# A question for the Pro-Hunt people



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Now i know this could cause a debate, i'd rather it didnt and pro hunters just replied with thier answer, i know a thread on hunting is always delicate, but if it turns nasty then i'd rather it was locked and i wont take part in any of the arguing.

What makes fox hunting so fun/enjoyable/pleasurable etc to you?

I dont mean the meet before where everyone turns up with thier horses and supporters mingle round, i mean the actual hunt, because lets face it, that is the point.

I can honestly not grasp the enjoyment of watching a poor fox being chased across a field, over walls, through hedges etc it'd be terrified and as videos have been seen over the years, the fox isnt killed outright and there are times when the huntsmen will not let a fox escape, just to see it killed, wont even get into what happens to the cubs.

I mean, imagine your out walking through the countryside, your happy, its sunny and suddenly a huge pack of wild dogs/wolves/lions etc [i know no lions in the countryside, but we're imagining here] and they start chasing you down and you get grabbed, chunks of flesh torn out and there isnt a quick death, you'd be terrified and in immense pain wouldnt you? Then why is it ok to do it to a fox?

Now i know huntings banned and has been for a while, but i just wanna know.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Do a thread search. you'll find dozens of threads on hunting (most if not all closed lol ) that will answer your question.


----------



## shoreset (Apr 19, 2008)

I haven't been hunting, as I'm a nervous rider.

But I would love to! It's not about the 'hunting'for most, but riding around the countryside with lots of others is fun, and usually the horses love it. It's not something you can really get to do anywhere else, you usually cant find that many places to ride like where the hunts go (they have permission from farmers to go over their land normally). 
For most it's about the ride, not the hunt


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm not necessarily pro fox hunting, not particularly against it either, and can see why many say it's necessary over shooting with a rifle. Shooting with a shotgun is just darn cruel in my view, as that's not guaranteed to kill, and a maimed fox isn't what anyone who is pro hunting wants, if they want to control numbers, they want to kill them. 

I just wanted to post, more to point out the misconception that seems to be portrayed, that foxes live a fluffy life, and it's only when us humans, by chasing them and killing them, upsets their existence in our countryside. Foxes should be fearful, they are a prey item because there is competition for what they eat, there's not many natural predators left in the English countryside above them now, badgers will occasionally kill foxes, possibly a few escaped animals, and us. We compete with the fox sometimes, and so don't want them in numbers that will be a nuisance. At the same time, I know game keepers who delight in seeing foxes around, just not anywhere near where they'll be a problem, and they may have to try and control the numbers by killing them. 

Foxhunting isn't about seeing an individual animal killed, it's about being involved with the whole of the countryside, understanding it and being able to be part of it. It'd be lovely if no animal ever had to suffer and die, but that just isn't the case, and allowing numbers to rise uncontrolled introduces disease, and also means that foxes become bolder, some seem to think they are also becoming larger because of the easy availability of food. I'd prefer to see a smaller population of healthy foxes that were wary of humans and kept themselves to themselves, hunting helps to achieve that. 

I can see both sides of the argument, but will always fall on the side that helps keep the countryside at it's best, and foxes do need controlling in some areas, as do most other native animal species, deer are a good example, left uncontrolled populations become much more unhealthy than where they are controlled, the League Against Cruel Sports have a prime example of this at Baronsdown, a deer sanctuary, where they don't cull older, weaker, or even sick animals.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

shoreset said:


> I haven't been hunting, as I'm a nervous rider.
> 
> But I would love to! It's not about the 'hunting'for most, but riding around the countryside with lots of others is fun, and usually the horses love it. It's not something you can really get to do anywhere else, you usually cant find that many places to ride like where the hunts go (they have permission from farmers to go over their land normally).
> For most it's about the ride, not the hunt


Thanks for replying, i understand where your coming from, just like a day out but on horses is what you like from it


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not necessarily pro fox hunting, not particularly against it either, and can see why many say it's necessary over shooting with a rifle. Shooting with a shotgun is just darn cruel in my view, as that's not guaranteed to kill, and a maimed fox isn't what anyone who is pro hunting wants, if they want to control numbers, they want to kill them.
> 
> I just wanted to post, more to point out the misconception that seems to be portrayed, that foxes live a fluffy life, and it's only when us humans, by chasing them and killing them, upsets their existence in our countryside. Foxes should be fearful, they are a prey item because there is competition for what they eat, there's not many natural predators left in the English countryside above them now, badgers will occasionally kill foxes, possibly a few escaped animals, and us. We compete with the fox sometimes, and so don't want them in numbers that will be a nuisance. At the same time, I know game keepers who delight in seeing foxes around, just not anywhere near where they'll be a problem, and they may have to try and control the numbers by killing them.
> 
> ...


I understand where your coming from about keeping the population under control, cos yes foxes are becoming more and more human wise. But surely there is a more humane way then being chased and torn apart by dogs?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> I understand where your coming from about keeping the population under control, cos yes foxes are becoming more and more human wise. But surely there is a more humane way then being chased and torn apart by dogs?


If you ask those that are pro hunting, they will tell you that it is necessary where you can't lamp for them, I don't have enough experience or knowledge about hunting to say if that's definitely the case, there have been plausible arguments made on here previously about it.

One thing that does worry me, is the release of urban foxes in the wild. It is most definitely happening, foxes are being lamped and shot that have been through medical procedures, even one that had a hind leg removed, and they've been released in inappropriate places, ie next to a free range chicken farm in one instance! Rescue organisations should not be releasing them into a completely alien environment in the first place, and releasing them into an area where they are likely to be shot is just wrong, you may as well have euthanased them rather than spend donated money on caring for them in the first place.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Why do people kid themselves that foxhunting is all about population control, if it were than hunts wouldnt encourage foxes to breed and foxes would never have been imported to Australia.....yep they really cared about Australia fragile environment didnt they!


.


----------



## shoreset (Apr 19, 2008)

Staysee said:


> I understand where your coming from about keeping the population under control, cos yes foxes are becoming more and more human wise. But surely there is a more humane way then being chased and torn apart by dogs?


Which way would you like, trapping? poisoning? shooting? All ways of controlling the fox population can be called inhumane.

The foxes do exactly the same as we do to them but to fluffy little bunnies... and the hounds need to eats just as much as the fox does

ETA I dont think rural fox populations need to be controled, i think urban ones do, but hunting doesnt happen in urban areas. I have never thought fox hunting was about population controlled, esp as some hunts bred their own foxes for the hunt.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you ask those that are pro hunting, they will tell you that it is necessary where you can't lamp for them, I don't have enough experience or knowledge about hunting to say if that's definitely the case, there have been plausible arguments made on here previously about it.
> 
> One thing that does worry me, is the release of urban foxes in the wild. It is most definitely happening, foxes are being lamped and shot that have been through medical procedures, even one that had a hind leg removed, and they've been released in inappropriate places, ie next to a free range chicken farm in one instance! Rescue organisations should not be releasing them into a completely alien environment in the first place, and releasing them into an area where they are likely to be shot is just wrong, you may as well have euthanased them rather than spend donated money on caring for them in the first place.


I totally agree that a fox shouldnt be released in an area like that and if the fox is lame through a leg missing it should live out its days in a shelter or if kinder be PTS


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Why do people kid themselves that foxhunting is all about population control, if it were than hunts wouldnt encourage foxes to breed and foxes would never have been imported to Australia
> 
> .


You know that isn't relevant to modern day practices, foxes wouldn't be released to ensure there was a population in a foreign land. The same as we wouldn't wipe out the indigenous people


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

shoreset said:


> Which way would you like, trapping? poisoning? shooting? All ways of controlling the fox population can be called inhumane.
> 
> The foxes do exactly the same as we do to them but to fluffy little bunnies... and the hounds need to eats just as much as the fox does


You can set traps which are checked daily and have someone skilled to shoot them, its alot more humane then being ripped apart.

And no not some kind of snare, a cage or box trap


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You know that isn't relevant to modern day practices, foxes wouldn't be released to ensure there was a population in a foreign land. The same as we wouldn't wipe out the indigenous people


well its certainly proves to me that foxhunting is more about bloodlust than population control


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

If all people wanted was a day out on a horse then do it , ask permission of the farmers to cross their land if you have to .... but why involve a poor innocent animal being terrified for its life , chased down and slaughtered ?

I see no justification for it at all
No animal lover I know would want to see any animal torn apart infront of them and imo the people who do it or condone it are bloodthirsty barbarians of the worst order who have zero right to call themselves animal lovers 

If needs be there are other ways of controlling animal population that dont involve the animal suffering to such an immense degree. 

Hunting is just for the pleasure of the human involved , and nothing and no-one will convince me otherwise


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Why do people kid themselves that foxhunting is all about population control


They ignore the truth and perpetuate that lie because it's the only way they can justify it to themselves. It's easier to do that than admit to themselves they support something that any true animal lover, any true supporter and preserver of the countryside, would never countenance.

It is perfectly possible to understand the countryside and be a part of the countryside, and yet still kill foxes humanely. A hunt is neither a timely nor efficient way of pest control or of managing the countryside. Think of it - if foxes are so great a pest, why spend all day chasing around the countryside to kill just one? No, chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion and then watching it being ripped to shreds is done for the "enjoyment" (shudder) of the people doing it, nothing else.

Wanting foxes to be killed humanely is not thinking of foxes as fluffy little angels either. That's just another red herring floated about by pro-hunters in order to try to devalue the opinions of people who are justifiably horrified by their blood lust. There is nothing "fluffy" about wanting a pest/predator to be killed humanely instead of being treated as an object to be chased and ripped to shreds just for human "sport". It's what any true animal lover would want.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> You can set traps which are checked daily and have someone skilled to shoot them, its alot more humane then being ripped apart.
> 
> And no not some kind of snare, a cage or box trap


Yes I know you can, so, do you think it's humane to set a trap, which will smell of humans, and leave a fox in there for up to 12 hours (they should be checked twice per day legally)?

Or, do you think it's more humane for a fox to be chased and fearful for an hour, and then killed?


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes I know you can, so, do you think it's humane to set a trap, which will smell of humans, and leave a fox in there for up to 12 hours (they should be checked twice per day legally)?
> 
> Or, do you think it's more humane for a fox to be chased and fearful for an hour, and then killed?


Still think the humane trap as the end result wont result in a dozen or more sets of teeth ripping at your body.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> Still think the humane trap as the end result wont result in a dozen or more sets of teeth ripping at your body.


So you'd rather see a wild animal trapped in a totally alien situation, feartul, stressed, for up to 12 hours, than hunted and killed with dogs?


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you'd rather see a wild animal trapped in a totally alien situation, feartul, stressed, for up to 12 hours, than hunted and killed with dogs?


And being chased down and having chunks torn out of you, dogs going crazy all around and being extremely scared is humane?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes I know you can, so, do you think it's humane to set a trap, which will smell of humans, and leave a fox in there for up to 12 hours (they should be checked twice per day legally)?
> 
> Or, do you think it's more humane for a fox to be chased and fearful for an hour, and then killed?


Well of course it doesn't have to be 12 hours - it could and probably would be far less.

But let me ask you this. If aliens landed and preyed upon humans, and you were their next target, which would you prefer? Being trapped painlessly for 12 hours and then killed quickly and painlessly, or being chased all day until you were exhausted and then being ripped to shreds whilst you were still alive?

I know which I'd choose - and for me it would be worse than for the fox because for the 12 hours in the trap I would know what was going to happen to me.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> You can set traps which are checked daily and have someone skilled to shoot them, its alot more humane then being ripped apart.


I cannot understand how it can be more humane for an animal to die after many hours of agony while being trapped compared to a death in seconds


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I cannot understand how it can be more humane for an animal to die after many hours of agony while being trapped compared to a death in seconds


But the dogs dont kill in seconds, the chase lasts a while and the kill doesnt happen instantly, so no....not death in seconds


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Why do people kid themselves that foxhunting is all about population control, if it were than hunts wouldnt encourage foxes to breed and foxes would never have been imported to Australia.....yep they really cared about Australia fragile environment didnt they!
> 
> .





Sleeping_Lion said:


> You know that isn't relevant to modern day practices, foxes wouldn't be released to ensure there was a population in a foreign land. The same as we wouldn't wipe out the indigenous people


Yes they were introduced for sport in Australia, and then to help control the hare population. In WA they are now a pest on some farms, same as kangaroos and rabbits, and are hunted to cull the population: I've never seen a 'traditional' foxhunt or people hunting on horseback at all, but regularly seen people go hunting at night (on ute back with spotlights), either with rifles or with rifles and roodogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> And being chased down and having chunks torn out of you, dogs going crazy all around and being extremely scared is humane?


Ah, so the point of the post is this, sorry hen, can't agree. A wild animal trapped is inhumane, a wild animal trapped for up to 12 hours is appallling. I would far prefer to see said wild animal having a chance to flee, yes, there is a chance they will die, trapped, they will most certainly be stressed, and will most certainly die.



Spellweaver said:


> Well of course it doesn't have to be 12 hours - it could and probably would be far less.
> 
> But let me ask you this. If aliens landed and preyed upon humans, and you were their next target, which would you prefer? Being trapped painlessly for 12 hours and then killed quickly and painlessly, or being chased all day until you were exhausted and then being ripped to shreds whilst you were still alive?
> 
> I know which I'd choose - and for me it would be worse than for the fox because for the 12 hours in the trap I would know what was going to happen to me.


So you imagine the foxes think they've got a happy reprieve before someone comes and shoots them in the head, sorry, but that is completely disney, what a load of rubbish. They are in a trap, it smells alien, it frightens them, they are stressed and then they are killed. You are humanising how you perceive foxes see death, and that is very obvious.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Wild animals are prone to dieing from stress and fright.
I cannot even begin to imagine the terror of a trapped fox


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Wild animals are prone to dieing from stress and fright.
> I cannot even begin to imagine the terror of a trapped fox


So we've agreed that being trapped and hunting are basically both bad, inhumane ways?

Anyways, this has gone a litte off topic, this was meant to be why pro hunters enjoyed etc the hunt


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> So we've agreed that being trapped and hunting are basically both bad, inhumane ways?
> 
> Anyways, this has gone a litte off topic, this was meant to be why pro hunters enjoyed etc the hunt


No, you've agreed trapping and hunting are inhumane, others are putting forward the idea that hunting is better than trapping. No form of culling is humane, that's obviousl because you kill, but some are better than others.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, you've agreed trapping and hunting are inhumane, others are putting forward the idea that hunting is better than trapping. No form of culling is humane, that's obviousl because you kill, but some are better than others.


But hunting is not better.

Like i said, back to the original topic please


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> So we've agreed that being trapped and hunting are basically both bad, inhumane ways?
> 
> Anyways, this has gone a litte off topic, this was meant to be why pro hunters enjoyed etc the hunt


Sorry. I've just stated a fact and my opinion on that one fact


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> But hunting is not better.
> 
> Like i said, back to the original topic please


But hunting is not better why?

In your opinion?

Sorry, but you pose a question on open forum, expect to get varied opinions and answers, mine may not be right, but please don't patronise me by telling me what I can and can't post.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you imagine the foxes think they've got a happy reprieve before someone comes and shoots them in the head, sorry, but that is completely disney, what a load of rubbish.


