The stupid hunt ....

[Welsh_Girl]

I follow the hunt so that I can ride on land that i wouldn't normally have access to. My subscription pays for the hunt staffs wages and to feed the horses and hounds which then in turn provide free services to the landowner.

I don't enjoy seeing an animal killed I stay away from the kill. I just understand why it is and what it is.

 

[AengusOg]

But they are not controlling their numbers by hunting them. There was "no measurable impact" to the number of foxes during the one year ban on fox hunting in 2001 during the FMD outbreak. The International Weekly Journal of Science derived from this that there would be no change to the fox population if fox hunting was banned completely.

Fox hunting was never about controlling national numbers of foxes.

It was a service afforded to those who needed it most. If there had never been a demand, there would have been no hunts in existence.

How could the International Weekly Journal of Science come to that conclusion after a few months of respite for the fox population? That's about the most unscientific statement I've ever seen.

Did they take into account the excellent records kept by hunts?

Probably not..........after all you can't trust barbarians, can you?



One of the most important aspects of fox hunting with hounds was that it was a method of selectively culling foxes and was a practical way to maintain a healthy fox population.

On occasions when farmers and the like had problems with particular foxes doing damage to their livelihood, the hunt was able to do something about it by laying hounds onto the scent of the offending fox, likely in the early morning when scent was good, quite often resulting in the death of the offender before the antis were even out of their pits.

The remaining legal methods of killing foxes are by their very nature unselective and indescriminatory.

No doubt those who do not understand will bring about legislation to stop those too, but foxes will always be killed by those who wish to do it, and by any means which works.

Far better to have a humane and visible method than an underground movement, don't you think?

 

[Yann]

You missed the point again Yann.

They fact that foxes were preserved during the breeding season means that it wasn't all about their destruction, and at those times at least they had someone looking out for them.

I don't think I did, my personal objection to hunting is the sustained pursuit and destruction of an animal using other animals for the amusement of humans, which I find distasteful, especially as that animal has no food value to us. Pest control is used as justification for the continuation of hunting, when it has nothing to do with pest control. You can't on one hand go on about the valuable service to farmers and livestock owners whilst on the other hand talking about improving and protecting the fox population, it just doesn't square up.

I doubt very much if those anti hunters among us have the slightest inkling of the workings of fox hunting, particularly in relation to the activities outwith the hunting season

There's nothing to know, and nobody has been hoodwinked, it's a simple moral question for most people. Nobody is stopping anyone getting dressed up and following all the excellent traditions of a great day out on horseback in the country.

 

[Yann]

I follow the hunt so that I can ride on land that i wouldn't normally have access to. My subscription pays for the hunt staffs wages and to feed the horses and hounds which then in turn provide free services to the landowner.

I don't enjoy seeing an animal killed I stay away from the kill. I just understand why it is and what it is.

Why not ride with a non lethal pack then? It's not about service to the landowner, you don't need a pack of hounds and umpteen horses to despatch a troublesome fox, a shotgun will do. Shooting of foxes is actively discouraged on hunt land, the 'free service' is contrived and artificial.

 

[Welsh_Girl]

I don't think I did, my personal objection to hunting is the sustained pursuit and destruction of an animal using other animals for the amusement of humans, which I find distasteful, especially as that animal has no food value to us. Pest control is used as justification for the continuation of hunting, when it has nothing to do with pest control. You can't on one hand go on about the valuable service to farmers and livestock owners whilst on the other hand talking about improving and protecting the fox population, it just doesn't square up.




There's nothing to know, and nobody has been hoodwinked, it's a simple moral question for most people. Nobody is stopping anyone getting dressed up and following all the excellent traditions of a great day out on horseback in the country.

If we take out the entertainment value of whatching an animal die....really who does enjoy that!!! I hunt and I don't! It is natural for one species to hunt another competing species. e.g. Wolves hunt Coyotes. So why shouldn't we hunt foxes when they compete with us by killing our food?

 

[Welsh_Girl]

Why not ride with a non lethal pack then? It's not about service to the landowner, you don't need a pack of hounds and umpteen horses to despatch a troublesome fox, a shotgun will do. Shooting of foxes is actively discouraged on hunt land, the 'free service' is contrived and artificial.

Sorry we cross posted

I never hunted with drag hunts because they weren't availabe. A farmer cannot be relied upon to have the time to practice and be a good shot, and I've had to PTS a lot of foxes while I was in hunt service that where dieing from shotgun wounds. Farmers simply can't afford to pay a marksman.

 

[AengusOg]

There's nothing to know, and nobody has been hoodwinked, it's a simple moral question for most people. Nobody is stopping anyone getting dressed up and following all the excellent traditions of a great day out on horseback in the country.

Nothing to know!!??

Is that what you've based your objection on then.

If so, you're not that different to the bulk of the class oriented antis.

Do you really believe that these people who hunt do so because they've nothing else to do.

The hunts existed because there was a need for foxes to be controlled humanely.

For hunts to exist, they need funds (after all it was never government subsidised ), so they allowed subscription to the hunt which brought in the revenue required to offer the service.

Surely you can see that?

 

[vimto92]

Hillbilly, tell us what there is to know then because I have never hunted in my life and know pretty much all I need to (from media, books, internet) to come to a sensible personal opinion.

 

[Morganna]

Fair point Morganna maybe I should have said "trying to..".

Was that study (or any research) carried out on any other methods of maintenence?

I have not found any studies relating to other methods of maintenance but will post anything of interest that I find.

 

[Yann]

Nothing to know!!??

Is that what you've based your objection on then.

Yes it is. What the hunt gets up to out of season isn't relevant to that viewpoint.

If so, you're not that different to the bulk of the class oriented antis.

I think you're saying more about yourself than me with a comment like that.

