of an animals life, is it still okay. The answer is surely only yes, if the animal is a pest, which the fox is, and therefore the only question then to be answered, is do the negative effects the fox has on the countryside, justify their culling. Does the end, justify the means.

That I'm not sure about, but the foxes nature is that it will kill, for the sake of killing, and that in itself is of course unnecessary but also has financial and moral effects of other species and farmers. The problem is perhaps that there is no natural predator for the fox. Similar to the badger, and that's why there has been recent talk of introducing large cats into the UK countryside, and wolves into scotland. I think that doing this, could mean, that we are introducing a predator to us, into the wild, and it's all well and good, until a child is mauled, or somebody is savaged by a pack of wolves.

It's an impossible situation, and I can see the argument on both sides. I do think the way that the hunts present themselves often doesn't do them any favours, and the legislation surrounding fox hunting which came in when the ban was imposed, makes little sense. To that end there is still alot that needs to be decided.


....


On a more interesting note, I am always infuriated by the way that the so called hunt sabs (people who dressed up in camoflauge and trespass on farm land, to protest against hunting when it was still legal), is atrocious.
Here are some videos of hunt sabs in action.
(Bear in mind, that some of these videos were uploaded by the sabs to show the hunts, but do little more to show themselves up, as meddling idiots with little knowledge of how to treat animals, especially around horses, and often act with disregard for the countryside).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqUhujAFsHM - Tresspassing sabs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkOwtITCrhE - Good documentary (part 1 of 5)

nufkin - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to james mcclung)
> [...]
>
> I enjoy all aspects of hunting myself and some of the people I've had the pleasure to meet along the way are great conservationists.

> whearas shoot members and hunters are passionate about the conservation of species and habitat.

But isn't there a difference between conservation for it's own sake, and preserving a species with the intention of hunting it later?
Moley on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran:
> (In reply to Moley)
>
> [...]
>
> If you could get dozens of people to pay handsome sums each for an afternoon of laying poison in known fox lairs then I'll agree it's about population control. Otherwise I would say it was sport not population control.

I guess that's why the two sides will never agree, even when a load of farmer gun packs are killing hundreds of foxes in an area, with the specific aim of keeping the population density down, those against hunting will still see it as "sport" and cling to the red coated toffs stereotypes. And all terriermen being some kind of barbaric sub-human hooligans.

The debate goes round and round in circles every time, I find it rather pointless nowadays. I have no problem with hunting or hunters, if they want to hunt foxes that's fine with me, if they don't hunt them we'll shoot them!

Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to james mcclung)
> [...]
>
> I enjoy all aspects of hunting myself and some of the people I've had the pleasure to meet along the way are great conservationists.
>

Maintianing a landscape in an unnatural state for the sole purpose of raising an animal to shoot it i.e upland game estates, at the expense of sustainable native wild populations is hardly great conservation being undertaken by great conservationists!!
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to nufkin:
> (In reply to the weegy)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> But isn't there a difference between conservation for it's own sake, and preserving a species with the intention of hunting it later?

Absolutely, but conservation for conservation sake goes on amongst the shooting and hunting community often.
Shooting and hunting are sports and people take part in them for pleasure, I won't deny that.
However, the public are quick to condemn the actions of others while still eating supermarket chicken and battery eggs. Not everyone..but the hypocrisy reeks.
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to readysalted:
> I live in Herefordshire, I'm not from a rich family, or a farming family, but I an an agriculture student and farm worker.
>
> From what I've seen fox hunting is a big bone of contention, even amongst country folk. I often find it ironic that people generalize farmers and country people as the harbingers of death to precious countryside animals, when it's them who infact are responsible for the maintenance of such a wonderful habitat for so many species, let alone, their own stock, who they all have a vested interest in looking after well.

We will have to agree to disagree on what a Wonderful habitat is and what looks like. The UK does not come close!! Land Management techniques in this country are attrocious and the maintenance of natural habitats for wildlife populations take a back seat on many farms and estates. If you want an example take a gander at the figures for Farmland birds...some are near extinction since 1970 with some species down 94%. The problem is we over manage and try to maintain our landscape as history piece instead of a living organism that wants to progress and change.

> I've never been involved in a hunt so am basically an outsider, but I see no problem with it. In the wild plains of africa, many wilder-beast will be clawed and mauled to death by large cats, and when this is shown on David Atinborough (sp?), it's seen as a matter of fact, window into the world of the wild. Fox hunting is basically that, in so far as it is using another animal, to chase down, and despatch of the old and the lame, of another species. It's a completely natural process. However the way that the hunts carry such a sense of occasion, and the huntsmen and ladies seem to enjoy the hunt could be seen as a sort of macabre enjoyment in seeing animals killed. A different way of viewing it would be that it's a nasty job to have to do, but if it has to be done, you may as well make a day of it, and dress up, which is surely how the tradition began. It's worth also taking into account that good things are built on tradition... but if it is at the expense of an animals life, is it still okay. The answer is surely only yes, if the animal is a pest, which the fox is, and therefore the only question then to be answered, is do the negative effects the fox has on the countryside, justify their culling. Does the end, justify the means.

There is a massive difference between a lion hunting a Zebra and a pack of blokes on horses with dogs chasing a fox. One is natural and a survival instinct the other is man making a desicion that we dont like that animal.

The fox is in a bad situation, he's the last of our large land based predators that man never got around to wiping out i.e the bear, wolf, lynx etc and some people seem to hold a grudge!! Population control when its needed is fine using a suitable method. The so called tradition of the hunt is a useless and it can be argued that it has no real impact on predator control.