No I do not and the fact that you have to twist my words like that just makes it very obvioous that you have no real answer to my argument. Go back and read my words - I did not say that at all. What I actually said was that, unlike a human being, a fox would have no idea what would be going to happen to it next.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> They are in a trap, it smells alien, it frightens them, they are stressed and then they are killed. You are humanising how you perceive foxes see death, and that is very obvious.


Again, you are wrong. There was no humanisation at all. My argument is that it the lesser of two evils.

How can you possibly think that what you write about above is more stressful to a wild animal than being chased all day and then being ripped to shreds?

You are lying to yourself if you think it is - that is very obvious.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

I dont ride therefore I dont hunt but some of you may know that my young dog was, just a few days ago, poisoned with Warfarin, Not something I wish ever to see again, I never hear of anyone pleading the cause of rats, they are after all furry animals yet nobody thinks twice about them dying a slow and painful death, it's accepted because we regard them as pests. Well believe me, after seeing what this poison did to my dog I'd much rather see a rat killed by a couple of terriers than Warfarin. He is, with expert treatment from my brilliant Vet, getting over it, but it was touch and go for a while.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But hunting is not better why?
> 
> In your opinion?
> 
> Sorry, but you pose a question on open forum, expect to get varied opinions and answers, mine may not be right, but please don't patronise me by telling me what I can and can't post.


I never said not to post anything, just asked to be kept on topic thats all


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

springerpete said:


> I dont ride therefore I dont hunt but some of you may know that my young dog was, just a few days ago, poisoned with Warfarin, Not something I wish ever to see again, I never hear of anyone pleading the cause of rats, they are after all furry animals yet nobody thinks twice about them dying a slow and painful death, it's accepted because we regard them as pests. Well believe me, after seeing what this poison did to my dog I'd much rather see a rat killed by a couple of terriers than Warfarin. He is, with expert treatment from my brilliant Vet, getting over it, but it was touch and go for a while.


Glad to hear your dog is ok again, must of been a horrible thing to go through 

I dont like the thought of any animal....fox, rat heck even spiders dying any kind of slow painfull death.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No I do not and the fact that you have to twist my words like that just makes it very obvioous that you have no real answer to my argument. Go back and read my words - I did not say that at all. What I actually said was that, unlike a human being, a fox would have no idea what would be going to happen to it next.
> 
> Again, you are wrong. There was no humanisation at all. My argument is that it the lesser of two evils.
> 
> ...


Chased all day, are you joking? Are you saying a fox will be chased for longer than 12 hours, the time it could be trapped for legally, and are you seriously suggesting a fox will take the time to have a nap when trapped, but hunting is more cruel? It may interest you then, that foxes that have been in the process of being hunted, have, become opportunistic hunters themselves, when presented with a flushed prey item. Sorry, but the fact that foxes that are hunted, do themselves display normal hunting behaviour, sort of dispells all that theory about it being terrible. The only terrible bit, is the kill, and that should be quick, I don't have stats, but with a pack of hounds, it aint gonna last for 12 hours.

So, would you rather a fox had a couple of hours chase, had the chance to get away, or was trapped for up to 12 hours, approached by a human and shot?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> Glad to hear your dog is ok again, must of been a horrible thing to go through
> 
> I dont like the thought of any animal....fox, rat heck even spiders dying any kind of slow painfull death.


Mmmm
http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/162062-i-didnt-deserve.html

 :001_tt2:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No I do not and the fact that you have to twist my words like that just makes it very obvioous that you have no real answer to my argument. Go back and read my words - I did not say that at all. What I actually said was that, unlike a human being, a fox would have no idea what would be going to happen to it next.
> 
> Again, you are wrong. There was no humanisation at all. My argument is that it the lesser of two evils.
> 
> ...


Sorry, forgot to answer the first bit, you seriously think a fox sits there pondering, well, I wonder what might happen, could be good, could be bad? A trap smells of humans, it can't escape, it cannot revert to it's normal state of fight or flight, so it WILL be stressed, doesn't take much to understand that, and I know you can and will. So how is that better in any way shape or form?


----------



## cazbah (Nov 2, 2009)

Don't get why they have to be killed at all, if farmers were responsible and secured their animals from foxes why do they need to be killed and what right do we have to decide what animals have worth and which can be abused for our pleasure? 

Fox Hunting is as evil as illegal dog fighting and should remain banned furthermore the law should be properly enforced criminals who fox hunt should be arrested and charged and convicted and imprisoned.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Mmmm
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/162062-i-didnt-deserve.html
> 
> :001_tt2:


The fact that it killed the spider outright means nothing then? Believe me it did, i checked.


----------



## retepwaker (Dec 5, 2011)

I fell that the fox hunters are very sad people if that is the only way they can find to ride horses i have friends that are horse riders and don't have to go to that extreme


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

cazbah said:


> Don't get why they have to be killed at all, if farmers were responsible and secured their animals from foxes why do they need to be killed and what right do we have to decide what animals have worth and which can be abused for our pleasure?
> 
> Fox Hunting is as evil as illegal dog fighting and should remain banned furthermore the law should be properly enforced criminals who fox hunt should be arrested and charged and convicted and imprisoned.


Do you eat meat? If not, do you promote ethical rearing of animals that are reared for slaughter?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> The fact that it killed the spider outright means nothing then? Believe me it did, i checked.


But you were trying to set your cats onto it!!!
We all know how cats love to play with prey. 
What's the difference between your cat pulling the odd leg off a spider and other forms of hunting? 
Or is it ok because they haven't got fur?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> are you seriously suggesting a fox will take the time to have a nap when trapped


Eh? Please do highlight where I have said that. What a stupid thing to say - are you sure you are not Elmo posting as Sleeping Lion?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> So, would you rather a fox had a couple of hours chase, had the chance to get away, or was trapped for up to 12 hours, approached by a human and shot?


But you've missed out an important bit of the equation, haven't you? Your question should read:

_So, would you rather a fox had a couple of hours chase, had the chance to get away, but was almost certain to be caught and ripped to shreds whilst still alive, or was trapped for up to 12 hours, approached by a human and shot_

Puts a whole different perspective on it, doesn't it, the bit you've so conveniently left out? When you include that bit, I maintain it is definitely more humane fior an animal to be trapped and then shot than to be ripped to shreds. The fear and stress factor of being chased, caught and ripped to shreds cannot be anything other than higher than being trapped and shot.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rona said:


> But you were trying to set your cats onto it!!!
> We all know how cats love to play with prey.
> What's the difference between your cat pulling the odd leg off a spider and other forms of hunting?
> Or is it ok because they haven't got fur?


Believe me, this spider got the better of them....most spiders are normally caught and chucked out by my dad, or got by a cat when we dont realise its there


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, forgot to answer the first bit, you seriously think a fox sits there pondering, well, I wonder what might happen, could be good, could be bad? A trap smells of humans, it can't escape, it cannot revert to it's normal state of fight or flight, so it WILL be stressed, doesn't take much to understand that, and I know you can and will. So how is that better in any way shape or form?


Sleeping Lion, I wish you would revert to your usual sensible method of debating and stop all this trying to pretend I've said things I haven't. These things you are accusing me of meaning are in your mind, nowhere else. It's not like you to use these silly methods 

Nowhere have I either said or intimated that a trapped animal will not be stressed. What I have said, many times, Elmo () is that the stress of being trapped _has_ to be less than the stress of being chased and ripped to shreds.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Well of course it doesn't have to be 12 hours - it could and probably would be far less.
> 
> But let me ask you this. If aliens landed and preyed upon humans, and you were their next target, which would you prefer? Being trapped painlessly for 12 hours and then killed quickly and painlessly, or being chased all day until you were exhausted and then being ripped to shreds whilst you were still alive?
> 
> *I know which I'd choose *- and for me it would be worse than for the fox because for the 12 hours in the trap I would know what was going to happen to me.


So now, foxes have your rationing capabilities 



Spellweaver said:


> No I do not and the fact that you have to twist my words like that just makes it very obvioous that you have no real answer to my argument. Go back and read my words - I did not say that at all. What I actually said was that, unlike a human being, a fox would have no idea what would be going to happen to it next.
> 
> Again, you are wrong. There was no humanisation at all. My argument is that it the lesser of two evils.
> 
> ...


See below....



Spellweaver said:


> Eh? Please do highlight where I have said that. What a stupid thing to say - are you sure you are not Elmo posting as Sleeping Lion?
> 
> But you've missed out an important bit of the equation, haven't you? Your question should read:
> 
> ...


How do you know the fox knows it will die? A fox is a free wild creature, and yet every single post on here, including your own, assumes they know they will die, and have a perception of death, utter rubbish, rest my case.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

a question,who here would love to see all spiders torn limb from limb then trodden on?.....horrible beasts


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

skyblue said:


> a question,who here would love to see all spiders torn limb from limb then trodden on?.....horrible beasts


Or ants getting boiling water poured on them


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

skyblue said:


> a question,who here would love to see all spiders torn limb from limb then trodden on?.....horrible beasts


I personally leave spiders, not happy handling big spiders, but have handled big spides and snakes.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Or ants getting boiling water poured on them


Who has ever done that?! Thats horrible, i cant even step on them, i avoid at all costs


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> Who has ever done that?! Thats horrible, i cant even step on them, i avoid at all costs


Plenty of threads on here about how to kill ants


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> .for me it would be worse than for the fox because for the 12 hours in the trap I would know what was going to happen to me.





Sleeping_Lion said:


> So now, foxes have your rationing capabilities


Er - no - I actually said they didn't. Read the words above.



Spellweaver said:


> .for me it would be worse than for the fox because for the 12 hours in the trap I would know what was going to happen to me.





Sleeping_Lion said:


> How do you know the fox knows it will die? A fox is a free wild creature, and yet every single post on here, including your own, assumes they know they will die, and have a perception of death,


Er - no - I actually said the fox does not know it is going to die, Read the words above.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> utter rubbish, rest my case.


The only one producing rubbish is you. I have a feeling you are going to cringe when you read this thread properly.


----------



## lily74 (Jan 13, 2012)

Personally I think fox hunting is cruel, outdated and only for the benefit of the human riding the horse It's a bloodsport like fighting dogs, blood drawn from animals for the enjoyment of a human, not for food but for fun.

If numbers of foxes need to be kept under control I'd rather see another humane way of doing it so they don't suffer rather than being chased, scared and ultimately ripped to shreds by a dog

A fox has instincts and if it is being chased it is under stress, it is a living, breathing animal with feelings just like a dog or a cat. What gives a human the right to hunt it down for fun, if they want to enjoy the countryside on a horse go riding!


Yes they are classed as vermin and spread disease but so can other animals.

I saw a fox the other day cross the road and disappear into the bushes he didn't want to hang around and bother us. They will kill chickens etc as they have to survive somehow, the same as cats hunt birds or a lion hunts a buffalo.

I can't think of one arguement that could support the killing of another animal for fun


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Er - no - I actually said they didn't. Read the words above.
> 
> Er - no - I actually said the fox does not know it is going to die, Read the words above.
> 
> The only one producing rubbish is you. I have a feeling you are going to cringe when you read this thread properly.


No, no cringing here, you would prefer an animal to remain in a trap for up to 12 hours, without knowing what would happen, than allowed a chance for freedom. You can twist it which way you like, foxes do not understand being trappped and waiting to be shot humanely, if they are to be culled, people involved need to be free of human emotions because they have nothng to do with fox, or any other sort of, hunting. So no, not cringing, the only cringing is reallly reading your inexperience on the matter, and how badly that reflects.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

'To all you hunters who kill animals for food; shame on you; you ought to go to the store and buy the meat that was made where no animals were harmed. - sorry link disappeared, but really, read it, and then come to a decision


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, no cringing here, you would prefer an animal to remain in a trap for up to 12 hours, without knowing what would happen, than allowed a chance for freedom. You can twist it which way you like, foxes do not understand being trappped and waiting to be shot humanely, if they are to be culled, people involved need to be free of human emotions because they have nothng to do with fox, or any other sort of, hunting. So no, not cringing, the only cringing is reallly reading your inexperience on the matter, and how badly that reflects.


So you refuse to admit that you've taken my words and pretended they mean the exact opposite of what they say?

No matter how much you twist it, I have never even attempted to pretend that a fox "understands" it has been trapped humanely. I have said several times, in several different posts on here, that I am merely comparing the stress of being trapped against the stress of being chased and ripped to shreds, and disagreeing with you that the former is more stressful than the latter. I believe the latter to be more stressful.

My first post in this thread remarked how pro-hunters tried to justify their blood lust to themselves - and you have given a marvellous example of it. Anyone who disagrees with you is accused of saying the opposite of what they actually said, and when all else fails, you accuse them of inexperience. Thank you for providing such a good example of what I meant.

As for being cringeworthy - the posts are all there for anyone to read - and most people will be reading what the words actually say, not what you are pretending they mean.

I just want to add that I am very sad and disappointed - you and I can usually have some good discussions even when we disagree with each other's viewpoint. However, it's impossible to discuss anything properly with someone who pretends you are saying things you are not. So, I can see no further point in continuing this discussion with you and am off to bed.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Lily74, actually foxes kill for fun. If they get into a hen run for example, they'll kill every bird they can catch ie most of them. They'll only take one bird to eat. It's certainly not just humans who kill for pleasure.

I have to say I'm with Sleeping_Lion on the fox killing business. If a fox is hunted by hounds it will either be caught and die quickly or escape completely. There's no chance of it dying a slow and terrible death from a shot that wounds but doesn't kill or poison.

I've no experience of the box traps that people mention but do they just catch foxes? Are there restrictions on the time of year that they can be used? I would hate to think of an animal trapped for 11 hours without water on a hot day or in the freezing cold in a metal box.

Yes, hunting is great fun. Forget foxes, they're not actually necessary. *Think drag hunting.* Galloping after hounds, through varied countryside, over panels with other horses is about the best fun there is. Does that address the original question?


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

some while ago i had a combi boiler put in,the young man was a hunter,2 labs and an assortment of guns etc

he was a marksman if the truths known,a few years ago he was approached to help cull the deer on cannock chase,so he took a high powered rifle fitted with the appropriate sights..his company was a vet and a RSPCA officer,well after that trip he holds a british record,he sighted a deer over 500 yards away and got ready for a shot,he was told there and then that if he doesn't make a clean kill he could be prosecuted...he made a one shot clean kill

i remember when fox hunting was banned,land owners and farmers stated that they would shoot on sight,how many of these people are able to make a clean kill with a shot gun do you think?,some foxes must suffer a long drawn out agonising death

since the ban i think i've seen 3 countryside foxes

i'd like to see the hunt brought back with vigorously enforced rules

a fox goes to earth and the hunt is over,find another fox...no digging it out

no protecting foxes earths which have cubs in them

private property is to be respected,stay off it

a minimum age limit,not an adult no participation


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

springerpete said:


> I never hear of anyone pleading the cause of rats, they are after all furry animals yet nobody thinks twice about them dying a slow and painful death, it's accepted because we regard them as pests.


