It seems to me as if it wouldn't be as quick either. I image the ban supporters would say this is a loophole they didn't foresee and would like to change the law. I would say there is almost 0% chance of that happening, tho.
Last edited:
It seems to me as if it wouldn't be as quick either. I image the ban supporters would say this is a loophole they didn't foresee and would like to change the law. I would say there is almost 0% chance of that happening, tho.
Somebody, (can't remember who) suggested freeing zoo animals to live a natural life.
Humans would slip down the food chain fast if that happened!
Personally, I have never hunted, as a child I was very anti, but as I have grown older my views have moderated.
I feel the Government fouled up with the legislation on hunting, and made it a mess. Now it is not one thing or another.
Cheers, Midori
Humans would slip down the food chain fast if that happened!
Personally, I have never hunted, as a child I was very anti, but as I have grown older my views have moderated.
I feel the Government fouled up with the legislation on hunting, and made it a mess. Now it is not one thing or another.
Cheers, Midori
I
india
Guest
Seems like your more bothered about the "scrummy venison" not being utilised by hunters who kill just for the skin and antlers, than the fact that all these animals are hunted down inhumanely and suffer a slow, agonising death.
I should have worded it differently, but its only slow if the hunter hits it in the wrong spot.
Seeing deer hanging from trees, etc doesn't bother me because 1.) I've been seeing that since I was a toddler and 2.) there's an overpopulation of deer over here in the states that to kill a few wouldn't hurt the population whatsoever.
Remember, tho, all animals in the wild suffer slow, agonising deaths. Except for the ones that are brought down by an accurate rifle bullet. That's the closest thing to euthanasia there is for them.
Just because it happens in the wild doesn't mean we should take part in causing unneccessary suffering though
Not all animals die slow agonising deaths, many are killed instantly, thankfully.
I
india
Guest
I'm not sure I agree with you on that one...but just say your theory is correct, would you consider that justifies all bloodsport hunters to inflict pain and suffering on any wild animal?
I think when animals in the wild are killed, I like to see it done as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Going back to what started these recent postings was discussion of birds-of-prey. I think they do not kill foxes as quickly and painlessly as a pack of hounds.
Going back to what started these recent postings was discussion of birds-of-prey. I think they do not kill foxes as quickly and painlessly as a pack of hounds.
I think it's already been stated that the bird of prey catches the fox and the handler then kills the fox with a knife- I assume by slitting the throat?
That was that one hunt. Do we know they all do that? Anyway, what happens until the handler gets up to the fox?
I
india
Guest
There’s scientific evidence to prove that hunting with hounds is NOT a quick and painless death. However, using a bird of prey such as an eagle would be an even more traumatic and agonising experience for a fox, even the Hawk Board disapproves of hunts using this method as it not only compromises the welfare of the hunted animal but also that of the bird of prey, hounds and horses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4255614.stm
Using eagles and other birds of prey to avoid the hunting ban indicates just what length some hunts are prepared to go to in order to satisfy their lust for the sport. It also goes to show what little respect and consideration they must have for the safety and welfare of other animals.
Really this is too much! "their lust for the sport". Implying they have a "blood lust", I suppose. They enjoy their sport -- not for the killing, primarily for the chasing. However, IF their hounds get off the laid scent and chase an actual fox, they use the bird-of-prey as protection against the law.
And to say that hunters don't care about the welfare of their horses and hounds is ridiculous.
I
india
Guest
Hey, hold on....don’t make assumptions; I wasn’t implying anything of the sort!!!!
Using a bird of prey enables hunts to use a full packs of hounds, which everyone knows is illegal under the hunting act. Bird of prey experts advised hunts against this practice - not only for the cruelty aspect to the fox, but also for the safety and welfare of the eagle, hounds and the hunt horses.
However, despite this advice, some hunts spent thousands of pounds on a bird of prey just to “satisfy their lust for the sport” ie: flushing with a FULL PACK OF HOUNDS.
Neither did I suggest ALL hunters care little about the welfare of their horses and hounds. What I did suggest was those who use a bird of prey, regardless to advice on the potential cruelty and risks are the ones who must have little consideration for the welfare of any animal.
These hunts would have got more sympathy votes from Joe public in general, if they'd have approached "the bird of prey" loophole in a completely different manner. As it is, they haven't done themselves any favours.
Some hunts use a non existant bird of prey and use this excuse to deliberately flout the law. Flushing with hounds to a bird of prey is actually a completely different procedure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, hold on....don’t make assumptions; I wasn’t implying anything of the sort!!!!
Using a bird of prey enables hunts to use a full packs of hounds, which everyone knows is illegal under the hunting act. Bird of prey experts advised hunts against this practice - not only for the cruelty aspect to the fox, but also for the safety and welfare of the eagle, hounds and the hunt horses.
However, despite this advice, some hunts spent thousands of pounds on a bird of prey just to “satisfy their lust for the sport” ie: hunting with a FULL PACK OF HOUNDS.
Neither did I suggest ALL hunters care little about the welfare of their horses and hounds. What I did suggest was those who use a bird of prey, regardless to advice on the potential cruelty and risks are the ones who must have little consideration for the welfare of any animal.
These hunts would have got more sympathy votes from Joe public in general, if they'd have approached "the bird of prey" loophole in a completely different manner. As it is, they haven't done themselves any favours.
Some hunts use a non existant bird of prey and use this excuse to deliberately flout the law. Foxhunting with hounds and a bird of prey is actually a completely different procedure.
What I dont get is the fact that hunters care about the welfare of their horses and their hounds, but are (or were before the ban came into effect) willing to chase a hapless, exhausted fox to its death??? What about the welfare of the fox for heavens sake?? I know that they are seen as vermin but this is really about a load of people having fun at the expense of a living creature. If they need to be culled then so be it, but dont make a day's sport out of it....
So you say fox hunting is necessary to maintain a stable population. But what evidence is there to show that the population would become unstable if foxes weren't hunted? I am not aware of any, and it isn't what one would expect given what we know about fox ecology. Rather, all hunting does is reduce the overall population from a stable level to a slightly lower stable level. Isn't that true?
Ok, a question asked out of ignorance: If a fox has been taking lambs or has broken in and killed hens, isn't it possible to wait for it to return, lamp and kill it? My guess is that you'd have to be very patient - perhaps too patient for it to be an economically viable solution. How about going out lamping in the area where the problem occurred? If you shot a fox, you'd couldn't be sure it was the 'rogue', but couldn't you carry on doing this until no more foxes turned up? Of course, in time another fox, or other foxes, would invade the vacated territory - but that would happen no matter what method of killing was employed, and the replacement fox may not be a 'rogue'.
As I said before, I am against the use of snares (and traps that injure). It sounds like you are too...?
I'm curious... which bird of prey don't they use?Some hunts use a non existant bird of prey and use this excuse to deliberately flout the law. Flushing with hounds to a bird of prey is actually a completely different procedure.
Y
Yann
Guest
Or more likely reduce it from an artificially elevated level to a slightly lower one. The conservation argument just doesn't hold water.
So how can the hunt
Of course it is. Once a fox knows there is a reliable food source it will return to it, this is exactly what happened at our yard when hens were taken.
newrider.com