You say the fox is a pest and has negative impacts on the countryside...I take it that you want all predators reduced in numbers globally? I take it that its fair game to shoot and poison Raptors as they take birds from game estates, people in Scotland moan that Golden Eagles and White Tailed Eagles take Lambs. Weasels, stoats, polecats, pine martins etc will kill hens and ducks etc. Lions will take goats from farms in Africa, Dingo's kill sheep in Australia etc etc etc etc. Natural process should be allowed to happen the Red Jacket hunters are nothing to do with population control...its purely tradition and sport!!

>
> That I'm not sure about, but the foxes nature is that it will kill, for the sake of killing, and that in itself is of course unnecessary but also has financial and moral effects of other species and farmers.

So does every predator. Leopards have been recorded taking down several prey items one after each other but only feeding from one carcass. Search the BBC Big Cat Week it was them who filmed and documented it. Its instinct animals do not work on morals it works of instinct and survival. The Fox is a wild animal taking advantage of an easy situation presented to it!! Why the hell would it chase a bunny around a field when it can leap in to an unsecured hen coop and take its pick out of an animal that can not escape due to mans stupidity.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Nath93 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: Its not actually fox hunting, its just a bunch of toffs who like to show off by riding through fields, majestically on horseback, with packs of dogs in search of the elusive Mr Fox.

If you are going to hunt an animal, at least give it a chance. These guys give proper hunters a bad name.

I wonder if they know just how stupid they look all dressed up in their red coats and black hats ?
daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:
>
> There is a massive difference between a lion hunting a Zebra and a pack of blokes on horses with dogs chasing a fox.
>
> The fox is in a bad situation, he's the last of our large land based predators that man never got around to wiping out i.e the bear, wolf, lynx etc and some people seem to hold a grudge!!

Natural process should be allowed to happen the Red Jacket hunters are nothing to do with population control...its purely tradition and sport !

Don't worry one of these days the tables will be turned ! I know lots of people who are getting into Fox hunter HUNTING ! and they do not wear RED coats to hunt !

Ian Black - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to: It isn't very often I side with the trendy leftie, ban the bomb, tree hugging, soap dodging brigade. However I am opposed to making an elaborate ceremony out of killing a Fox. If Fox hunting had been a working class 'sport', it would have been banned centuries ago!!!
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
>
> Natural process should be allowed to happen the Red Jacket hunters are nothing to do with population control...its purely tradition and sport !
>
> Don't worry one of these days the tables will be turned ! I know lots of people who are getting into Fox hunter HUNTING ! and they do not wear RED coats to hunt !


Thats fine mate I have no problem with hunting or hunters I am against some of the techniques used. The hunting typically associated with the Red Jacket hunters is outdated and should not be legalised again. I've been on a Red Jacket hunt, I went to educate myself I didn't like what I witnessed and now I am fully against that form of hunting. I am not against hunting in other controlled forms.

I will fully expect that if fox numbers crash a law will be passed to protect the fox just like other wildlife which hunters and game keepers and farmers and developers etc have pushed close to extinction. It shows you a lot about a man though if they are willing to drive something to or close to extinction for a sport.

Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Nath93:
> (In reply to Timmd) Its not actually fox hunting, its just a bunch of toffs who like to show off by riding through fields, majestically on horseback, with packs of dogs in search of the elusive Mr Fox.
>
> If you are going to hunt an animal, at least give it a chance. These guys give proper hunters a bad name.
>
> I wonder if they know just how stupid they look all dressed up in their red coats and black hats ?

Wonko, I'll draw your attention to this post.
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Ian Black: I'm working class and hunt and most of my peers are working class.
Sarah G on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
Sadly, they're all just jealous, really- hence all the whining about red coats etc.

<shrugs>

Have a good one- wish I could join you; lovely to see hounds at work.

Sx
mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: how come there are not hunters being convicted of killing animals with dogs?
its obvious they are.so if its against the law they should be charged for it.
im sure the terrier men involved are well known to the police as most ive ever met are not teachers,doctors etc
Nath93 - on 01 Jan 2013
Ian Black - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to Ian Black) I'm working class and hunt and most of my peers are working class.






I hunt, shooting and fishing but I just don't see the point of dressing up making an elaborate ceremony, and lots of back slapping for killing a Fox! I feel sorry for some of the Horses carrying the weight of some of those chinless wonders around. Now if they hunted on cyclocross bikes and put some effort in, then I might just understand the back slapping etc...
TheDrunkenBakers - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> (In reply to the weegy)
> Sadly, they're all just jealous, really- hence all the whining about red coats etc.
>
> <shrugs>
>
> Have a good one- wish I could join you; lovely to see hounds at work.
>
> Sx

Has your cage been rattled again?

You just dont get it, do you? Many here have said, including me, that the 'red-coat' brigade is an impressive sight. That the horses are wonderful creatures and the hounds are also a great sight. Jealousy doesnt come in to it.

What we object to is them ripping a wild creature to pieces.

Why dont you remove your head from your rear and listen? Ive read lots of your posts over the last year and as has been pointed out, you must be either a sumpreme bitch with very few friends or a professional troll who has nothing better to do with you time than try and wind people up. Why dont you grow up or get a life.




Queenie - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to Sarah G)
> [...]
>
>
>
> you must be either a sumpreme bitch

That's just reminded me...Crufts dates: 7-10 March
IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I get the dismembering...

Once it's dead does it matter..

For me the issues are firstly do foxes need culling..
Which method is best?
Is there any artificial increase in fox abundance to make hunting fun. i.e. clearly a sport..

I'm not against hunting per se.. if its a valid means as pest control.. i.e. the mountainous foot hunts.. I am where it's a sport..
IainRUK - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Also the law in this instance is poorly formed and rushed by all accounts.. hence the innaccurate statements and confusions on here..