I plead their cause every day. I think its disgusting that rats are killed in this way, it sickens me, and I have no respect for anyone that uses rat poison, and it baffles me how this is still legal to sell. Would they so happily stock 'dog poison' or 'cat poison'? No, there would be uproar. 
I regularly dispose of bait stations when I find them, or block them up. I just do what I can to remove them. I don't care if I'd get in trouble for it; it is animal abuse, plain and simple.
These animals are as smart as a toddler, and very social creatures, and poison can take up to 7 days to kill a rat. 7 days of immense suffering, stress, and pain. 
Rats are not pests, and they're not vermin. Vermin is a word human invent to make themselves feel better about killing certain species. 
In fact, the term vermin fits the human species pretty well, so I always laugh when I hear someone using it to describe rats. 
They spread FAR less disease than people think, we have a wild rat living in our shed. She's been there about a year. She sleeps in a box I put out for her, and never leaves her shed as I provide food and water for her, so she has no reason to. She is, for some reason, a lone rat, which is odd for a wildie, but for whatever reason, she has no group.
So she happily lives in my shed, being protected from morons who would poison her, and she has already way outlived her natural life span due to my care of her.
I feel honoured to have her choose to live with me. And I wouldn't care if she brought in 10 other rats. I'd love it. 
People get excited about seeing squirrels in their gardens, or hedgehogs, but they freak out at rats? To me, they're british wildlife, like any other, and I love to see them.

So yes, some people are very much against the poisoning of rats 

Im also fiercely anti fox hunting. I can understand the desire to ride around on horses with your friends, I have no problem with that; its the killing I have a problem with.
If its not about bloodlust, and is just about having fun on horses, why not drag hunt? Why does there have to be a kill?

Population control is also a feeble excuse: some hunts actually breed foxes specifically for this purpose! As far as I know, there has never shown to be any increase in fox numbers when hunting is banned. 
I wish hunters would just be more honest. I'll never respect a fox hunter, but I would despise them less if they were just honest and admitted that they get a thrill from seeing an animal ripped to bits. 
This whole pretence about how 'its best for the fox, we're not cruel, its totally humane, its for their benefit' is so pathetic and feeble and transparent.

Also, one has to consider that a fox is not a prey animal. It has few to no natural predators, so it is not an animal that is designed to be chased by a predator for miles. Its body isn't designed for that kind of activity, unlike the body of a natural prey animal. They suffer enormously when forced to run this way for so long. Their bodies break down; hunt sabs have previously saved a fox from a hunt even before it was gotten to by the hounds, but it still didn't survive as the trauma of running so far for so long, so desperately, had just destroyed its body.

Hunt for food, fine.
Hunt for survival, fine. 
Hunt for fun? Oh god no. We should be ashamed of our species.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

ozrex said:


> Lily74, actually foxes kill for fun. If they get into a hen run for example, they'll kill every bird they can catch ie most of them. They'll only take one bird to eat. It's certainly not just humans who kill for pleasure.
> 
> I have to say I'm with Sleeping_Lion on the fox killing business. If a fox is hunted by hounds it will either be caught and die quickly or escape completely. There's no chance of it dying a slow and terrible death from a shot that wounds but doesn't kill or poison.
> 
> ...


Drag hunting or that scent hunting, or is it the same thing? haha is fine, aslong as at the end of the hunt no foxes or even pets are injured or killed, i have no objection with them going out on thier horses and dogs, just so long as no innocent animal is needlessly chased.

Thank you for answering the question tho


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> They suffer enormously when forced to run this way for so long. Their bodies break down; hunt sabs have previously saved a fox from a hunt even before it was gotten to by the hounds, but it still didn't survive as the trauma of running so far for so long, so desperately, had just destroyed its body.
> 
> .


It couldn't possibly have been that it was terrified to death by the contact with the humans that "saved" it?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Eh? What a stupid thing to say - are you sure you are not Elmo posting as Sleeping Lion?
> 
> But you've missed out an important bit of the equation, haven't you? Your question should read:
> 
> but was almost certain to be caught and ripped to shreds whilst still alive,


Please could you give me the figures on that or have you been and actually seen it?
I was under the impression that the majority of hunts had ended in failure.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

K337 said:


> Yes they were introduced for sport in Australia, and then to help control the hare population. In WA they are now a pest on some farms, same as kangaroos and rabbits, and are hunted to cull the population: I've never seen a 'traditional' foxhunt or people hunting on horseback at all, but regularly seen people go hunting at night (on ute back with spotlights), either with rifles or with rifles and roodogs.


the only source of info i can find that says they were also introduced to control hare is wiki lol?, everything else says they were introduced for 'recreational' hunting, even this Aus/Government document states they were introduced for 'sporting purposes'.......so there you have it, they are hunted for 'sport'...simple as!!!

The European Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was reported in Australia as early as 1855, but the fi rst successful releases probably took place in southern Victoria in 1871 (Rolls 1969). They were introduced for sporting purposes mainly for hunting with horse and hound. The spread of foxes appeared to closely follow that of the European rabbit, which was introduced a few years
earlier. Foxes were recognised as a pest in central and northern Victoria by 1893 (Jarman 1986; Saunders et al. 1995), as evidenced by the introduction of a bounty for their control. From there, foxes continued to spread northwards, probably reaching Queensland in the early
1900s (~1907-1910).

(& there are still around 20 packs of hounds in Australia.)



springerpete said:


> I dont ride therefore I dont hunt but some of you may know that my young dog was, just a few days ago, poisoned with Warfarin, Not something I wish ever to see again, I never hear of anyone pleading the cause of rats, they are after all furry animals yet nobody thinks twice about them dying a slow and painful death, it's accepted because we regard them as pests. Well believe me, after seeing what this poison did to my dog I'd much rather see a rat killed by a couple of terriers than Warfarin. He is, with expert treatment from my brilliant Vet, getting over it, but it was touch and go for a while.


yes i agree using warfarin, or any poison for that matter, is disgusting! & its not only rats that suffer but many of our native predators...including protected raptors! yes a lot of gamekeepers have a much to answer for!...& im so glad Skye is well on the road to recovery after his terrible ordeal, bless him.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ozrex said:


> Lily74, actually foxes kill for fun. If they get into a hen run for example, they'll kill every bird they can catch ie most of them. They'll only take one bird to eat. It's certainly not just humans who kill for pleasure.
> 
> I have to say I'm with Sleeping_Lion on the fox killing business. If a fox is hunted by hounds it will either be caught and die quickly or escape completely. There's no chance of it dying a slow and terrible death from a shot that wounds but doesn't kill or poison.
> 
> ...


but often they arnt killed quickly, they have to endure a terryfying chase 1st!...then when they go to ground they are dug up...how very sporting

in your country they are an alien species who are wreaking havoc on your fragile eco system and have to be eliminated, they should never have been introduced In our country they arnt vermin they are one of our few indiginous predators, so they belong in our countryside.

im all for drag hunting:thumbsup:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

skyblue said:


> a question,who here would love to see all spiders torn limb from limb then trodden on?.....horrible beasts


certainly not me.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> the only source of info i can find that says they were also introduced to control hare is wiki lol?, everything else says they were introduced for 'recreational' hunting, even this Aus/Government document states they were introduced for 'sporting purposes'.......so there you have it, they *are* hunted for 'sport'...simple as!!!


Yes, originally introduced for sport but quickly became a pest and are now (at least in WA) hunted for culling. There was some hope that they would help control the hare and rabbit population but it seems most farmers end up hunting them as well. I'm uncertain as to the legality surrounding it, particularly concerning who can shoot, if traps can be used etc but I am well aware that the hunting itself is very different to an 'English Foxhunt'.

From what I've seen, they generally occur at night on the back of a ute and the animals are killed using rifles. Yes there are other methods (dogs, bunny bashing etc) that I've heard of that could potentially cause a lot more pain and suffering to the animal but I haven't seen these so I'm uncertain as to the actual extent of this. The hunting I've seen is primarily to stop the threat to livestock, crops and fences rather than for sport. With rabbits and kangaroo we also either eat the meat or feed it to pets, so it's not a complete waste either.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

K337 said:


> Yes, originally introduced for sport but quickly became a pest and are now (at least in WA) hunted for culling. There was some hope that they would help control the hare and rabbit population but it seems most farmers end up hunting them as well. I'm uncertain as to the legality surrounding it, particularly concerning who can shoot, if traps can be used etc but I am well aware that the hunting itself is very different to an 'English Foxhunt'.
> 
> From what I've seen, they generally occur at night on the back of a ute and the animals are killed using rifles. Yes there are other methods (dogs, bunny bashing etc) that I've heard of that could potentially cause a lot more pain and suffering to the animal but I haven't seen these so I'm uncertain as to the actual extent of this. The hunting I've seen is primarily to stop the threat to livestock, crops and fences rather than for sport. With rabbits and kangaroo we also either eat the meat or feed it to pets, so it's not a complete waste either.


lol yes im sure they do wish they'd hunt the rabbits, but thats not originally what you said? ..you said...


> Yes they were introduced for sport in Australia, and then to help control the hare population


 that to me implies some where introduced later to help control hare, i wanted to see if you had a reliable source for this info?, because the only source i can find is wiki answers.

& i know most foxes are killed by other methods, just as they are over here, even before the hunting with dogs ban, but they still hunt foxes 'recreationally' in Australia with hounds...here are the 20 or so hunts... Fox Hunting in Commonwealth | Baily's Hunting Directory


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Eh? Please do highlight where I have said that. What a stupid thing to say - are you sure you are not Elmo posting as Sleeping Lion?
> 
> But you've missed out an important bit of the equation, haven't you? Your question should read:
> 
> ...


No, still not cringing, about to get the dogs out and get to work, but just the bold bit shows how you are putting human emotions on to the fox that is hunted. You're as bad as Professor Bateson, who in the opening statement for his report on hunting with dogs, referred to Bambi, and said something along the lines that anyone who had seen this film would not want to see hunting with dogs continue, referring specifically to the opening sequence, where in fact Bambi's mother was shot, not hunted with dogs. How do you know what fear and stress a fox feels when it's in a trap for 12 hours? How do you know that it wouldn't prefer to be chased by a pack of dogs, that is your assumption, and you are obviously assuming the fox understands both these methods of hunting, where in fact it only has the ability to perceive one thing, that it can't run away in one situation and it can in the other. And whilst running it won't be thinking 'Omg, there's a big pack of dogs running after me that will kill me if they catch me' it will be just running for it's life, like hundreds of thousands of animals do every single day of their lives to survive as part of their natural life cycle. And yet because the great British public stick silly emotions all over animals, the perception is that one method of hunting is more humane than the other.

And while we're at it, lamping, you probably think that's more humane, where people can shoot foxes, mostly at night, calling them in, and killing them in high numbers. How many foxes would have been killed that week if a hunt had been the only method of culling? But then again, at the rate charities are releasing them into the wild from urban situations, probably a good thing.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

in all honesty i will never understand why foxes are persecuted like they are many foxes never come into conflict with man, but that doesnt matter to some, there doesnt have to be any logic to kill them!

fox populations like other predators are self regulating according to food availabilty and habitat, they are also territorial so when you remove foxes from an area, others will simply move in to fill it!...so why kill them in the 1st place??....i think our race are an absolute joke! pity we dont treat nature like the Native Americans...or even the Pagans did!


.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

We can't treat fox populations like the native americans used to, because we don't live in that era any more, and we impact on the countryside and wildlife much more as population levels are much higher on this small island, of course foxes have also adapted to modern life. Fox populations do self regulate but not in all areas, and is that really what you want? Fox populations to get to a level where there isn't enough food, and many of them starve to death because of the lack of food availability? And/or disease becomes rife because there are so many of them, that it spreads like wildfire, and of course if they are also hit by a lack of food availability at the same time, then more will perish because they won't be in a good enough condition to perhaps fight off infection? 

I once read an interesting article where a guy who had shooting rights on an area of woodland, realised he'd done a fox a disservice, as he'd allowed it to carry on surviving in an area with no food. I think he discovered that someone had been occasionally feeding it from their back garden as the woodland backed on to some houses, so this poor fox had stuck around, and slowly deteriorated, to the point where he found her dying and emaciated.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rona said:


> Please could you give me the figures on that or have you been and actually seen it?
> I was under the impression that the majority of hunts had ended in failure.


I'm not sure of 'official' statistics - an article on the BBC states it was previously around 25,000 although how accurate that is I'm not sure.

I used to be a hunt sabateur & did see quite a few foxes killed by hounds; some deaths were reasonably quick but some weren't - all were very disturbing though 

The hunt we used to sab didn't have a particularly great 'success' rate for killing foxes. Whether that was because every week we would try & stop this or they just were't very good I really don't know


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

When I went fox and stag hunting I enjoyed the following:

Getting up early and plaiting up my horse
Boxing up to the meet
Enjoying the stirrup cup
Chatting to friends who enjoyed the same past time
Admiring the horses of others
Seeing the excitement on the faces of children out for the first time
Listening to the hounds speak
The sound of the horn to signal the start
The sterns of the hounds as the worked the scent
The thrill of the jump
The terrier men and their little whiskery companions
Looking out for the fox
Feeling the excitment of the horse


I loved all the details as well as the big picture.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

That's true of England but it's not true here. Except of course rabbits are not native to the UK and can attain plague proportions.

They are not native here and as far as I'm aware foxes were introduced like rabbits and hares for hunting. I'm no expert on Australian history but that is the general belief amongst my Aussie friends. The rabbits and hares were for the pot. Hares are generally less hassle than foxes and rabbits.

If any Aussie could press a button and have every last fox and rabbit in Australia disappear in a puff of smoke I don't know anyone who wouldn't push it. I would. They're an utter menace. People shoot at them, trap them, poison them, give them filthy diseases and to a small extent hunt them. So far the foxes and bunnies are winning.

The rabbits tear up the land and eat everything green that they can reach. The foxes attack and kill small mammals and ground dwelling birds such as penguins and lyre birds.

I wish there was a humane way to kill them. They CERTAINLY can't be left alone, here.


----------



## peanut651 (Oct 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not necessarily pro fox hunting, not particularly against it either, and can see why many say it's necessary over shooting with a rifle. Shooting with a shotgun is just darn cruel in my view, as that's not guaranteed to kill, and a maimed fox isn't what anyone who is pro hunting wants, if they want to control numbers, they want to kill them.
> 
> I just wanted to post, more to point out the misconception that seems to be portrayed, that foxes live a fluffy life, and it's only when us humans, by chasing them and killing them, upsets their existence in our countryside. Foxes should be fearful, they are a prey item because there is competition for what they eat, there's not many natural predators left in the English countryside above them now, badgers will occasionally kill foxes, possibly a few escaped animals, and us. We compete with the fox sometimes, and so don't want them in numbers that will be a nuisance. At the same time, I know game keepers who delight in seeing foxes around, just not anywhere near where they'll be a problem, and they may have to try and control the numbers by killing them.
> 
> ...


I'm a Gamekeeper myself and the foxes around my area are a right nusense. We don't hunt them down with dogs though as we are able to go lamping for them. When we know the population of them is at a healthy number we couldn't care less about killing them as they are nice creatures, but have to keep them under control


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> We can't treat fox populations like the native americans used to, because we don't live in that era any more, and we impact on the countryside and wildlife much more as population levels are much higher on this small island, of course foxes have also adapted to modern life. Fox populations do self regulate but not in all areas, and is that really what you want? Fox populations to get to a level where there isn't enough food, and many of them starve to death because of the lack of food availability? And/or disease becomes rife because there are so many of them, that it spreads like wildfire, and of course if they are also hit by a lack of food availability at the same time, then more will perish because they won't be in a good enough condition to perhaps fight off infection?
> 
> I once read an interesting article where a guy who had shooting rights on an area of woodland, realised he'd done a fox a disservice, as he'd allowed it to carry on surviving in an area with no food. I think he discovered that someone had been occasionally feeding it from their back garden as the woodland backed on to some houses, so this poor fox had stuck around, and slowly deteriorated, to the point where he found her dying and emaciated.


which areas dont they self regulate in? because being a territorial animal the young disperse to find their own territories, and yes im certain some do starve or die from other natural causes, thats the same for any creature trying to survive in the wild, but likewise many more foxes in good territories thrive!, dont come into conflict with man....so why are these animals randomly persectued?????? its senseless slaughter!

oh and most of the foxes ive seen killed looked healthy!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ozrex said:


> That's true of England but it's not true here. Except of course rabbits are not native to the UK and can attain plague proportions.
> 
> They are not native here and as far as I'm aware foxes were introduced like rabbits and hares for hunting. I'm no expert on Australian history but that is the general belief amongst my Aussie friends. The rabbits and hares were for the pot. Hares are generally less hassle than foxes and rabbits.
> 
> ...