 

[Francis Burton]

Actually, the Hunting Act 2004 has done nothing to protect foxes from those who seek to reduce their numbers.

I agree it was unsatisfactory legislation - evidently they left too many loopholes.

I doubt if the fox population has increased since the ban, and i would bet that it has in fact decreased given the amount of fox killers, other than hunts, which actively keep fox numbers down.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Where they were once hunted, foxes are now trapped, snared, poisoned, lamped with lurchers/rifle/shotgun, worked below ground with terriers and dug out, and fired upon with all manner of weapons in all conditions and regardless of whether a clean kill is possible or not.

Foxes had all those nasty things done to them even when there was hunting with hounds; it's just the balance that has changed. Legislation that doesn't effectively prevent unnecessary cruelty and suffering - especially if it claims to do so - is not good legislation, in my opinion.

Now foxes are fair game for anyone with stock to protect and the fox, which may have been healthy and fit enough to beat the hounds and live to pass his genes on to the next generation, now dies a horrible death by any means available to those who would seek his demise.

You're exaggerating. Many foxes are going to die horrible deaths whether they are shot at or not, and being chased and caught by hounds didn't guarantee freedom from a horrible death either. Nevertheless, shooting can be relatively humane if it is done properly. There is an argument for foxes to be killed only by qualified, licenced shots.

The foxes most likely to live long and fruitful lives are those mange-ridden, bin-raking urban-dwellers who will be the biggest threat to British livestock, pets, and wildlife, should rabies ever take a hold here.

The foxes in Glasgow are remarkably sleek and unmangey. Has the disease got this far north yet? Anyway, I'm not sure why urban foxes exclusively would be mange-ridden - presumably rural foxes are also affected, otherwise how did it spread? Or perhaps in this case you are using "mange-ridden" as a general derogatory term.

Rabid foxes will and do bite, or otherwise infect, humans as well as fellow animals, and those foxes which live in urban areas will be the very devil to control in the face of notifiable diseases.

This is what IFAW's booklet AFTER THE HUNT says about rabies:

* In continental Europe and North America, foxes are a principal vector of rabies. However, rabies was wiped out in Britain in the early 1900s. Even when present, rabies was primarily a disease of domestic dogs and livestock and was never recorded in foxes, although it was present in wolves before they were exterminated in Britain.

* The risk that rabies will reach Britain is very low. The biggest risk is posed by infected dogs, although past experience has shown that even when present in dogs it is unlikely to transfer to foxes. Thus it seems unlikely that an infected dog will pose a significant threat to wild foxes. There are also good contingency plans in place to deal with a rabies event, should this ever occur (51, 101).

The Hunting Act 2004 will pale into insignificance against legislation to control the spread of rabies.

What will the fluffies do then, I wonder?

Whatever it takes to deal with the disease, presumably!

 

[Yann]

Do you really believe that these people who hunt do so because they've nothing else to do.

No, they do it because it's bloody good fun. I would maintain, having tried it for myself recently that you can still have that fun without needing to kill anything.

 

[Welsh_Girl]

Yes it is. What the hunt gets up to out of season isn't relevant to that viewpoint

Actually the "out of season activities" are the other free services I mentioned.

 

[Francis Burton]

If we take out the entertainment value of whatching an animal die....really who does enjoy that!!! I hunt and I don't! It is natural for one species to hunt another competing species. e.g. Wolves hunt Coyotes. So why shouldn't we hunt foxes when they compete with us by killing our food?

I would hardly call that competition! It's not as if we are liable to die of hunger because the fox is consuming all our meat, is it?

 

[Welsh_Girl]

I would hardly call that competition! It's not as if we are liable to die of hunger because the fox is consuming all our meat, is it?

No but it can put a smallholder out of business and on the dole if it got out of hand.

 

[Morganna]

Fox hunting was never about controlling national numbers of foxes.

So why do I frequenty hear pro hunters using this as a reason to continue their sport?

How could the International Weekly Journal of Science come to that conclusion after a few months of respite for the fox population? That's about the most unscientific statement I've ever seen.

A year is hardly "a few months". And you would have to ask the scientists how they came to this conclusion - not being a scientist myself I wouldn't know how they came to this conclusion.

Did they take into account the excellent records kept by hunts?

You would have to ask them.

Probably not..........after all you can't trust barbarians, can you?

An assumption on your part. And I don't consider people who hunt to be barbarians.





[/QUOTE]

 

[Francis Burton]

The hunts existed because there was a need for foxes to be controlled humanely.

And yet the hunt failed on several counts: it had a very minor effect on the total population, there was no proven need to keep numbers down, and the foxes that were hunted to death weren't killed particularly humanely! (Arguably the foxes that survived and were 'merely' chased didn't enjoy humane treatment either.)

 

[Francis Burton]

No but it can put a smallholder out of business and on the dole if it got out of hand.

As I have stated before, I have no problem with individual foxes causing disproportionate economic damage being shot.

Come to think of it, how many smallholders are put out of business by foxes every year? Or is this more of a hypothetical problem?

 

[Francis Burton]

And I don't consider people who hunt to be barbarians.

Neither do I. They can be disingenuous at times in the attempt to justify their activity - but then some on the anti side of the debate are prone to exaggeration too.

 

[devonlass]

No offence, but I really think its daft to say that hunting is done to 'control the fox population' and 'aid the local farmers'. No isn't. You hunt because you enjoy it, and that's what seems a little cruel to people like me who are against hunting.

In a much less waffling way than I would have put it I really think that about sums up what the 'majority' of ordinary people think about hunting,well said.

No matter how the likes of hillbilly dress it up and try to justify it,the fact is the way it is done is killing for sport,which I think is something most of us find cruel and distasteful.