I think it was pushed through to pacify one side, whilst enabling hunting in some form, so its just a waste of money which has achieved little and is a toothless law.
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers) I get the dismembering...
>
> Once it's dead does it matter..
>
> For me the issues are firstly do foxes need culling..
> Which method is best?
> Is there any artificial increase in fox abundance to make hunting fun. i.e. clearly a sport..
>
> I'm not against hunting per se.. if its a valid means as pest control.. i.e. the mountainous foot hunts.. I am where it's a sport..

Same here, I am not anti hunt I am anti method used. I dont believe the traitional hunt using man, horse, pack of hounds, foot pack with some carrying shovels etc is appropriate in todays society.

I asked a question before about fox impacts on the countryside and no one has provided an answer. I keep hearing from the prohunt that its population control due to like someone on this thread stated foxes have a negative impact on the countryside.

I would like to see in figures this damage in relation to predation from other preadators, ferel dogs, poachers, natural cause of death etc. I simply dont buy all the negative press that is sold by the countryside alliance about the impact foxes have on the rural community. To make the claim there has to be robust evidence to back it up.

doz generale - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: As far as blood sports go Fox hunting is probably the most cowardly.
daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M: Like i say hopefully fox hunter's will one day be extinct untill then i know lots of people who shall keep on hunting them ! o yeah fox hunter hunting is against the LAW but so is fox hunting yet they still continue to rip foxs to piece's with packs of angry{beaten dogs!
Hopefully soon all fox hunters will live in fear of fox hunter hunters but not so at present as they still carry on fearless of retribution !
JSA - on 01 Jan 2013
I do wonder why people harp on about hunting being all about population control, complete bollocks.
The worst for an exploding population are Humans, how about controlling the birthrate of humans?

Running man anyone?
daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to JSA:

> The worst for an exploding population are Humans, how about controlling the birthrate of humans?
>

Controlling humans with Law ! not going to happen !
Being realistic ,hunting down fox hunter's will eventually put them off hunting fox's !
Sir Chasm - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444: The fox has got to die of something, at least with a hunt he provides entertainment and exercise, gets people out in the fresh air, can't be any worse than being chased by wolves.
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444:
> (In reply to Alan M) Like i say hopefully fox hunter's will one day be extinct untill then i know lots of people who shall keep on hunting them ! o yeah fox hunter hunting is against the LAW but so is fox hunting yet they still continue to rip foxs to piece's with packs of angry{beaten dogs!
> Hopefully soon all fox hunters will live in fear of fox hunter hunters but not so at present as they still carry on fearless of retribution !

Sorry mate I have to apologise I misread your first post. My mistake.

In an ideal world I would like to see all hunting as a sport stopped but I accept that we are more likely to be having dinner dates with ET before that happens. I have no problem with wildlife control and population control in the right circumstances but it needs to be backed up by real scientific data.

For me I would like to see a drastic change in the management and use of land, wildlife and the countryside etc. I think it is totally wrong how so much of the open space in this country is owned by so few and they dictate how it is managed in an artifical state (Read the countryside alliance website...outdated, and backwards thinking!!). I would personally like to see a greater diversity of landscapes, eco systems, habitats, bio diversity and land uses developed in the UK. We dont need our countryside (well not all of it) to look like a victorian playground. The otherness of nature needs space also.

You only have to fly over the UK to realise that there is alot of open space there is well enough for all competing needs. Please dont think I am advocating bringing back bears and wolves etc and turning the UK in to a wilderness I am not, I am talking about increasing bio diversity by allowing some of the bland artifical landscapes to progress as nature intended for the enjoyment and use of all.

I give you another example of poor land management I visited a pig farm where domestic pigs roam free kept in a field by a 2 single strand electric wire fences. This is in an area that Wild Boar live the farmer had a gob on that wild boar could get in to his fields. Now I can see a situation arising were a disease will be transmitted in to the wild boar population from the domestic pigs due to poor management etc. The animlas that will pay will be the wild boars as there will be calls to cull them to protect the rural community from financial loss. The countryside needs to wake up and take responsibility.

daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to daveh444) The fox has got to die of something, at least with a hunt he provides entertainment and exercise, gets people out in the fresh air, can't be any worse than being chased by wolves.

Well if you are a fox hunter you may get the chance to find out when Balaclaver wearing angry activist's start chasing you and your FAMILY ! I'm sure it's not that scary living in fear !
daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444: Almost forgot ! Fox hunter hunting also provides good entertainment and exercise !
It's easy to track them down - 20/30 4x4's with horse box's parked up on a grass verge is a good place to start !
off-duty - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Well if you are a fox hunter you may get the chance to find out when Balaclaver wearing angry activist's start chasing you and your FAMILY ! I'm sure it's not that scary living in fear !

Nothing like rational debate, is there?
daveh444 - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to off-duty: Never seen a rational debate when it comes to ripping up wild animals ? thats because there is No rational reason for it !!!
if you for hunting thats your choice but your either with them or against them !
off-duty - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444:

I'm against people that threaten other people. I'm not sure what side that puts me on, but currently it doesn't appear to be yours.
happy_c - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to TomO:
> Do you eat meat?

Yes and have killed for it myself in a humane as possible way, and as mentioned before i have worked my dog on shoots, but i dislike it, although did enjoy seeing my dog work.

> Do you think that the fox died quickly?

Not even slightly, it looked exhausted and have obviously been chased to the point it could not carry one, it was then ragged around and you can see it thrash and squirm, not killed in a bite at all.

> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one caught in a snare and left for say three hours?

more, id rather be in a snare, than tracked for miles and miles, then tossed around.

> Do you think that the fox in the video suffered more or less than one that was shot in the rear legs with a shotgun and crept away to die of starvation a couple of weeks later?