Rabbits are also an alien species to England, they were introduced for food, cats are also alien, but were introduced earlier than rabbits. I don't think there are many places where we haven't altered the eco system to some degree, by introducing animals/plants that shouldn't be there.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, still not cringing, about to get the dogs out and get to work, but just the bold bit shows how you are putting human emotions on to the fox that is hunted. You're as bad as Professor Bateson, who in the opening statement for his report on hunting with dogs, referred to Bambi, and said something along the lines that anyone who had seen this film would not want to see hunting with dogs continue, referring specifically to the opening sequence, where in fact Bambi's mother was shot, not hunted with dogs. How do you know what fear and stress a fox feels when it's in a trap for 12 hours? How do you know that it wouldn't prefer to be chased by a pack of dogs, that is your assumption, and you are obviously assuming the fox understands both these methods of hunting, where in fact it only has the ability to perceive one thing, that it can't run away in one situation and it can in the other. And whilst running it won't be thinking 'Omg, there's a big pack of dogs running after me that will kill me if they catch me' it will be just running for it's life, like hundreds of thousands of animals do every single day of their lives to survive as part of their natural life cycle. And yet because the great British public stick silly emotions all over animals, the perception is that one method of hunting is more humane than the other.


And yet again you persist in trying to pretend I'm putting human emotions on foxes. I say that it is more stressful for the fox to be hunted and then ripped to shreds than to be trapped and shot. You say that it is more stressful for a fox to be trapped and shot than to be chased and ripped to shreds. Yet I am putting human emotions on a fox and you are not? How stupid an argument is that? I am no more talking about Disney and Bambi than you are. The truth is, of course, that neither of us are putting human emotions on foxes - the difference is you are introducing these terms because you obviously cannot discredit my opinion any other way. Can you not see that if you try to discredit my opinion by talking about Disney and Bambi, then your opinions are equally discredited. You cannot have it both ways.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> And while we're at it, lamping, you probably think that's more humane, where people can shoot foxes, mostly at night, calling them in, and killing them in high numbers.


My, that's some crystal ball you have there! How dare you post words that you have made up and then attribute them to me? I have never posted about lamping and so you have no idea whatsoever about my opinions on the subject. Not surprisingly, you are totally wrong in your assumptions. 

It's very sad that you can't argue your case without all this unnecessary reference to Disney and Bambi, and without pretending you know what I think about something when you really have no idea.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ozrex said:


> That's true of England but it's not true here. Except of course rabbits are not native to the UK and can attain plague proportions.
> 
> They are not native here and as far as I'm aware foxes were introduced like rabbits and hares for hunting. I'm no expert on Australian history but that is the general belief amongst my Aussie friends. The rabbits and hares were for the pot. Hares are generally less hassle than foxes and rabbits.
> 
> ...


no i agree, rabbits and foxes need to be wiped out of your country, they should never have been introduced in the 1st place, its been an ecological catastrophy, but believe me foxhunting with hounds is far from a humane or efficient way to remove foxes.

i cant fine anything credible that says foxes were introduced to control rabbit and hare..even government documents say foxes were introduced solely for sporting purposes, maybe you can find a reliable source?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I was under the impression that the majority of hunts had ended in failure.


If your "impression" is true (and I don't believe it is unless you yourself can provide figures to prove it) that knocks the argument about using fox-hunting as a means of pest control straight into a cocked hat! What use is a form of pest control where you race about the countryside not killing the pest?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> When I went fox and stag hunting I enjoyed the following:
> 
> Getting up early and plaiting up my horse
> Boxing up to the meet
> ...


you may not care that wildlife are killed in these hunts, but did you not care about the hounds either? its a known fact that many, often young dogs who dont make the grade, meet a tragic end


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> And yet again you persist in trying to pretend I'm putting human emotions on foxes. I say that it is more stressful for the fox to be hunted and then ripped to shreds than to be trapped and shot. You say that it is more stressful for a fox to be trapped and shot than to be chased and ripped to shreds. Yet I am putting human emotions on a fox and you are not? How stupid an argument is that? I am no more talking about Disney and Bambi than you are. The truth is, of course, that neither of us are putting human emotions on foxes - the difference is you are introducing these terms because you obviously cannot discredit my opinion any other way. Can you not see that if you try to discredit my opinion by talking about Disney and Bambi, then your opinions are equally discredited. You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> My, that's some crystal ball you have there! How dare you post words that you have made up and then attribute them to me? I have never posted about lamping and so you have no idea whatsoever about my opinions on the subject. Not surprisingly, you are totally wrong in your assumptions.
> 
> It's very sad that you can't argue your case without all this unnecessary reference to Disney and Bambi, and without pretending you know what I think about something when you really have no idea.


oh ive had all this ...'youre 'pink and fluffy' with 'Disney' views'... on another forum Val, in the end i changed my location to Disneyland


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> And yet again you persist in trying to pretend I'm putting human emotions on foxes. I say that it is more stressful for the fox to be hunted and then ripped to shreds than to be trapped and shot. You say that it is more stressful for a fox to be trapped and shot than to be chased and ripped to shreds. Yet I am putting human emotions on a fox and you are not? How stupid an argument is that? I am no more talking about Disney and Bambi than you are. The truth is, of course, that neither of us are putting human emotions on foxes - the difference is you are introducing these terms because you obviously cannot discredit my opinion any other way. Can you not see that if you try to discredit my opinion by talking about Disney and Bambi, then your opinions are equally discredited. You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> My, that's some crystal ball you have there! How dare you post words that you have made up and then attribute them to me? I have never posted about lamping and so you have no idea whatsoever about my opinions on the subject. Not surprisingly, you are totally wrong in your assumptions.
> 
> It's very sad that you can't argue your case without all this unnecessary reference to Disney and Bambi, and without pretending you know what I think about something when you really have no idea.


I think it's very sad the only way you try to increase your argument is by trying to make it sound as though my side of the argument is wrong, by referring to me cringing. You've just done it again, you're making assumptions about the level of stress a fox is under when being hunted, read your own posts, and tell me you're not. I've posted about foxes being observed preying on other animals, whilst themselves being hunted, which shows foxes do not have the ability to perceive that being hunted with dogs will necessarily end up with them being *ripped to shreds* - yet you haven't come up with one argument to say a fox feels more stress one way or the other, which ever hunting method is used, you merely show your lack of understanding on the subject by continuing to attribute human emotions to a fox, implying if suffers more with one method than another, with no facts to back it up.

I haven't posted anything as if you said it, I've merely posted my opinion and replied to you, so don't get your knickers in a twist 

I referred to disney as it was Professor Bateman who referred to it in his report, so it does relate to the argument, it's also pertinent that he referred to it inaccurately, and showed he also assumed human emotions on animals in his opening statement. Not really someone you would want writing a scientific report on animals, whether or not you agreed with the outcome, because if makes the report look less credible.

So do you think that lamping is a more humane method of culling than fox hunting? I personally think it is, however, the point was made to show that one method results in a much lower level of foxes being killed, if people wanted to see more foxes survive, you'd think they'd be more against lamping, but that's because again, what sways us is human emotions, and thinking one method is extremely inhumane, the other method is better, so is more acceptable. The end result is less foxes when the humane method is used, do you see what I'm getting at now


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

You know why Hounds are never hip scored?

The do not need to be as any that do not make the grade are removed from not only the breeding programme but life.

It is called culling.

And this means that unlike other breeds, they do not end up in rescue, they do not lead a life of pain, cause endless expense to owners, have to spend their lives on a lead, or become a crippled wreck.

This follows survival of the fittest. So only the BEST are kept, fed, worked and bred from.

They are kept superbly fit, fed extremely well and trained very well.

Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a dog IMHO.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> You know why Hounds are never hip scored?
> 
> The do not need to be as any that do not make the grade are removed from not only the breeding programme but life.
> 
> ...


I would agree that death is not the worst option for dogs at all & would rather a dog pts in some case but I would dispute that fox hounds 'do not lead a life of pain'.

I have seen first hand hounds that are lame being used again on a hunt the following week, hounds kicked because they have not done what was expected of them & some looking painfully thin. I realise this happens with pet dogs aswell but to infer that fox hounds are better treated is (imo) incorrect


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> You know why Hounds are never hip scored?
> 
> The do not need to be as any that do not make the grade are removed from not only the breeding programme but life.
> 
> ...


oh well thats alright then, dont bother health testing, if you do breed pups with dysplasia then you can just cull them:eek6:

what about those who dont make the grade but are perfectly healthy?, those that just dont have the right attitude or not good enough???


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> oh well thats alright then, dont bother health testing, if you do breed pups with dysplasia then you can just cull them:eek6:
> 
> what about those who dont make the grade but are perfectly healthy?, they just dont have the right attitude or not good enough???


I think you will find that the dogs that do not make the grade are few and far between and any with HD are even fewer.

Health testing does not prevent HD, just look at the breed supplements of dogs which have huge scores despite being from generations of good hip scores.

And if they do not have the right attitude or are not good enough to make the grade then all the more reason to cull them.

Foxhounds do not make good pets.

Most people cannot train a decent recall in an elderly, overweight handler dependant and compliant breed such as a Labrador, let alone a dog which has been bred to have a high degree of initiative.

Foxhounds are bred to be a working tool and, just as most pet owners could not cope with high drive working line GSD, BC, Labradors, Spaniels, neither could they cope with the hunting machine that is the Foxhound.

Yes there are a few in pet homes but they are often always on long lines or they bog off a lot and get run over.

I do not want to see a watered down version of the foxhound.

Attitude is EVERYTHING in a working dog.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I would agree that death is not the worst option for dogs at all & would rather a dog pts in some case but I would dispute that fox hounds 'do not lead a life of pain'.
> 
> I have seen first hand hounds that are lame being used again on a hunt the following week, hounds kicked because they have not done what was expected of them & some looking painfully thin. I realise this happens with pet dogs aswell but to infer that fox hounds are better treated is (imo) incorrect


I have inferred nothing, the READER infers, the writer implies.

And nowhere in my post did I state that foxhounds are treated better than a) any other breed or b) dogs which live in domestic homes.

That is a conclusion you jumped to all by yourself.

I am sure we can all quote instances of (insert relevant inappropriate sight/behaviour) from many sources.

I can only speak from MY personal experience of many years and I have not seen the issues you describe.

But, as in any societal group of any kind there will be idiots.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If your "impression" is true (and I don't believe it is unless you yourself can provide figures to prove it) that knocks the argument about using fox-hunting as a means of pest control straight into a cocked hat! What use is a form of pest control where you race about the countryside not killing the pest?


Quite.
So what's all the fuss about hunting? 
Surely the animal rights people would be far better putting their efforts into a method even more barbaric, kills many more foxes and leaves some suffering for hours?  
No, they are still spending time,money and anger on something that is banned


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

rona said:


> It couldn't possibly have been that it was terrified to death by the contact with the humans that "saved" it?


Considering that many foxes are saved by wildlife rescue centres for a variety of illnesses and have to endure human contact, and survive well to release, suggests that the internal injuries suffered were not caused by 'human contact'


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

ozrex said:


> Lily74, actually foxes kill for fun. If they get into a hen run for example, they'll kill every bird they can catch ie most of them. They'll only take one bird to eat. It's certainly not just humans who kill for pleasure.


Sorry, this shows your ignorance.
It has been proven that, if left to their own devices, the fox will return for each and every hen and stash them for later. 
The reason people think they 'only take one' is because they are disturbed by people and make a quick exit with all they can carry. Few foxes are ever left to their own devices!
If left alone, they make use of every single hen. I believe this was shown on a david attenborough programme, and they showed an undisturbed fox returning to collect every bird and keep it for later. 
Animals do not kill for fun. Wild animals do not have the luxury of having energy and resources to waste on just 'fun'.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Considering that many foxes are saved by wildlife rescue centres for a variety of illnesses and have to endure human contact, and survive well to release, suggests that the internal injuries suffered were not caused by 'human contact'


It suggests a myriad of causations.

this is the problem when people argue from the point of emotion rather than clinical detachment.

Correlation does not = causation.

A basic scientific fact which is conveniently ignored by those who wish to fight their corner.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> I have inferred nothing, the READER infers, the writer implies.
> 
> And nowhere in my post did I state that foxhounds are treated better than a) any other breed or b) dogs which live in domestic homes.
> 
> ...


I didn't insert anything or jump to a conclusion - I simply quoted your post where you said ....

*"And this means that unlike other breeds, they do not end up in rescue, they do not lead a life of pain, cause endless expense to owners, have to spend their lives on a lead, or become a crippled wreck."*

Maybe you should have added "in your experience"


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> It suggests a myriad of causations.
> 
> this is the problem when people argue from the point of emotion rather than clinical detachment.
> 
> ...


So you're saying that being chased for excessive periods of time by animals that want to rip you to bits, when you are of a species not designed for long periods of hard running, will do you no harm at all?

Regardless of any 'emotion', I can never tolerate people who get fun from killing.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

I don't know about all hunt sabs but the omes I worked with pre ban couldn't care less about animal welfare, they were just out for a day of thuggery


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hawksport said:


> I don't know about all hunt sabs but the omes I worked with pre ban couldn't care less about animal welfare, they were just out for a day of thuggery


Thats sad. The ones I've met have been ALL about animal welfare, and have saved lives. I've never met one that I thought was just in it for a bit of thuggery. There are less difficult and emotionally draining ways of indulging in thuggery, I'd imagine. 
Though, to give balance, the huntsmen don't seem opposed to law breaking and thuggery themselves!


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

I wasn't going to post anything, but I can't stay quiet any longer.... 

Chasing foxes on horses is just cruel; I've seen riders 'phoning one another to tell the others which way the fox is running - fair? I see riders changing horses because their horse is tired from running - fair? 

Anyway, fox hunting is banned which means it is against the law, and those who continue to chase foxes on horseback need to remember that; irrespective of how long/short that fox has been chased. The law says it's now illegal - comply!

I've had the hunt chase a fox through the bottom of our field, the fox is welcome, the hunt is not, they think they can do what they like, when they like, they are not above the law. :incazzato: (love that smiley, had to use it!) 

It's not a fair "sport" a fair sport is when two parties are equally matched and they know the outcome.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

I don't live in the UK, so it is not really my place to make a comment. We do have hunting in South Africa, of course, but it is en entirely different debate. I understand that we also have "fox hunts" in SA, but without the fox. An hour or so before the hunt, someone goes out on horseback dragging a rag soaked with fox/jackal pee which is what the hounds then "hunt". It is basically a social and exercise occasion for the riders, the horses and the hounds. If the pro-hunters are only in it for the day out and not the "kill", then why is a fox necessary?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

hawksport said:


> I don't know about all hunt sabs but the omes I worked with pre ban couldn't care less about animal welfare, they were just out for a day of thuggery


When I used to sab hunts most people were passionate about animal welfare, a few were there for a fight though but they were definitley in the minority ime.