SO your comparing one set of wankers to another? Shooting it is its back end it irresponsible shooting, or a mistake? Its a worse case scenario, a responsible shooter would not do this. With the hounds, there is only one result, the dog gets tossed around untill dead.

I get that its an efficient method, but it is by no means nice, and i dont se ehow it could be made any crueler than that video???? The narrator of the video mentions curelty, but how could you possibly be any crueler than chasing it to the point it physically couldnt run, then having a dog shake it around, and the rest of the pack join in? I know the hounds are big, but there not big enough to break its neck quickly, they dont hunt like that, they all pile in and get a mouthfull each.

Im pretty sure measuring pain in a fox is difficult, and i hope it was too f*cked and frightened to feel anything. This doesnt make those involved any morally better, or less of a coward.

Im not going to say any more, but i think its a shame things like this still go on, i do not see how it is different to any other blood sport, as civilised people surely should be against?

Why not introduce dog fighting again eh? thinking about it, at least that would be an even fight, and Thats no fun eh?
doz generale - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Well if you are a fox hunter you may get the chance to find out when Balaclaver wearing angry activist's start chasing you and your FAMILY ! I'm sure it's not that scary living in fear !

Isn't a Balaclaver a Turkish desert?

I may join the hunts saboteurs. not because i like wildlife but because I want to dress as a fox and shoot horses.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to daveh444: If I could understand you I'm sure I'd be quaking in my boots - knee high leather doncha know?
timjones - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s:


> im sure the terrier men involved are well known to the police as most ive ever met are not teachers,doctors etc

Are you implying that people who aren't teachers or doctors or criminals or merely suggesting policemen don't socialise with teachers and doctors?

I hope you are not a teacher or doctor because you don't seem very bright :-)

Trangia - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> And just how did you come to this conclusion?

You said nothing about the 7 hounds worrying livestock in your original post. In fact by your own admission

"we were ready with the shotguns"

You are a hypocrite.
Gudrun - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> I think it's more to do with the fact that people are anti toff.

You'll be meaning the traditional working classes then and not you.
Do you have a problem with a working class person being anti-toff?
Can you not see why we would be anti-toff?

I sabotaged fox hunts for a couple of years when i was younger with a group of working class folks,punks,sharpskins,a few students and some that just wanted to save foxes but a fight with arrogant landed gentry tossers would be a wee added bonus.We were all very politically aware(anarchist/socialist)and opposed to the barbaric practices that you actually encounter week in week out at hunt meets.So we would take them on in the field and do our damndest to ruin their day.The foxhunting freaks absolutely hated us and used violence and intimidation as soon as they got a chance.
I could write a book about the many incidences of violence and all the techniques they used but i must add that we didn't take it without fighting back just as much.
The emotions out there during a chase were extremely high but it was sooo satisfying when we ran away with their entire pack,hid a fox,diverted the hounds from a scent or worst of all when you had to jump in a foxhole and refuse to move to save the wee exhausted animal.

During all of this we laughed at them constantly,wound them up and ripped the pish right out of them.Especially when one of the posh freaks couldn't jump a fence or burn we'd all gather round and laugh at them,they hated us with a vengence.
Aye and Weegie its funny how the rich freaks on the horses always and without exception had their lowly but loyal working class terrier men like you to do their fighting for them.Sh1tbags!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/foxhunting-club-paid-worker-slave-1482765

Gudrun - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to daveh444) can't be any worse than being chased by wolves.

Wolves don't dig it out once it goes to ground.

Sir Chasm - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin: That's because they haven't got thumbs, shona.
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin: sounds like fun. Your welcome on my shoot anytime and we'll see how we get along.
Trangia - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Wolves don't dig it out once it goes to ground.

If the intention is indeed, pest control, then digging out is entirely logical

JSA - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to JSA)
> [...]
>
> You said nothing about the 7 hounds worrying livestock in your original post. In fact by your own admission
>
> "we were ready with the shotguns"
>
> You are a hypocrite.

Not really, the hounds were worrying livestock, not being hunted for pleasure, how is that being hypocritical?
Gudrun - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy:
> (In reply to GudrunEnsslin) sounds like fun. Your welcome on my shoot anytime and we'll see how we get along.

Thanks for the offer but as an ex-sab and bunny hugger i'd instinctively sabotage it:)
Trangia - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to JSA:

The tone of your original post seemed to revell in the fact that you had shot 7 hounds between you. That's something to regret not boast about. Your fight is with the hunt, not the hounds, who are only doing what comes naturally to them. I see the action of deliberately setting out to kill hounds as hypocritical, when you appear toobject to the killing of foxes.

I am suprised that the land owner didn't persue the hunt for trespass in the light of the previous incursions. No hunt has the right to enter onto land without the landowner's consent. The remedy for trespass and damage lies through action in the courts against the hunt, not shooting the hounds. I appreciate that any farmer can shoot dogs worrying livestock, but the fact that you were waiting for them with shotguns ready sounded premeditated and more to me as though you were out for confrontation.

If I misunderstood the tone of your post I appologise.

JSA - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Trangia:

I can see where I have been misunderstood, we weren't ready stood at the fence guns in hand, rather as soon as the hounds crossed on to the land chasing the fox and in the process worrying livestock it was under a minute before we had the guns in hand and set off after the hounds on the quads.

The action of killing the hounds was deliberate, yes. But we would not have had to shoot them had the not crossed onto the land. Yes, I do regret having to shoot the hounds, given a choice, i.e no livestock in the field they were in then there would have been no need to even go in the gun cabinet. The hunt would have still been confronted and been told to remove the hounds from the land.

Also, no need for an apology, as a regular forum user I'm sure you are well aware just how easy it is to be misunderstood on occasion (There's a lot to be said for speaking IRL!).

All the best for the new year :)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Trangia - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> >
> All the best for the new year :)

And to you too! :)

mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to mark s)
>
>
> [...]
>
> Are you implying that people who aren't teachers or doctors or criminals or merely suggesting policemen don't socialise with teachers and doctors?
>
> I hope you are not a teacher or doctor because you don't seem very bright :-)

im saying the terrier men ive met are likely to be known by the police

Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s: Why would they be known to the police when they take part in a perfectly legal practice. I don't think you've met ant *terrier men* as your posts have an air of ignorance about them.
mark s - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to the weegy: when i was younger i had a terrier i used for fox digging,i met people into it.after that dog died i had lurchers and went to various events and worked them.so yeah i have met people and i know what goes on behind the scenes where people are "concerned" about the foxes well being.
a lot of them also were interested in badgers
Nigel Thomson - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s: You seem to believe that hunting with terriers is illegal. I've come across brock when hunting foxes but you can generally tell if a badger has made a foxes den it's own. They usually give the dogs a doing and it's not worth going there. I personally don't go after badgers and neither do any of my associates. That is illegal.
Enty - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:

I've only scanned this thread so forgive me if anyone else has pulled you on this.
To say that Botswana is somehow more progressive than the UK because they have banned the hunting of Elephants, Lions, Giraffes, Leopards and Zebras and the UK is outdated because they still allow fox hunting is ridiculous.

Personally I'm against the hunting of foxes by toffs on horses with packs of dogs. However, same as when Blair banned it, it's still about number 379 on the list of things I'm worried about.


E
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Alan M)
>
> I've only scanned this thread so forgive me if anyone else has pulled you on this.
> To say that Botswana is somehow more progressive than the UK because they have banned the hunting of Elephants, Lions, Giraffes, Leopards and Zebras and the UK is outdated because they still allow fox hunting is ridiculous.
>
> Personally I'm against the hunting of foxes by toffs on horses with packs of dogs. However, same as when Blair banned it, it's still about number 379 on the list of things I'm worried about.
>
>
> E

Im happy to answer, in a debate if you say something you should expect to clarify your position.


My point about Botswana and it currently being more progressive is that a poor country with a rich game hunting tradition whether that be legal and/or illegal hunting is actively deciding that in a growing economy and a rapidly modernising country, the society they aspire to be does not include hunting of wild animals for sport. (I will caveat by saying whether the law comes in to force fully in 2014, or whether it makes a difference at this moment in time is not up for debate its about what it promises and how wildlife is viewed at this moment in time).

I personally think at present it is more progressive than any UK or any UK proposed countryside, wildlife and habitat protection or improvement laws. Saying that though the Law Commission has just conducted a review of wildlife and countryside Laws for England and Wales and I am waiting to see what they propose so this could change) I also Know English Nature are conducting a review but government changes may actually see English Nature lose its ability to fight government proposals, being that it is effectively a government department.

Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:

Before anyone points out my mistake English Nature should say Natural England.
Enty - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:

I doubt Botswana would be so progressive if the population of Elephants was 3 million.

E
Alan M - on 01 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Alan M)
>
> I doubt Botswana would be so progressive if the population of Elephants was 3 million.
>
> E

Possibly, I believe but stand to be corrected that the Elephant population is at around 130,000 in Botswana (BBC.co.uk) compared to our estimated 240,000 prebreeding foxes (Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management).

But I suppose we aren't very porgressive in relation to raptors. Hen Harriers anyone? 10 breeding pairs in England 2010/11 they found a few of them shot dead on the edge of an upland estate in Lancashire last year (2012)



daveh444 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to daveh444)
>
> I'm against people that threaten other people. I'm not sure what side that puts me on, but currently it doesn't appear to be yours.

I'm not saying i am , i am just saying i know people who do !

i do not know who's side your on either , there is Mr fox in the red corner and Mr im going to rip you to piece's Red coat in the other , you decide ?
redsonja - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty: Alan does have a point though.
IceKing - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: You've asked people to post their name and address if they are still out hunting. If you want to follow up on that I went for a walk in Kentmere on 28/9/2010 and witnessed a fox hunt. All the locals were out spectating and I wondered what was going on. Then I saw the hounds come over the hills by the reservoir, there weren't any horses involved but the hounds were chasing a live fox, this was not a drag hunt. I didn't witness the outcome as I carried on my stroll. I imagine there are plenty of illegal hunts going on, although I was surprised to actually witness one.

In reply to the thread:

I was brought up in the country and have seen many hunts. The toff argument is spurious, there are many ordinary working folk that go hunting, many just for the pleasure of riding their horses. I knew many people that did just that and were simply ordinary folk.

I have seen foxes at the end of the chase bolt for their den only to be dug out and thrown to the hounds and ripped to shreds (unfortunately witnessed this a few times, I have never seen a snapped neck and quick dispatch by a hound). I have also seen foxes at the point of exhaustion simply shot and then thrown to the hounds. A hunt involves dozens of people blocking dens, sending terriers down to flush the animal etc, that's even before you count the rest of them on horses. It can hardly be described as an 'efficient' means to deal with vermin (if you count them as vermin). I have also witnessed pretty every hunt I've seen crash through any land they fancied, private, permission given or not. They will pretty much every ride wherever they want and sometimes cause a lot of damage. And the blooding of children seems a fairly primitive activity.

The fact is, if you aren't squeamish then riding in a hunt is probably very exciting and is why many will want it to continue. But they're never going to say that, the pest control, anti-toff, tradition, straw man 'other things are worse' arguments are all spurious.

I'd have much more respect for the pro-hunt lobby if they just said "that it is fun and we don't want you to take our fun away" but if they did they know they'd lose the argument.