Same with both sides though I expect. Alot of people who ride with hunts are probably very nice people - I don't (& didn't) think they were muich different from me excpet that we obviously viewed animals differently & our ideas of fun were alot different.

I used to ride alot years ago & worked at various local stables so still sociliased with people who hunted bizarrely enough - although I did have frequent rows about this with certian more 'hard line' animal rights people same as my friend got stick from some of her hunting friends


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

wasn't this thread started for pro hunters?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

8tansox said:


> It's not a fair "sport" a fair sport is when two parties are equally matched and they know the outcome.


Exactly. It isn't a sport; its killing for fun, called a 'sport' by people who want to make it sound less like what it is. 
I do wonder why there is such uproar about fox hunting in particular. Was there this uproar when cock fighting was banned? Do hunters feel that we should legalise dog fighting too, or bear baiting? If one is to defend one blood sport where animals are killed for human amusement, they can't pick and choose. 
The worst part for me was seeing huntsmen daub blood on the face of young kids as they indoctrinated them into the mind-set of killing animals for fun :rolleyes5:

I also hate the 'its a country thing, unless you live in the country, you wouldn't understand'. Nope. I've lived in the country, as well as having many friends who have or do, and none of them support the hunt so thats just a feeble attempt for hunters to make themselves look like they're being victimised that, like pretty much every other excuse hunters use, holds no water.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I would agree that death is not the worst option for dogs at all & would rather a dog pts in some case but I would dispute that fox hounds 'do not lead a life of pain'.
> 
> I have seen first hand hounds that are lame being used again on a hunt the following week, hounds kicked because they have not done what was expected of them & some looking painfully thin. I realise this happens with pet dogs aswell but to infer that fox hounds are better treated is (imo) incorrect


have you? well i haven't and i'd be hard pushed to know one hound from another and i certainly have never seen a painfully thin hound.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

dexter said:


> have you? well i haven't and i'd be hard pushed to know one hound from another and i certainly have never seen a painfully thin hound.


There were a couple with very distinctive markings, it's not that hard once you see the same dogs every week to pick a few out that you recognise


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> I think you will find that the dogs that do not make the grade are few and far between and any with HD are even fewer.
> 
> Health testing does not prevent HD, just look at the breed supplements of dogs which have huge scores despite being from generations of good hip scores.
> 
> ...


LOL oh i knew it would be that old chestnut..'foxhounds dont make good pets'

what a lame excuse and total disregard for life!!...i have Siberian huskies, a breed bred for thousands of years as a working dog, added to that its a primitive breed, perhaps closest to the original phenotype than any other, and like the foxhound not for your average pet owner....yet funnily enough, in the right hands they make exceptional and very rewarding pets!....and they most certainly are not 'a watered down version' of the breed, many are imported from working kennels and adapt very well to running short distances, and a different lifestyle...thats the beauty of dogs they are very adaptable

and what a cop out re hip scoring!...responsible breeders in our breed have been scoring hips for decades, almost 4,000 were scored last year, and guess what!... the breed mean is still 7!!...

what a terrible, irresponsible, cruel way to treat foxhounds, but expected! jeezus they'd be an outcry in any other sector of the dog world.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Considering that many foxes are saved by wildlife rescue centres for a variety of illnesses and have to endure human contact, and survive well to release, suggests that the internal injuries suffered were not caused by 'human contact'


Was there mention of internal injuries?  I must have missed that

Have a word with DD about foxes dieing through stress, she worked in a wildlife centre


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

koekemakranka said:


> I don't live in the UK, so it is not really my place to make a comment. We do have hunting in South Africa, of course, but it is en entirely different debate. I understand that we also have "fox hunts" in SA, but without the fox. An hour or so before the hunt, someone goes out on horseback dragging a rag soaked with fox/jackal pee which is what the hounds then "hunt". It is basically a social and exercise occasion for the riders, the horses and the hounds. If the pro-hunters are only in it for the day out and not the "kill", then why is a fox necessary?


That's what happens here now and has for several years!!
Can't understand why it's still such an issue 
Yes a few do break the law, but that can be said of all parts of society. So many are being tarred because of the few


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

rona said:


> Was there mention of internal injuries?  I must have missed that
> 
> Have a word with DD about foxes dieing through stress, she worked in a wildlife centre


I'll try and dig out the article; the fox had massive internal damage caused by being forced to run beyond its body's abilities. Its laughable that someone would suggest a fox chased to exhaustion by predators who want to rip it to bits actually died from the stress of being rescued by humans. 
Both are stressful to a fox, but which do you imagine is worse? 
If just being handled by humans is enough to kill it, as you suggest, then beng chased by humans on horseback and hounds for miles certainly is


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> I'll try and dig out the article; the fox had massive internal damage caused by being forced to run beyond its body's abilities. Its laughable that someone would suggest a fox chased to exhaustion by predators who want to rip it to bits actually died from the stress of being rescued by humans.
> Both are stressful to a fox, but which do you imagine is worse?
> If just being handled by humans is enough to kill it, as you suggest, then beng chased by humans on horseback and hounds for miles certainly is


Just like to say here, I'm being devils advocate. I HAVE NEVER BEEN ON A FOX HUNT

I have however lived and worked in the countryside for all of my 50+ years.

I feel I have a realistic animal lovers take on things that go on. I am horrified by some methods of culling, some far worse than hunting I fear.

I just don't understand and am a little annoyed that hunting is still being discussed like this when there are far more relevant issues on animal (fox) cruelty.
Hunting HAS been banned


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

staysee can i just ask if you have ever whitnesed a fox being caught and having chunks taken out of it and have you ever seen first hand a fox being killed or are you another one that beleives all you read on the anti sites?

i have rode out when it was still legal and if im honest i loved seeing the hounds work and didnt mind seeing the fox killed at the end as i have seen them killed quickly and all in one peice . 

i love the countryside and every thing that goes with it and if that means that things are killed to keep control then so be it .
I hunt , shoot, ferret, keep working dogs and fish and i always will .
and just to add i have never ever seen a thin or poorly looking hound in my life, if any thing they are probly looked after better than most pet homes .


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Tallyho said:


> staysee can i just ask if you have ever whitnesed a fox being caught and having chunks taken out of it and have you ever seen first hand a fox being killed or are you another one that beleives all you read on the anti sites?
> 
> i have rode out when it was still legal and if im honest i loved seeing the hounds work and didnt mind seeing the fox killed at the end as i have seen them killed quickly and all in one peice .
> 
> ...


First of all i only asked what pro hunters enjoyed about it and yes i have seen it happen.


----------



## freckles (May 8, 2008)

cazbah said:


> Don't get why they have to be killed at all, if farmers were responsible and secured their animals from foxes why do they need to be killed and what right do we have to decide what animals have worth and which can be abused for our pleasure?
> 
> Fox Hunting is as evil as illegal dog fighting and should remain banned furthermore the law should be properly enforced criminals who fox hunt should be arrested and charged and convicted and imprisoned.


Sorry, but what a silly answer.. so you expect the farmer to keep his sheep, lambs, chickens, etc..... locked up and not free range? just so the foxes can roam the countryside... I do wonder if you have had livestock killed by foxes, I have, and its not a pretty sight, seeing 20+ chickens ripped to shreds, some half dead is not nice, and If I had a shotgun in my hand then it would of been a dead fox...


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I didn't insert anything or jump to a conclusion - I simply quoted your post where you said ....
> 
> *"And this means that unlike other breeds, they do not end up in rescue, they do not lead a life of pain, cause endless expense to owners, have to spend their lives on a lead, or become a crippled wreck."*
> 
> Maybe you should have added "in your experience"


No I do not need to add "in my experience" as the FACTS are that very few turn up in rescue or live their lives on a lead becoming crippled wrecks.

As they are EUTHANISED before that happens!


----------



## freckles (May 8, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, forgot to answer the first bit, you seriously think a fox sits there pondering, well, I wonder what might happen, could be good, could be bad? A trap smells of humans, it can't escape, it cannot revert to it's normal state of fight or flight, so it WILL be stressed, doesn't take much to understand that, and I know you can and will. So how is that better in any way shape or form?


I have to agree with you... after seeing a feral cat in a trap and how stressed it was, as well as how much it had cut itself by banging against the bars, then I would say that being killed by a hound within seconds would be better,


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> So you're saying that being chased for excessive periods of time *by animals that want to rip you to bits*, when you are of a species not designed for long periods of hard running, will do you no harm at all?
> 
> Regardless of any 'emotion', I can never tolerate people who get fun from killing.


Again, foxes cannot reason that this will happen, they run because they are afraid, but they don't know what will happen, they can't see into the future, and they can't make a reasoned escape plan, they just run.



8tansox said:


> I wasn't going to post anything, but I can't stay quiet any longer....
> 
> Chasing foxes on horses is just cruel; I've seen riders 'phoning one another to tell the others which way the fox is running - fair? I see riders changing horses because their horse is tired from running - fair?
> 
> ...


That would be Man U then, the outcome there is always known. And again, foxes couldn't know the outcome of running away from something they are simply frightened of, they are just *surviving*. But your post implies if we tell the fox before hand it's going to die, then that would be ok? Considering many foxes get away, I'd say they're evenly matched, although I don't know the exact statistics, if more foxes get away than are caught we could always hobble a few to even the odds up.

----------------------------------

I've been out on site this afternoon, in a lovely part of rural England, and saw a stoat, several hares, rabbits, lots of ewes with their lambs, and all were frightened and ran. Should I not be working just because I've scared a few animals and made them run? Wild animals (and some domesticated ones) flee naturally, which is why imo it's more humane to allow them to flee from a hunt, than to leave them in a trap for up to the maximum legal amount of time allowed. Fleeing from something you fear is a natural state for a wild animal, and death is unfortunately a common part of life as well, I also sadly came across a badger that looked as though it had been clipped by a train, and died just at the boundary of the railway line.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> So you're saying that being chased for excessive periods of time by animals that want to rip you to bits, when you are of a species not designed for long periods of hard running, will do you no harm at all?
> 
> Regardless of any 'emotion', I can never tolerate people who get fun from killing.


Is jumping to conclusions the only exercise you get? 

Perhaps you could point to the post where I stated that:

_being chased for excessive periods of time by animals that want to rip you to bits, when you are of a species not designed for long periods of hard running, will do you no harm at all?_

Because I have looked and that post appears to be missing from MY screen?

And who said that anyone gets fun from killing?

I certainly did not mention that in my post, and I do not see where anyone ELSE has said that they get fun from killing.

As I have not killed any foxes, nor have I SEEN any foxes killed, and even if I HAD I would not "get fun" out of it.

Many things die.

I spray insecticides to kill fleas and flies etc.

I do not GET FUN from killing them, I believe it is NECESSARY for my health and that of my dogs.

I eat meat, I do not kill animals myself to eat and the slaughtermen I know do not GET FUN out of it.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

freckles said:


> I have to agree with you... after seeing a feral cat in a trap and how stressed it was, as well as how much it had cut itself by banging against the bars, then I would say that being killed by a hound within seconds would be better,


BUT not every fox is killed within seconds is it? First theres a chase and if they get hold of it, the fox isnt always killed within a few seconds....so.....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> BUT not every fox is killed within seconds is it? First theres a chase and if they get hold of it, the fox isnt always killed within a few seconds....so.....


Come on, you're not going to try and tell us now that it could take up to 12 hours, the same amount of time it could legally end up in a trap and stressed?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I do find it strange that should I or any other dog owner post that I had let or actively encouraged my dogs to chase wild animals whilst we were out I would be pulled up on this & it would be pointed out to me (as it has been on here) that this is cruel & a nasty end for the poor animal who was caught


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> LOL oh i knew it would be that old chestnut..'foxhounds dont make good pets'
> 
> what a lame excuse and total disregard for life!!...i have Siberian huskies, a breed bred for thousands of years as a working dog, added to that its a primitive breed, perhaps closest to the original phenotype than any other, and like the foxhound not for your average pet owner....yet funnily enough, in the right hands they make exceptional and very rewarding pets!....and they most certainly are not 'a watered down version' of the breed, many are imported from working kennels and adapt very well to running short distances, and a different lifestyle...thats the beauty of dogs they are very adaptable
> 
> ...


Oh by the way, Racing Greyhounds are not hip scored either, they do not suffer from HD.

You see this is where the laws of nature are wise. If you are not physically able to run and catch your prey, you die.

So what is left is what is toughest and has the best and genes.

the longer we keep on breeding from weaker specimens which are not TESTED in the real world (as opposed to having an x ray) the weaker a species/breed becomes.

An x ray won't tell you how if the dog is fit enough to pass an endurance test.

Only an endurance test does that.

So IMHO instead of relying on x rays we should be looking at if dogs are fit to run, jump, etc and their recovery times, rather than relying on an x ray which proves nothing bar a particular set of features.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I do find it strange that should I or any other dog owner post that I had let or actively encouraged my dogs to chase wild animals whilst we were out I would be pulled up on this & it would be pointed out to me (as it has been on here) that this is cruel & a nasty end for the poor animal who was caught


That's because a pet dog is not bred and trained to hunt and kill an animal, how would you feel if your pet just maimed an animal, and then didn't want to kill it? It's also illegal, unless you have a gun with you so you can despatch said maimed animal. 

In fact, that's why my breeds exist, they are bred to retrieve game, and part of that is the ability to retrieve not just cleanly shot game, but also a pricked bird or runner, back to hand without damaging the bird/animal, where it can then be humanely despatched.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Come on, you're not going to try and tell us now that it could take up to 12 hours, the same amount of time it could legally end up in a trap and stressed?


Thats just putting words in me mouth now  i never once implied it would take any amount of time, just a chase


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> Thats just putting words in me mouth now  i never once implied it would take any amount of time, just a chase


I was just teasing, but in all honesty, I've never spoken with anyone that's seen a fox survive for as long as a minute even, it's almost always over within seconds, and the fox knows nothing. More would probably suffer for longer from car accidents than from being hunted with dogs, I also see a fair few on track, where they've most likely been clipped by trains as they feed on something else deceased.

To the earlier post where someone said that foxes would always go back to take away and stash prey, not the case in this country I'm afraid, foxes don't always go back and retrieve what they've killed for later, they just kill something else instead. They kill because they are built to kill anything that resembles prey while they have the opportunity to do so, but it's only in truly wild places where they still stash it *all* for later, in areas where food availability is good they will leave the extra where they killed it.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's because a pet dog is not bred and trained to hunt and kill an animal, how would you feel if your pet just maimed an animal, and then didn't want to kill it? It's also illegal, unless you have a gun with you so you can despatch said maimed animal.
> 
> In fact, that's why my breeds exist, they are bred to retrieve game, and part of that is the ability to retrieve not just cleanly shot game, but also a pricked bird or runner, back to hand without damaging the bird/animal, where it can then be humanely despatched.


But hounds don't always kill a fox quickly, they don't always kill foxes but also people pets who get in the way.

Plenty of lurchers are trained to catch & kill rabbits & hares, maybe not legally, so is this ok?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> BUT not every fox is killed within seconds is it? First theres a chase and if they get hold of it, the fox isnt always killed within a few seconds....so.....