You do have to wonder at the mentality of someone who takes pleasure in another animals pain. It is isn't the same as eating meat or shooting deer to eat. You aren't taking pleasure in the cruelty. Fox hunting contains a lot of that and it is that that people find objectionable. The pro-hunt lobby misrepresent this with many spurious arguments and never attempt to deal with the crux: "why do you take pleasure in an animal's pain? And is that acceptable in this day and age?"
IainRUK - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to readysalted:
> I often find it ironic that people generalize farmers and country people as the harbingers of death to precious countryside animals, when it's them who infact are responsible for the maintenance of such a wonderful habitat for so many species, let alone, their own stock, who they all have a vested interest in looking after well.
>

Really?

I find it ironic how many have a take take take mentality from the land... field out the back of the house is just grazed..no pasture improvement, its just rushes now, valuable grazing land lost.

I found a dead sheep, trapped in discarded fencing a few years back, that farmer had no regard for the land or his animals.
IainRUK - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to IceKing: Sure it wasn't trail hounds..
timjones - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> im saying the terrier men ive met are likely to be known by the police

Really?

How do you make that judgement?
Trangia - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Funny you should say that. I was out for a New Year's day walk and came to an old WW2 bomb crater in the middle of a field which now has a pond in it and has trees growing round it. It should be an idylic spot on a hillside in beautiful Sussex countryside.

But what has the farmer done? He/she has dumped old rusting corrugated iron, fridges and freezers, bits of farm machinery, torn plastic bale wrapping, oil drums, bits of fencing etc etc. The pond is contaminated by oil. It's an eyesore caused by someone who would normally be expected to be a country lover.

OK the original crater is man made, but it's mellowed and become part of the landscape over the last 80 years.
mark s - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: agree iain,ive been to a farm where dead animals were in the yard and a dog was chewing its eyes.sure a lot of farmers are not like this,but the animals are just money to them.
mark s - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to mark s)
> [...]
>
> Really?
>
> How do you make that judgement?

it says it my post 'the terrier men i have met'

as someone says above ,the redcoats sent the terrier men to do the dirty work with the sabs.

jonnie3430 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to IceKing:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)I imagine there are plenty of illegal hunts going on,

Some of my family went to see their local hunt off on Boxing Day. I was surprised as I thought hunting was not allowed any more, but was told that it is still legal as long as the fox is finished off with a gun and not the hounds. There has also been an upsurge in numbers supporting this hunt since the vote. It looks to me like it was all politics in the first place and nothing has changed.
kipper12 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to john arran)
> [...]
>
> >
> Not torturing, fox hunting. You may class fox hunting as torture, but it is not. They do not set off chanting "lets go torture a fox to death!" They track it down and kill it.

This depends on your perspective. I am sure the CIA operatives didn't view water boarding as torture, but it sure sounds like it to me
jonnie3430 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to kipper12:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
> [...]
>
> This depends on your perspective. I am sure the CIA operatives didn't view water boarding as torture, but it sure sounds like it to me

If they didn't think it torture I would imagine they would be really confused trying to get answers from some one with a wet gag over their mouth!
Enty - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to Enty)
> [...]
>
> Possibly, I believe but stand to be corrected that the Elephant population is at around 130,000 in Botswana (BBC.co.uk) compared to our estimated 240,000 prebreeding foxes (Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management).
>
The Elephant population is crashing. It has crashed from 1.3m to 130k in 25 years - It's still falling.
The fox population is rising or at least steady. (Your 240,00 figure is for the UK so you shouldn't really compare UK stats to worldwide stats to make your numbers sound good, there are millions of red foxes worldwide)

> But I suppose we aren't very porgressive in relation to raptors. Hen Harriers anyone? 10 breeding pairs in England 2010/11 they found a few of them shot dead on the edge of an upland estate in Lancashire last year (2012)

Killing a hen harrier in the UK should get you a £5000 fine of even 6 months in jail if you're caught - again I don't understand your point.

E

Enty - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Enty) Alan does have a point though.

Which is?

E
jonnie3430 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
> [...]
>
> Going back to land management practices upland game estates are renowned for persecuting birds of prey. Why? money!!!

But my point is that lowland farms that would easily sustain them haven't got birds of prey because they have been wiped out years ago. Why pick on one (the upland estates,) and not the other?
Alan M - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
> The Elephant population is crashing. It has crashed from 1.3m to 130k in 25 years - It's still falling.
> The fox population is rising or at least steady. (Your 240,00 figure is for the UK so you shouldn't really compare UK stats to worldwide stats to make your numbers sound good, there are millions of red foxes worldwide)

Haha oh my, I think you need to read your post and I will give you a chance to amend it.
130, 000 estimated elephants in Botswana check Botswana government website if you don't believe me. It's the largest number in any African country. 240,000 foxes in the UK. We are talking about the UK and Botswana so comparing UK and Botswana figures is appropriate. The global figures don't come in to this we are talking about 2 specific countries. Also the stats show the fox population to be roughly stable no major increase or decrease as of yet...the data isn't there to support either claim.
>
> [...]
>
> Killing a hen harrier in the UK should get you a £5000 fine of even 6 months in jail if you're caught - again I don't understand your point.
>
> E

You know as well as I do the wildlife protection units are toothlessand they do not have the resources or man power to investigate most wildlife crimes a lot of prosecutions come about through private actions by conservation organisations etc. Through my job I deal with my local wildlife crime officer quite regularly I also deal with conservation groups and there is a marked difference in the frequency of attempted or carried out court actions.

Alan M - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Alan M)
> [...]
>
> But my point is that lowland farms that would easily sustain them haven't got birds of prey because they have been wiped out years ago. Why pick on one (the upland estates,) and not the other?

It's called an example!!

Read all of my posts you will see that I blame land management techniques for most things. Those land management techniques relate to all scenarios.
jonnie3430 - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Alan M:

I just thought it harsh that you had singled out upland estates as being particularly bad for birds of prey.
Alan M - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Alan M)
>
> I just thought it harsh that you had singled out upland estates as being particularly bad for birds of prey.

Maybe but in the current environment upland estates appear to be the worst offenders. Most of our big raptors that are struggling in the UK golden eagle, hen hariers etc currently live in upland areas. for me though the issue is land management and how it's used.

Ps I have also picked on farmers and mentioned the decline In farmland birds numerous times .
redsonja - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty: well... that a third world country like botswana cares more about preserving wildlife than britain does
Enty - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Enty) well... that a third world country like botswana cares more about preserving wildlife than britain does

And if you believe that and think both countries are doing it for the same reasons you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Go to Africa see what the hunting regulations are for non-endangered species. Also have a look at how the general population treat their farm aniamals, cats, dogs etc etc....

I'll have to bow out now - sorry, nice discussion this. Off back to France.

Cheers,

E
The New NickB - on 02 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:

Wouldn't it be better to look specifically at Botswana, rather than "Africa".
TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
Blimey, you go away from a forum for a couple of days and there’s another 108 posts. I just can’t keep up with you guys! A few replies to try and help inform the debate are about to follow – apologies for ‘en masse’ posting.

I’ll probably bow out after this as I’m afraid I haven’t really got the time right now to engage here and frankly, a few less polite posters don’t deserve the courtesy of a response.

If this is something you are interested in finding out more about, I’d recommend a perusal of the following two web based resources (from which I’m about to lift heavily and plagiarise!):

1) The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management website (unsurprisingly an association of vets – about 500 of them). Good research.
http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&It...

2) James Barrington’s blog. Hunting focused blog by former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports and vegetarian. Thought provoking, even if you disagree with his conclusions. (If you do, challenge him on his blog and you’ll probably get a response).
http://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/
TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You’re not terribly good at this reasoned debate thing are you?

It never ceases to amaze me why people who are strongly anti-hunting seem to judge everyone on the basis of their support or opposition to this activity. No matter what else one may do, it all comes down to whether or not you are pro or anti hunt – a warped way of thinking that leads us to the conclusion that pro-hunting Churchill was a bad guy, while anti-hunting Hitler was fine.

But thanks for the vile tag – coming from someone I’ve never met on the internet, it means a lot.
TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to the weegy)
> [...]
>
> The toff argument is weak....

I’m not entirely sure it is. Here’s a few quotes for you;

“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it:
the struggle over that Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal
freedom, it was class war.”
Peter Bradley (former MP for The Wrekin)

“This has nothing to do with animal welfare – this is for the miners”
Dennis Skinner MP

“This is a dispute we must win, having long ago ceased to be about the
fate of a few thousand deer and foxes. It’s about who governs us. Us or them?”
Chris Mullin MP

That would seem to demonstrate fairly clearly to me that at least three parliamentary supporters of the Hunting Act were concerned with ‘class war’ more than animal welfare…
TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
A number of posters have asked what is and isn’t illegal. You can read the Hunting Act 2004 here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents . It’s actually reasonably simple reading but some readers may come to the conclusion that it’s vague, contradictory and inconsistent and that animal welfare wasn't the driving factor behinbd it. Here’s a few summary points for your delectation and delight;

• It is legal to chase wild mammals out of cover using dogs as long as only two dogs are used and “reasonable steps” are taken to ensure the animal is shot.
• It is illegal to use three hounds to flush out an animal and a second offence is committed if there is no intention to shoot it.
• It legal to use a terrier underground to flush out a fox and kill it in order to protect birds to be shot for sport – e.g. pheasants.
• It is illegal to use exactly the same method to protect farm livestock or a rare species.
• It is legal to hunt a rabbit with dogs.
• It is illegal to hunt a hare with dogs.
• It is legal to hunt a hare that has already been shot and wounded.
• It is illegal to hunt a fox that has already been shot and wounded.
TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
More generally;

Some posters have asked or alluded to a key issue – namely whether hunting is a form of pest control / wildlife management or a sport. The simple answer is it’s both. I’m going to quote James Barrington here, as he summarises the arguments neatly;

“Mankind has a responsibility to manage the countryside it has created and
the wildlife populations it supports. Control of wild animals is a factor that is by accepted all three main anti-hunting groups, as well as the public. Hunting with hounds plays an important part in that process, as explained below.

Killing purely for sport is not justified, but hunting is not undertaken purely for sport.

'But people go hunting just for sport'

It is important to understand exactly what constitutes a hunt and the roles played by the participants. Hunting might accurately be described as a combination of ‘sport/wildlife management/pest control’ in that it is:

• sport for most of the riders and followers and who fund the operation;
• wildlife management as undertaken by the hounds, the huntsman and his whippers-in, which removes the old, weak and injured quarry animals, while keeping the population healthy and at a level acceptable to local farmers and landowners;
• pest control, as undertaken by the terrier men, who operate only when the land owner requests the removal of a fox.

Hunting is not about killing as many animals as possible, nor is it about “efficiency” which in itself does not necessarily have to be humane.
Hunting, therefore, is not simply ‘pest control’, nor is it simply a ‘sport’, but a combination of various factors.

'But hunting any animal for sport is immoral'

People will join, follow and support hunting for numerous reasons (seeing hounds work, recreation, socialising, etc). It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine the vast majority of such individuals being corrupted or depraved by the activity. There is clearly an enormous difference between those who follow the hunts and those who take pleasure in seeing one animal fight another, as in dog fighting or badger baiting.