Any death has the possibility of not being instant.
Hell my last dog didn't die nicely 

Many slaughter animals have more prolonged deaths than would be wished for them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> But hounds don't always kill a fox quickly, they don't always kill foxes but also people pets who get in the way.
> 
> Plenty of lurchers are trained to catch & kill rabbits & hares, maybe not legally, so is this ok?


Hounds will kill a fox a helluva lot quicker than the vast majority of pet dogs, but if your pet injures an animal or bird, would you be able to finish it off? I'm not sure what relevance peoples' pets have, whether they're killed or not?

Lurchers do kill rabbits yes, not hares, that would be poaching and is illegal, you're perhaps confusing it with coursing, which is a completely separate thing, and a sport (now also banned in England). The intention isn't to kill the hare, but to pit two dogs against each other in pursuit of a hare.

Those who use lurchers to hunt rabbits, should know the law, and if a rabbit is injured, it should be despatched cleanly and quickly. That's why lurchers are used, they're bl**dy quick getting them back to you. Some lurchers do kill rabbits, but not all so it is important they are retrieved as quickly as possible.


----------



## freckles (May 8, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> You know why Hounds are never hip scored?
> 
> The do not need to be as any that do not make the grade are removed from not only the breeding programme but life.
> 
> ...


And having a dog with HD I agree with you, we brought a Spanish Mastiff when we can to Spain, at a year old she went lame, we did put her thought an op, where the nerves were cut and some muscle was removed, luckily 6 years on and shes fine... and I would NEVER breed from her..

but if the breeders had culled that stock, then it would help reduce the numbers of it, I do wonder how many of her litter mates have been bred from...


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Foxes are designed to kill to survive as are most meat eating animals.

We kill for the fun of it :mad5: and kill anything in our way.

If we don't like it* kill it.*
If it's competing for land or eating our plants *kill it.*
If it means we don't make as much profit as we want because of a animal *kill it*
If we are frightened of it* kill it.*

Do foxes do any of these things ????????????


----------



## peanut651 (Oct 7, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> Foxes are designed to kill to survive as are most meat eating animals.
> 
> We kill for the fun of it :mad5: and kill anything in our way.
> 
> ...


I think you're on about America


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Oh by the way, Racing Greyhounds are not hip scored either, they do not suffer from HD.
> 
> You see this is where the laws of nature are wise. If you are not physically able to run and catch your prey, you die.
> 
> ...


Greyhound racing, yeah heres another fantastic example of an industry built on suffering, in the name of 'sport'..... poor greyhounds, yet another disposable breed

sorry i hate to tell you but this is the 21st century & dogs are a domesticated species....they dont live in the wild where the laws of nature apply, they are suppose to be cared for by humans...and we have hip scoring now!

for goodness sake the Siberian husky _is_ the ultimate endurance breed, the breed clubs and the good breeders strive to keep the breed healthy by using health tests...not by culling dogs! thank god!

.


----------



## Mo1959 (Mar 31, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hounds will kill a fox a helluva lot quicker than the vast majority of pet dogs, but if your pet injures an animal or bird, would you be able to finish it off? I'm not sure what relevance peoples' pets have, whether they're killed or not?
> 
> Lurchers do kill rabbits yes, not hares, that would be poaching and is illegal, you're perhaps confusing it with coursing, which is a completely separate thing, and a sport (now also banned in England). The intention isn't to kill the hare, but to pit two dogs against each other in pursuit of a hare.
> 
> Those who use lurchers to hunt rabbits, should know the law, and if a rabbit is injured, it should be despatched cleanly and quickly. That's why lurchers are used, they're bl**dy quick getting them back to you. Some lurchers do kill rabbits, but not all so it is important they are retrieved as quickly as possible.


I could actually do with learning how to finish them off  My labrador/springer has an enormous prey drive and she has brought me back a couple of pheasants and pigeons I'm afraid. I think she possibly breaks their necks or perhaps it is shock but they usually seem to die within seconds anyway.

I'm currently trying hard on recalling her before she gets out of sight and gets hold of anything but I find it hard to feel sorry for the pheasants as they can be so stupid at times and dither about rather than taking off and getting out of reach.


----------



## freckles (May 8, 2008)

Staysee said:


> BUT not every fox is killed within seconds is it? First theres a chase and if they get hold of it, the fox isnt always killed within a few seconds....so.....


No not every fox will be killed within seconds, BUT.... I set that trap, probably at 9pm... and it was checked at 9am... so the cat would of been trapped for upto 12 hours, it was terrified when I approached it, and was cut and bleeding by it going crazy in the trap, and it was highly stressed, now I would imagane a fox would behave in the same way... and foxes caught in traps in the UK could be in them for upto 24 hours, regardless of the law, so I would rather one be chased for a while then killed by hounds.

Though I agree that if they had gone to ground, then they should not be dug out.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

peanut651 said:


> I think you're on about America


NO all mankind, we really are evil creatures.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> Foxes are designed to kill to survive as are most meat eating animals.
> 
> We kill for the fun of it :mad5: and kill anything in our way.
> 
> ...


So the fact that foxes are allowed to exist in appropriate numbers, as long as they don't become a *pest* means we must like it, or we wouldn't allow it to exist.
We are all competing and if we didn't manage the countryside, some animals would die out, others would prosper, foxes have an unfair advantage on some in that they are an apex predator, albeit a small one, because in the past, all their natural predators (for the most part) have been wiped out.
I take it you'd be willing to pay £20 or £30 for a free range chicken then if we stopped controlling numbers and allowed them to eat what they wanted? Of course that's given that we try and prevent it happening in the first place, by securing where our animals destined for food roam, but then given that foxes have been documented taking lambs in broad daylight not far from a farm house, does that mean we must keep all out livestock inside, and nothing can ever be free range? 
I'm not sure who would be frightened by a fox as a human, although obviously there are documented cases of foxes attacking humans, not just babies and toddlers.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I once started a thread about snares on here, got hardly any replies 
Why?
Is it because the press haven't highlighted them?
Is it because they are hidden?
Is it because the person who sets them normally is not rich?

1000s of foxes and millions of animals are dieing in agony every year, trapped in these disgusting devices, and all the "public" worries about is a few rogue hunters and tiny numbers of foxes still hunted 

Just unbelievable.
Snarewatch - Snarewatch supporters


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

rona said:


> I once started a thread about snares on here, got hardly any replies
> Why?
> Is it because the press haven't highlighted them?
> Is it because they are hidden?
> ...


snares are pure evil 

ive never seen one and hopefully i never do out in the wild. the people who set them need trapping in one and just be left.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I once started a thread about snares on here, got hardly any replies
> Why?
> Is it because the press haven't highlighted them?
> Is it because they are hidden?
> ...


Very good point rona


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

peanut651 said:


> I think you're on about America


No we are all the same, where ever we live.


----------



## bordie (Jan 9, 2012)

Staysee said:


> Now i know this could cause a debate, i'd rather it didnt and pro hunters just replied with thier answer, i know a thread on hunting is always delicate, but if it turns nasty then i'd rather it was locked and i wont take part in any of the arguing.
> 
> What makes fox hunting so fun/enjoyable/pleasurable etc to you?
> 
> ...


the dogs on the kill very exciting


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

mumof6 said:


> snares are pure evil
> 
> ive never seen one and hopefully i never do out in the wild. the people who set them need trapping in one and just be left.


I've seen too many 

some with animals in :crying:
one a badger :cursing:


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Tallyho said:


> staysee can i just ask if you have ever whitnesed a fox being caught and having chunks taken out of it and have you ever seen first hand a fox being killed


Yes. Am I allowed to keep my view now?

Canines do not kill with a single quick nip to the back of the neck. They rip and tear at their quarry.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Yes. Am I allowed to keep my view now?
> 
> Canines do not kill with a single quick nip to the back of the neck. They rip and tear at their quarry.



Have you seen a ratting terrier?


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

rona said:


> I've seen too many
> 
> some with animals in :crying:
> one a badger :cursing:


:crying: thats terrible.

if you find a snare what do you do? (i am so naive sometimes )


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

mumof6 said:


> :crying: thats terrible.
> 
> if you find a snare what do you do? (i am so naive sometimes )


Nothing I could do for the badger 

I just make sure they can't catch anything until they have been checked. Illegal to steal or damage them as they are legal 

Even if you stole them, they aren't expensive to replace.
They really do need to be made illegal


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

rona said:


> Have you seen a ratting terrier?


Why would I, as a rat owner and lover, want to see something that sick?
Thats like me asking you if you've ever gone to watch a dog fight; I don't subject myself to the abuse of my favourite animal 

But backing out now, same old same old, and boring. Ive said my bit, and in all my years of arguing this topic, no hunter has ever given me cause to believe its not based on a basic love of killing. This has been no exception.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Why would I, as a rat owner and lover, want to see something that sick?
> Thats like me asking you if you've ever gone to watch a dog fight; I don't subject myself to the abuse of my favourite animal
> 
> But backing out now, same old same old, and boring. Ive said my bit, and in all my years of arguing this topic, no hunter has ever given me cause to believe its not based on a basic love of killing. This has been no exception.


Just making a point.
They kill almost instantly almost every time. You said canines tear, I believe that that statement is not accurate.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I was just teasing, but in all honesty, I've never spoken with anyone that's seen a fox survive for as long as a minute even, it's almost always over within seconds, and the fox knows nothing. More would probably suffer for longer from car accidents than from being hunted with dogs, I also see a fair few on track, where they've most likely been clipped by trains as they feed on something else deceased.
> 
> To the earlier post where someone said that foxes would always go back to take away and stash prey, not the case in this country I'm afraid, foxes don't always go back and retrieve what they've killed for later, they just kill something else instead. They kill because they are built to kill anything that resembles prey while they have the opportunity to do so, but it's only in truly wild places where they still stash it *all* for later, in areas where food availability is good they will leave the extra where they killed it.


caching food is an innate behaviour in animals such as foxes, have you got any scientific proof of the above?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> caching food is an innate behaviour in animals such as foxes, have you got any scientific proof of the above?


Yes, you don't have to look far for people who own chickens/lambs that have been killed and left, and where the foxes do not return to carry them off to bury them for later. Of course you could attribute the lack of return to the fact an irrate farmer is now stomping around, does that make it acceptable that animals/birds are wasted because of foxes?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> caching food is an innate behaviour in animals such as foxes, have you got any scientific proof of the above?


I found a cached pheasant once, must admit it's the only cached thing I've ever come across


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Yes. Am I allowed to keep my view now?
> 
> Canines do not kill with a single quick nip to the back of the neck. They rip and tear at their quarry.


I have only ever witnessed 2 incidents of dogs killing something and in both cases the kills were very quick, very clean and the animal that was killed was definately not torn or ripped in any way.

One incident was when my cat was killed, which was obviously very traumatic for me but i am in no doubt it was quick and he did not suffer and the other incident was when my spaniel caught a rabbit, again very quick (or i would have prevented it)

Not condoning it but i think it is a bit of a myth that dogs "rip their kill apart"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, you don't have to look far for people who own chickens/lambs that have been killed and left, and where the foxes do not return to carry them off to bury them for later. Of course you could attribute the lack of return to the fact an irrate farmer is now stomping around, does that make it acceptable that animals/birds are wasted because of foxes?


yes exactly, when they are disturbed they dont go back to cache the rest...but they would if they could

no, so does it make it right, that many foxes who never come into conflict with man, are persecuted just for being foxes?

and yes its plain to see how well many farmers care for their sheep

In 1998, a study by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) calculated that each year 4 million lambs are lost at a cost of £120 million for the industry. Deaths due to all predators (i.e. not just foxes) and misadventures combined account for only 5% of this figure, whereas 95% is due to poor husbandry and a variety of management problems.

chicken.... The fox website | Foxes & agriculture | Foxes & poultry


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> But hounds don't always kill a fox quickly, they don't always kill foxes but also people pets who get in the way.
> 
> Plenty of lurchers are trained to catch & kill rabbits & hares, maybe not legally, so is this ok?


lurchers are not trained to kill , it comes naturally to them , i have never had to train any of my dogs to kill anything.:shocked:

My sister had a boxer that took the front of her guinea pig hutch and killed it again that was not trained either.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I have only ever witnessed 2 incidents of dogs killing something and in both cases the kills were very quick, very clean and the animal that was killed was definately not torn or ripped in any way.
> 
> One incident was when my cat was killed, which was obviously very traumatic for me but i am in no doubt it was quick and he did not suffer and the other incident was when my spaniel caught a rabbit, again very quick (or i would have prevented it)
> 
> Not condoning it but i think it is a bit of a myth that dogs "rip their kill apart"


I think theres you point.

When a SINGLE dog kills something, im sure it will almost kill it pretty quickly, unlike cats i dont know if dogs like to play with thier prey....never owned a dog but have cats.

BUT take a GROUP of dogs and put the prey in the mix and the dogs will fight over it, each will want thier own bit of the prey....hence taking chunks out, biting etc etc


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> yes exactly, when they are disturbed they dont go back to cache the rest...but they would if they could
> 
> no, so does it make it right, that many foxes who never come into conflict with man, are persecuted just for being foxes?
> 
> ...


I don't know who commissioned this study but the facts have been gathered from extremely diverse sources
http://archive.scottish.parliament....SAbriefanalysisofimpactoffoxesonlivestock.pdf


----------



## bordie (Jan 9, 2012)

Staysee said:


> I think theres you point.
> 
> When a SINGLE dog kills something, im sure it will almost kill it pretty quickly, unlike cats i dont know if dogs like to play with thier prey....never owned a dog but have cats.
> 
> BUT take a GROUP of dogs and put the prey in the mix and the dogs will fight over it, each will want thier own bit of the prey....hence taking chunks out, biting etc etc


just like cats do


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

bordie said:


> just like cats do


Never said cats didnt, just pointing out about the group of dogs and what they will do, which is why we're all on about taking chunks from a fox etc


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Staysee said:


> I think theres you point.
> 
> When a SINGLE dog kills something, im sure it will almost kill it pretty quickly, unlike cats i dont know if dogs like to play with thier prey....never owned a dog but have cats.
> 
> BUT take a GROUP of dogs and put the prey in the mix and the dogs will fight over it, each will want thier own bit of the prey....hence taking chunks out, biting etc etc


It was 2 dogs that killed my cat.

Well it was 1 that killed it but they were "hunting" as a pair and both chased him first. Once he was killed they both lost interest.

Personally i believe most hunting dogs kill as the climax to the thrill of the chase rather than the joy of actually ripping something apart.

Hunting dogs have been honed over generations to kill cleanly and leave the prey intact or they are not much use to their owners.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> It was 2 dogs that killed my cat.
> 
> Well it was 1 that killed it but they were "hunting" as a pair and both chased him first. Once he was killed they both lost interest.
> 
> ...


I am very sorry for your loss, its really not something i'd ever wanna see, my cat or anyone elses, apologies if i have upset you was just putting a point across


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> Yes. Am I allowed to keep my view now?
> 
> Canines do not kill with a single quick nip to the back of the neck. They rip and tear at their quarry.


i thought i asked staysee that question :yesnod: no one has said you cant so keep your hair on, like i have said i have never seen a fox ripped a part or having chunks taken out of it i can can say that hand on heart .


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Staysee said:


> I am very sorry for your loss, its really not something i'd ever wanna see, my cat or anyone elses, apologies if i have upset you was just putting a point across


No offence taken xx I was just making the point about (what i believe is a bit of a myth) the whole emotive language of an animal being "ripped apart" when in reality i dont think that is generally the case.

I take an awful lot of comfort from the fact that Billy would hardly have known a thing and it definately would have been alot more traumatic if he had been ripped apart. As hard and unjust as it was the dogs were just doing what they were hardwired to do 

Personally i have never been able to reconcile my own feeling on fox hunting as on the one hand i have deep respect for countryside values and those custodians that manage it so that i can enjoy it and on the other i am uncomfortable with blood "sport".


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> No offence taken xx I was just making the point about (what i believe is a bit of a myth) the whole emotive language of an animal being "ripped apart" when in reality i dont think that is generally the case.
> 
> I take an awful lot of comfort from the fact that Billy would hardly have known a thing and it definately would have been alot more traumatic if he had been ripped apart. As hard and unjust as it was the dogs were just doing what they were hardwired to do
> 
> Personally i have never been able to reconcile my own feeling on fox hunting as on the one hand i have deep respect for countryside values and those custodians that manage it so that i can enjoy it and on the other i am uncomfortable with blood "sport".


I do understand the countryside and the way it works too and how animals need to be "controlled" and live stock protected. But i honestly cannot see HOW hunting in the way it was done with the hounds, or shooting the deer and not getting the shot right or taking out an animal in its prime, for example...emporer stag, i know the deer population needs to be kept under control, which i dont get as i hardley see any and i go near areas where they are meant to be rife but how that wonderfull stag could of been shot down....wether to control or a bounty hunter, i dont care. I just cant get my head round the idea of it all.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> I do understand the countryside and the way it works too and how animals need to be "controlled" and live stock protected. But i honestly cannot see HOW hunting in the way it was done with the hounds, or shooting the deer and not getting the shot right or taking out an animal in its prime, for example...emporer stag, i know the deer population needs to be kept under control, which i dont get as i hardley see any and i go near areas where they are meant to be rife but how that wonderfull stag could of been shot down....wether to control or a bounty hunter, i dont care. I just cant get my head round the idea of it all.


Good site for reference here

The British Deer Society - Why manage Deer?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Staysee said:


> I do understand the countryside and the way it works too and how animals need to be "controlled" and live stock protected. But i honestly cannot see HOW hunting in the way it was done with the hounds, or shooting the deer and not getting the shot right or taking out an animal in its prime, for example...emporer stag, i know the deer population needs to be kept under control, which i dont get as i hardley see any and i go near areas where they are meant to be rife but how that wonderfull stag could of been shot down....wether to control or a bounty hunter, i dont care. I just cant get my head round the idea of it all.


I think for me i do draw a line of distinction between managing the countryside/hunting to eat and killing for sport/ego.

EG - A man takes a dog and his gun and spends an afternoon caching rabbits that will feed his family that night - Fine with me

A bunch of twats kitted out in "appropriate" designer clothing taking pot shots for "jollies" leaving animals potentially injured rather than killed cleanly just so they can have a good "days sport" - Not so fine with me


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> Sorry, this shows your ignorance.
> It has been proven that, if left to their own devices, the fox will return for each and every hen and stash them for later.
> The reason people think they 'only take one' is because they are disturbed by people and make a quick exit with all they can carry. Few foxes are ever left to their own devices!
> If left alone, they make use of every single hen. I believe this was shown on a david attenborough programme, and they showed an undisturbed fox returning to collect every bird and keep it for later.
> Animals do not kill for fun. Wild animals do not have the luxury of having energy and resources to waste on just 'fun'.


This may be totally anthropomorphic but my own personal view is that animals do derive pleasure from hunting and killing. Rex shows every sign of it. He would rather chase and kill, than anything else he does. He is well fed and has no "need" to hunt for food. His hunting insticts are strong and well developed and he appears _to me_ to derive great pleasure from exercising them.

A fox may kill as many as twenty (or more, I personally only know of 22) hens in a hen run. This is a greater number than it could reasonably use. If it returned every night to collect another hen there would be a wastage from the remainder birds rotting before it finished them. If I drop anthropomorphism a predator has a certain number of killing bites that it will deliver before that uge is saited, a greater number of "chases" before that urge is saited, and an even larger number of "stalking actions" before _that_ urge is saited. There was a well known study performed on domestic cats that showed this. Unfortuately despite it being a classic I've totally forgotten who did the study. I can look it up if anyone cares.

Foxes in an unnatural environment such as a hen run will kill until their "bite" urge is satisfied and chase until their "chase' urge is satisfied. As the "bite" urge is used up the bites become less and less effective. Foxes take a long time to exhaust their urge to deliver a kiling bite.

Most animals display body language indicative of pleasure and satisfaction in using and satisfying their natural instincts.

Bluntly, foxes enjoy killing. Why shouldn't they? My dog does and given a chance would freely chose to kill without any encouragement from me or hunger or any other external influence.

In the Attenborough show how many birds did the fox retrieve? I'd still suggest that a fox could (and would) kill more than it could use although I freely admit I have no evidence for this opinion. I'd just base it on the thought that most hunts are unsuccessful so the fox would be programmed to continue to kill beyond one hunt.

Oh, a fox may well "stash" but may not eat what it stashes.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ozrex said:


> This may be totally anthropomorphic but my own personal view is that animals do derive pleasure from hunting and killing. Rex shows every sign of it. He would rather chase and kill, than anything else he does. He is well fed and has no "need" to hunt for food. His hunting insticts are strong and well developed and he appears _to me_ to derive great pleasure from exercising them.
> 
> A fox may kill as many as twenty (or more, I personally only know of 22) hens in a hen run. This is a greater number than it could reasonably use. If it returned every night to collect another hen there would be a wastage from the remainder birds rotting before it finished them. If I drop anthropomorphism a predator has a certain number of killing bites that it will deliver before that uge is saited, a greater number of "chases" before that urge is saited, and an even larger number of "stalking actions" before _that_ urge is saited. There was a well known study performed on domestic cats that showed this. Unfortuately despite it being a classic I've totally forgotten who did the study. I can look it up if anyone cares.
> 
> ...


you are putting human emotions on an animal,i know SL hates this lol, foxes dont kill for fun at all, the fox is an opportunistic animal, that is why hes so successful, when he has a chance to kill more than he can eat, he will, to cache if for later, its instinctive behviour, no diffent to a squirrel caching acorns...it gives them a better chance of survival if times get hard.

The fox website | Attitudes to foxes | Common myths

Foxes kill for pleasure

False: This accusation is untrue: foxes do not kill for fun. Most animals need to find food every day to survive. Some nights are better than others in terms of food for a fox so, given the opportunity, foxes will always kill surplus food and cache (bury) it, to eat on another night when hunting is less good. This is a very successful strategy for surviving in the wild.

However, when a fox breaks into a hen house it is surrounded by easily caught prey. Its normal behaviour, and a good survival strategy is to kill all prey available and try to cache it. Given the option, the fox will come back for the remaining corpses and cache them. The solution is easy: securely house your animals


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hounds will kill a fox a helluva lot quicker than the vast majority of pet dogs, but if your pet injures an animal or bird, would you be able to finish it off? I'm not sure what relevance peoples' pets have, whether they're killed or not?
> 
> Lurchers do kill rabbits yes, not hares, that would be poaching and is illegal, you're perhaps confusing it with coursing, which is a completely separate thing, and a sport (now also banned in England). The intention isn't to kill the hare, but to pit two dogs against each other in pursuit of a hare.
> 
> Those who use lurchers to hunt rabbits, should know the law, and if a rabbit is injured, it should be despatched cleanly and quickly. That's why lurchers are used, they're bl**dy quick getting them back to you. Some lurchers do kill rabbits, but not all so it is important they are retrieved as quickly as possible.


Even taking the actual kill out of the discusssion, how many people on here would think it ok of me to let my dogs chase animals? Most wouldn't & yet with hounds this is ok?

One of my dogs would kill quickly, she has done this when a some pheasants & a partridge made the mistake of coming in the garden. Whilst Toby just likes the thrill of the chase & has had ample opportunity to kill a rabbit yet doesn't.

I try not to let either of them chase now (mainly for their own safety) yet I am still confused how chasing animals can be ok for some people & yet not in others. Some may argue that hounds are under control when actively chasing unlike a pet yet alot of hounds I have witnessed in full chase mode I would dispute this.

I do agree that there are far worse ways to control foxes yet I do struggle to understand how hunts used the excuse that they were controlling the fox population - lets be honest they all just loved the day out & it was a tradition.

Personally I love seeing foxes, we have one who hunts in the field next to our garden. I also have chickens so obviously make sure they are secure but this doesn't make me want to kill it just in case. I understand that for some people whose livelihood depends on their livestock then they may have to take more preventative measures. But it just seems for some animals that may intrude even slightly in our lives, people want to immediately shoot them, posion them, trap them, etc.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staysee said:


> I do understand the countryside and the way it works too and how animals need to be "controlled" and live stock protected. But i honestly cannot see HOW hunting in the way it was done with the hounds, or shooting the deer and not getting the shot right or taking out an animal in its prime, for example...emporer stag, i know the deer population needs to be kept under control, which i dont get as i hardley see any and i go near areas where they are meant to be rife but how that wonderfull stag could of been shot down....wether to control or a bounty hunter, i dont care. I just cant get my head round the idea of it all.


Just a quick note, the exmoor emperor was just one of hundreds of stags, equally as large, that are culled each year having reached an age where they will have made a valuable contribution to the gene pool, and before they then start to deteriorate with age. As hard as that might be to accept, it's the best decision for the deer population, which in places is too numerous for the environment, and deer are damaging the very foods they rely on. If it weren't for those who go out hunting and shooting, the problem would be even larger, and they also get to stock their freezer with fresh meat, better than anything you could buy at a supermarket. The only difference with the exmoor emperor, was that he had been given a name, and therefore people applied human emotions to the whole story.



RAINYBOW said:


> I think for me i do draw a line of distinction between managing the countryside/hunting to eat and killing for sport/ego.
> 
> EG - A man takes a dog and his gun and spends an afternoon caching rabbits that will feed his family that night - Fine with me
> 
> A bunch of twats kitted out in "appropriate" designer clothing taking pot shots for "jollies" leaving animals potentially injured rather than killed cleanly just so they can have a good "days sport" - Not so fine with me


Just a point about the clothing for the countryside, I've got tweed and some designer clothing to wear, it's not for anything except the fact that it's the best clothing for the environment, a million times better than anything you can buy in a hiking type shop, much more comfortable as well. My pair of dubarry wellies are the most comfortable boots and were a Godsend last winter when we had all that snow, kept my feet dry and warm the whole time.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> you are putting human emotions on an animal,i know SL hates this lol, foxes dont kill for fun at all, the fox is an opportunistic animal, that is why hes so successful, when he has a chance to kill more than he can eat, he will, to cache if for later, its instinctive behviour, no diffent to a squirrel caching acorns...it gives them a better chance of survival if times get hard.


I completely agree with you. I think your post and mine say the same thing although I may not have made that clear enough.

I am not saying that a fox "kills for fun" I am saying that the fox, like one of my dogs kills to satisfy it's instincts or if you prefer, it kills to satisfy its urges to make a killing bite; to chase and to stalk.

Both foxes and squirrels may then cache food but both cache more than they will ever need or find again.

A hen coop is an unnatural environment for a hunting fox. The hens trigger more "kills" than a fox would normally be able to inflict.

I think where we differ is that I am anthropomorphic enough to believe that mammals such as dogs and foxes derive pleasure from hunting and killing. I think that they are sufficiently endowed with enough brain to do so.

Most mammals are programmed to derive pleasure from fulfilling basic drives. It gives them an evolutionary/survival advantage. Think sex. I doubt an animal mates with a view to passing on its genetic information via its offspring. I think it is more reasonable that an animal mates because it derives pleasure from doing so. It seems a bit unlikely to me that an animal connects the resulting offspring with the act of mating.

I never did agree totally with Skinner. I don't think that "pleasure" or "enjoyment" are purely human sensations. We are only primates.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ozrex said:


> I completely agree with you. I think your post and mine say the same thing although I may not have made that clear enough.
> 
> I am not saying that a fox "kills for fun" I am saying that the fox, like one of my dogs kills to satisfy it's instincts or if you prefer, it kills to satisfy its urges to make a killing bite; to chase and to stalk.
> 
> ...


innate behaviours, such as hunting & chaching food, are hard wired instinctive behaviors...im sure they do feel pleasure from making a kill, but they arnt killing for 'fun', when the pro hunt supporters say foxes kill for 'fun', they mean it in a derogatory manner, to make the fox appear wanton.

and i basically agree, some people seem to forget that we too are animals, and if we are capable of feelings and emotions, then so are other creatures

,


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> innate behaviours, such as hunting & chaching food, are hard wired instinctive behaviors...im sure they do feel pleasure from making a kill, but they arnt killing for 'fun', when the pro hunt supporters say foxes kill for 'fun', they mean it in a derogatory manner, to make the fox appear wanton.
> 
> and i basically agree, some people seem to forget that we too are animals, and if we are capable of feelings and emotions, then so are other creatures
> 
> ,


Carrying on from the foxes killing for "fun" sure maybe like the dogs chasing the fox....the fox chasing its prey is fun....just like when they are cubs, playing with thier littermates is fun. But we cannot know a foxes mind, but being a wild creature i would hazard a guess that a fox isnt thinking 'oh yay chickens, let have fun and kill them all!' i would think it'd be more intent on killing and surviving and getting as much food as he/she can for itself/family

Personally, i believe the only animal on this planet that kills "for fun" is a human being.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

There are some seriously mis-informed "keyboard eco-warriors" on here that have no idea about the fox, its natural behaviour, the ways it is hunted, which of these ways are humane, wich ways account for the percentage of fox deaths, why foxes are hunted, why their population needs to be controlled so you can have your pleasant little life with your happy and healthy dogs, how an actual hunt on horses works, its success rate, the population of foxes pre and post ban, have never seen a fox killed by a correct set of dogs in an organised hunt or one killed by coursing and lamping and some don't even understand why certain specimens from other species are killed as part of control in keeping the general population healthy.

If you want to understand the countryside, how it works and how it all fits together with reasons behind what folk do then get out there and speak to the folk that manage it. Speak to farmers, conservation groups, speak to rural management schemes, speak to professional hunters and most of all speak to poachers (if one allows you to know they are a poacher) because these are the guys that get called in behind the red tape when the official routes don't provide the right solution for someone's business.
A poacher is a true person of the countryside who sees it all, understands how it all fits together and actively "farms" wildlife so that you get to see the species when out and about on your sunny bank holiday weekends "in the country".

Watching Countryfile, joining facebook groups, reading "A-Z of British Wildlife", reading pro-anti hunt campaign stuff that is set to smear one side or the other, going on a weekend break twice a year to a working farm or holiday cottage and going for a stroll around the fields with a set of binocculars does not mean you understand the countryside, you know what the countryside is but you do not know what makes it and keeps it ticking over so nicely.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

hutch6 said:


> If you want to understand the countryside, how it works and how it all fits together with reasons behind what folk do then get out there and speak to the folk that manage it. Speak to farmers, conservation groups, speak to rural management schemes, speak to professional hunters and most of all speak to poachers.