As stated, control of wild animals is accepted by the three main anti-hunting groups. Therefore it is the methods of control that is disputed. There is nothing moral about banning hunting with scenting hounds that do not wound and are selective, while leaving legal other control methods that can wound and cause greater suffering. The politicians and welfare groups who supported the Hunting Act showed that their prime objective was a hunting ban, rather than improving animal welfare”

The vast majority of people who followed a traditionally organised hunt pre ban never saw a fox killed. It’s not what they were there for. And the people who did sometimes see a fox killed weren't there because they got any kick out of the actual killing act. Frankly, if they were, I would certainly have wanted no part of it. To want to kill an animal for no other reason than amusement or fun cannot be regarded as the action of a reasonable or compassionate person.

Prior to the ban, when hounds killed a fox, I was glad for them because they had achieved the task that they were bred and worked for. I was glad for the landowner or farmer if a certain fox had been causing problems with livestock.

I have exactly the same feelings when I shoot a deer or a rabbit – I’m glad I accomplished a task humanely and I’m looking forward to some tasty, ethically sourced meat. The fact that something had to die and possibly spend a very short period of pain isn’t something I take any pleasure in whatsoever.


In the final paragraph I quoted above, Barrington touches on what is for me the key factor in the argument for hunting with hounds – it’s an all or nothing technique. Foxes are either killed outright or left unharmed. The most commonly advocated alternative method of control espoused by those opposed to hunting with hounds is shooting.

In that context, it’s worthwhile taking a look at ‘The use, misuse and abuse of science in support of the Hunting Act 2004’ a report published by the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management and the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group.

"Wounding levels in shot foxes.

5.1.1. Concerns about greater suffering being caused to foxes by shooting if hunting with dogs was prohibited have existed for many years. In 1951, a Government inquiry, The Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals (known as the Scott Henderson Report), explained
the RSPCA’s fear of an outright ban, “…they feel that if hunting were abolished greater cruelty would be caused to foxes by the more widespread use of other methods, particularly
shooting.” (Paragraph 170)

5.1.2. Yet, with no scientific research into wounding levels being undertaken, the RSPCA changed its policy in 1976 to one of outright opposition to foxhunting and qualified support for shooting foxes.

5.1.3. The Middle Way Group (MWG) was concerned about wounding and commissioned a study to examine the likely wounding levels in a range of legal shooting regimes. The work was undertaken by a team of six scientists, under the direction of Dr Nick Fox, a wildlife biologist
familiar with both hunting and shooting.

5.1.4. Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes, was peer reviewed and published by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in its journal, Animal Welfare in May 2005.

5.1.5. The results, which indicated potential wounding levels much higher than those claimed by anti-hunting groups, were first made public in June 2003 at a press conference in Parliament (17 months before the Hunting Act was finally passed), along with a detailed report and video film showing methodology and findings."

The Burns report said that “None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.''

I’m not against the use of shooting to control species where necessary (obviously given the caveat that it’s carried out with due care and attention). Managing species takes place for a number of reasons; to prevent them over predating (ask the RSPB how many foxes they cull in an effort to preserve ground nesting birds), managing deer to prevent them over grazing an area or protecting a farmer’s income by removing a fox that is taking lambs are all necessary tasks with a quantifiable benefit. Sometimes shooting will be the most appropriate technique, sometimes hunting with hounds might be better.

TomO - on 03 Jan 2013
I watched the video I posted the link to again today. That fox is deader than a dead thing in about 5 seconds. That’s a pretty good death for a wild animal – the likely alternatives in the case of a fox of being hit by a car, snared, shot or starving to death all have the potential for a much greater degree of suffering.

(I’m also minded to argue that the suffering endured by a fox that is hunted and killed by hounds is less than the suffering endured by a battery chicken, an intensively reared pig or a lamb that might be transported a considerable distance to market and then on to a large slaughterhouse. I say this as someone who grew up on a farm and still eats meat. And for the benefit of some above, I haven’t bought any red meat other than bacon for about three years. I eat venison or rabbit that I’ve shot about once a week. I never really eat chicken. The bacon is from pigs that are free range, fed only the finest food and probably get individual birthday cards… Joking aside, the reality of eating meat, particularly fast food, is that you are involved in animal exploitation and suffering. )

Many people at this point will say that ‘yes, but it’s been chased across country for x hours, terrified out of its mind before being killed’.

The Burns Inquiry which reported to Parliament in June 2000 found that “The length of the chase may vary considerably, from a few minutes to well over an hour or even longer, but the average is some 15 to 20 minutes.”

We should remember that foxhounds (and staghounds, beagles and harriers) are all scenting hounds. They primarily hunt by using their nose to pick up the scent of their quarry. The video clip I posted is untypical of the activity on a day’s foxhunting in that it shows the final few seconds of the chase. Hounds are generally 5 minutes or so behind their prey and 10-15 minutes behind would not be uncommon. For 90% of the chase, the fox certainly can’t see its pursuers and often won’t be able to hear them. Foxes that are hunted put enough distance between themselves and hounds so that they feel safe and then stop – a normal ‘fright and flight’ response. They don’t leg it for miles, presumably because they don’t have any sense of what might happen if they are eventually caught. Hunted foxes often trot along at a very comfortable pace and have been known to stop to catch prey themselves ‘mid chase’. I’m certainly not suggesting that foxes enjoy being hunted but I’ve never been presented with any evidence to suggest that (excepting the last few seconds) they find it to be unduly distressing.

More on ‘The Chase’ and welfare implications here - http://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-natural-chase/
Timmd on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Interesting thread developing, havn't read it all, so 'bumping' it to stop it being archived before I can post.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.