I have one reservation about your list of people and that is the conservationist groups.
Often they only see things from their own "species" point of view and seem to forget about the whole picture


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

rona said:


> I have one reservation about your list of people and that is the conservationist groups.
> Often they only see things from their own "species" point of view and seem to forget about the whole picture


But you need to take in many points of view to get a better view of the whole picture and how it all links together.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*A couple of short links that have all the facts you need about foxes.

SAVE ME 2010 | Facts - Why the Act must not be repealed

SAVE ME 2010 | Lame Claims - Brian May's answers to pro-hunt lame claims!

There is no excuse for fox hunting apart from blood thirsty morons enjoying the "sport"....*


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *A couple of short links that have all the facts you need about foxes.
> 
> SAVE ME 2010 | Facts - Why the Act must not be repealed
> 
> ...


That is, as I have stated previously, just standard anti-hunt documentation. The same stuff can be found on pro-hunt sites and lobbies.

I find it amusing that the anti-hunt runners believe that foxes killed by dogs are done on a hunt, talk about being blinkered to what actually goes on the real world. No.9 on the second link couldn't be further from the truth if it tried because there is no way on this planet that Rex all curled up next to you could kill if it was presented the opportunity. You don't have to beat a dog or mistreat it for it to kill foxes, you merely have to just put it up to one. Dogs have (single dogs, not packs) have been used for hunting.coursing foxes for centuries and yet the anti brigade think that actual hunts kill loads of foxes per year or every time they go out. As it states in the report, only 5% of foxes killed per year were killed on hunts. How do you think the other 95% were killed? By bullets? By filling in the earths? By poisoning? By cars? Wake up and have a free cup of half fat mocka gullible tunnel vision decafe.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> I have one reservation about your list of people and that is the conservationist groups.
> Often they only see things from their own "species" point of view and seem to forget about the whole picture


I'm not a countryfile fan either, the BBC are becoming more and more anti, you just have to watch spring watch and autumn watch to see that. And yet shoots are doing more now for conservation in our countryside than ever before, because they realise that if they don't have a healthy diverse habitat, then it won't bring them the income they want. Grouse are on the rise, including black grouse, which is brilliant, as are English partridge, a beautiful native game bird (tastes nice too).



hutch6 said:


> That is, as I have stated previously, just standard anti-hunt documentation. The same stuff can be found on pro-hunt sites and lobbies.
> 
> I find it amusing that the anti-hunt runners believe that foxes killed by dogs are done on a hunt, talk about being blinkered to what actually goes on the real world. No.9 on the second link couldn't be further from the truth if it tried because there is no way on this planet that Rex all curled up next to you could kill if it was presented the opportunity. You don't have to beat a dog or mistreat it for it to kill foxes, you merely have to just put it up to one. Dogs have (single dogs, not packs) have been used for hunting.coursing foxes for centuries and yet the anti brigade think that actual hunts kill loads of foxes per year or every time they go out. As it states in the report, only 5% of foxes killed per year were killed on hunts. How do you think the other 95% were killed? By bullets? By filling in the earths? By poisoning? By cars? Wake up and have a free cup of half fat mocka gullible tunnel vision decafe.


Is that available at Costa?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

hutch6 said:


> That is, as I have stated previously, just standard anti-hunt documentation. The same stuff can be found on pro-hunt sites and lobbies.
> 
> I find it amusing that the anti-hunt runners believe that foxes killed by dogs are done on a hunt, talk about being blinkered to what actually goes on the real world. No.9 on the second link couldn't be further from the truth if it tried because there is no way on this planet that Rex all curled up next to you could kill if it was presented the opportunity. You don't have to beat a dog or mistreat it for it to kill foxes, you merely have to just put it up to one. Dogs have (single dogs, not packs) have been used for hunting.coursing foxes for centuries and yet the anti brigade think that actual hunts kill loads of foxes per year or every time they go out. As it states in the report, only 5% of foxes killed per year were killed on hunts. How do you think the other 95% were killed? By bullets? By filling in the earths? By poisoning? By cars? Wake up and have a free cup of half fat mocka gullible tunnel vision decafe.


*:lol::lol: ok you believe whatever you like.Truth hurts i know.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

hutch6 said:


> But you need to take in many points of view to get a better view of the whole picture and how it all links together.


Oh I agree with that. You also have to listen to the pro and anti slants on things if you want to be truly impartial, informed and open


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So if you read and don't agree with the information posted from an *anti* point of view, does that still make you wrong, or does that mean you're posting from an informed point of view


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So if you read and don't agree with the information posted from an *anti* point of view, does that still make you wrong, or does that mean you're posting from an informed point of view


It means you've listened and used your own brain and conscience to come up with an informed opinion 

People will have their own personal consciences and this is where the problem lies.
Not all antis are ill informed and not all hunters are concerned about the natural order.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> It means you've listened and used your own brain and conscience to come up with an informed opinion
> 
> People will have their own personal consciences and this is where the problem lies.
> Not all antis are ill informed and not all hunters are concerned about the natural order.


Very true Rona, and of course, all of this will be coloured by personal experience.

I had the experience earlier of taking the girls out next to a grouse moor, for their usual run, and Rhuna, who is showing promise, managed to very nearly nab a very alive grouse. The last thing I want her to do at her tender age and training, thankfully, the grouse was able to flap off and away, and Rhuna was just left with the taste of a few feathers. Lots of work in the future to steady her, she's a good character, I'm sure it will come right in the end.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Very true Rona, and of course, all of this will be coloured by personal experience.
> 
> I had the experience earlier of taking the girls out next to a grouse moor, for their usual run, and Rhuna, who is showing promise, managed to very nearly nab a very alive grouse. The last thing I want her to do at her tender age and training, thankfully, the grouse was able to flap off and away, and Rhuna was just left with the taste of a few feathers. Lots of work in the future to steady her, she's a good character, I'm sure it will come right in the end.


Gonna have to be careful during the nesting season.
The very same thing happened with Muddy at a very early age 

That and his illness stopped him fulfilling his potential  Many of his litter mates have achieved great things


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Gonna have to be careful during the nesting season.
> The very same thing happened with Muddy at a very early age
> 
> That and his illness stopped him fulfilling his potential  Many of his litter mates have achieved great things


I will, the bit I walk them on isn't actually on the moor proper, it's next to it, but there's still a lot of wildlife on there, so far so good with Rhu though, she recalls nicely after a flush.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> There are some seriously mis-informed "keyboard eco-warriors" on here that have no idea about the fox, its natural behaviour, the ways it is hunted, which of these ways are humane, wich ways account for the percentage of fox deaths, why foxes are hunted, why their population needs to be controlled so you can have your pleasant little life with your happy and healthy dogs, how an actual hunt on horses works, its success rate, the population of foxes pre and post ban, have never seen a fox killed by a correct set of dogs in an organised hunt or one killed by coursing and lamping and some don't even understand why certain specimens from other species are killed as part of control in keeping the general population healthy.
> 
> If you want to understand the countryside, how it works and how it all fits together with reasons behind what folk do then get out there and speak to the folk that manage it. Speak to farmers, conservation groups, speak to rural management schemes, speak to professional hunters and most of all speak to poachers (if one allows you to know they are a poacher) because these are the guys that get called in behind the red tape when the official routes don't provide the right solution for someone's business.
> A poacher is a true person of the countryside who sees it all, understands how it all fits together and actively "farms" wildlife so that you get to see the species when out and about on your sunny bank holiday weekends "in the country".
> ...


Just wanna say, dont group us all together yeah? I live in the countryside, we are surrounded by farmland, speak to farmers often and have friends who used to take part in hunts and spoken to them too. Heck, my aunty and uncle used to do farming, cant get much closer then that to someone who knew the countryside and a friends dad used to hunt, so heard alot from him too. So no i dont go strolling around the fields with my binocculars, i live in it all so dont need too. I can see the countryside any day of the year and find someone who knows way more about the countryside then i do. I understand the basics, i never said i understood every single thing. Thanks.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Staysee said:


> Just wanna say, dont group us all together yeah? I live in the countryside, we are surrounded by farmland, speak to farmers often and have friends who used to take part in hunts and spoken to them too. Heck, my aunty and uncle used to do farming, cant get much closer then that to someone who knew the countryside and a friends dad used to hunt, so heard alot from him too. So no i dont go strolling around the fields with my binocculars, i live in it all so dont need too. I can see the countryside any day of the year and find someone who knows way more about the countryside then i do. I understand the basics, i never said i understood every single thing. Thanks.


So why ask the question in the first place if you have folk that are so close to it all and have actually participated? Have you actively partaken in protests at a hunt if you feel so strongly about it or have you just signed a petition now and then?

Pro or Anti hunt is not all about the folk in red jackets sharing stock prices over a sherry before teararsing around the countryside, that is not the only firm if hunting.


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> So why ask the question in the first place if you have folk that are so close to it all and have actually participated? Have you actively partaken in protests at a hunt if you feel so strongly about it or have you just signed a petition now and then?
> 
> Pro or Anti hunt is not all about the folk in red jackets sharing stock prices over a sherry before teararsing around the countryside, that is not the only firm if hunting.


I ask cos i wanted more to know....i only know like 3 people who have actively hunted. Aunty and Uncle never did.

Yes i have done some stuff at hunts, not full on sabs effect tho. I've signed many petitions too along with it.

Just because i am anti hunt, it does not mean im stupid and know sod all, which wether you mean to imply, to me seems like you are implying.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hutch6 said:


> There are some seriously mis-informed "keyboard eco-warriors" on here that have no idea about the fox, its natural behaviour, the ways it is hunted, which of these ways are humane, wich ways account for the percentage of fox deaths, why foxes are hunted, why their population needs to be controlled so you can have your pleasant little life with your happy and healthy dogs, how an actual hunt on horses works, its success rate, the population of foxes pre and post ban, have never seen a fox killed by a correct set of dogs in an organised hunt or one killed by coursing and lamping and some don't even understand why certain specimens from other species are killed as part of control in keeping the general population healthy.
> 
> If you want to understand the countryside, how it works and how it all fits together with reasons behind what folk do then get out there and speak to the folk that manage it. Speak to farmers, conservation groups, speak to rural management schemes, speak to professional hunters and most of all speak to poachers (if one allows you to know they are a poacher) because these are the guys that get called in behind the red tape when the official routes don't provide the right solution for someone's business.
> A poacher is a true person of the countryside who sees it all, understands how it all fits together and actively "farms" wildlife so that you get to see the species when out and about on your sunny bank holiday weekends "in the country".
> ...


how very patronising lol

ive grown up in the countryside, i learnt a lot from my Grandad who had a great deal of knowledge about nature...looking back he was a something of an amature naturalist i would say, and yes i have watched an awful lot of David Attenborough aswell lol

& i dont see the countryside 'working' quite the same as you do....what i see is a very random,unstructured,individualisic approach to wildlife 'management', farmers,gamekeepers,hunters,....poachers! have their own interests, i dont imagine many take into account populations before they kill, or study the ecology of the area, or consider a rabbit problem could be solved by foxes...before they 'cull' them, then you have some who will even stoop so low as to target protected species in their quest to protect game...so im really not sure how people can claim that the hunting that goes on is chiefly to keep a balance of nature, when no one is taking account of the bigger picture....there are some exceptions im sure, but in the main thats the way i see it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> how very patronising lol
> 
> ive grown up in the countryside, i learnt a lot from my Grandad who had a great deal of knowledge about nature...looking back he was a something of an amature naturalist i would say, and yes i have watched an awful lot of David Attenborough aswell lol
> 
> & i dont see the countryside 'working' quite the same as you do....what i see is a very random,unstructured,individualisic approach to wildlife 'management', farmers,gamekeepers,hunters,....poachers! have their own interests, i dont imagine many take into account populations before they kill, or study the ecology of the area, or consider a rabbit problem could be solved by foxes...before they 'cull' them, then you have some who will even stoop so low as to target protected species in their quest to protect game...so im really not sure how people can claim that the hunting that goes on is chiefly to keep a balance of nature, when no one is taking account of the bigger picture....there are some exceptions im sure, but in the main thats the way i see it.


Every single person I know involved with hunting, shooting, stalking etc, does exactly that Noushka, ie bears in mind the larger picture when carrying out their duties, they don't just kill for fun, they want the environment to flourish and hold a wide variety of wildlife. I've stood next to a gamekeeper on a grouse moor whilst we watched a badger amble past, and he had a shot gun in his hand. Lots of people would have you believe that gamekeepers kill badgers illegally, but haven't got any actual experience or knowledge of this, I have, and I know a shoot in North Yorkshire that have a badgers set outside their garden that they sit and watch on an evening. I also know gamekeepers who have foxes on their land, and leave them be as long as they don't become a nuisance and their numbers are at the right level. I've spoken to gamekeepers who have had to shoot deer despite not wanting to, because of sheer numbers, and know if they don't, the deer will be culled in less humane ways. Every time I walk through shooting land I see so much wildlife and feel privileged, and grateful to the people that go out of their way to manage that land, because if it wasn't managed it wouldn't be the same, this country is too small and the animals are so unbalanced against each other, that very soon, there would be no wildlife if they weren't managed, and that has also been proven when the RSPB bought and left a grouse moor to itself. End result, predators ate everything, then left!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*There is no excuse for fox hunting and those that do it are blood thirsty morons.Some will have us believe there are too many foxes about,and that they are vermin.This is far from the truth.
Fox populations are self regulating. They cannot over-populate, but will always breed back to replace numbers lost since the previous breeding season.
A few facts you might like to read.

SAVE ME 2010 | Facts - Why the Act must not be repealed

SAVE ME 2010 | Lame Claims - Brian May's answers to pro-hunt lame claims!*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry Janice, fox populations are only self regulating in some areas, not all, the only way they self regulate is when there's not enough food, they starve. Foxes do not sit there making a decision about whether to have a litter or not, they breed and if there's not enough food, pups will die. If there is enough food, they breed and pups survive, possibly at the expense of other wildlife and/or domesticated animals/birds. It's naieve to think otherwise.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Janice, fox populations are only self regulating in some areas, not all, the only way they self regulate is when there's not enough food, they starve. Foxes do not sit there making a decision about whether to have a litter or not, they breed and if there's not enough food, pups will die. If there is enough food, they breed and pups survive, possibly at the expense of other wildlife and/or domesticated animals/birds. It's naieve to think otherwise.


*No i'm not naieve..If there are too many foxes and they "need" to be controlled,why do people make artificial fox earths?*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Janice, fox populations are only self regulating in some areas, not all, the only way they self regulate is when there's not enough food, they starve. Foxes do not sit there making a decision about whether to have a litter or not, they breed and if there's not enough food, pups will die. If there is enough food, they breed and pups survive, possibly at the expense of other wildlife and/or domesticated animals/birds. It's naieve to think otherwise.


which are the only areas where they self regulating SL? they are a territorial species.

sorry but procreating is what animals do....and wild predators have to kill other animals to survive...if they dont than of course they die, im sure no one is _that_ naive to think otherwise


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *No i'm not naieve..If there are too many foxes and they "need" to be controlled,why do people make artificial fox earths?*


I haven't said you were, I said if you thought otherwise you were naieve, I didn't accuse any one person at all.

I have never spoken to anyone who has made an artificial earth, or knows anyone who would.



noushka05 said:


> which are the only areas where they self regulating SL? they are a territorial species.
> 
> sorry but procreating is what animals do....and wild predators have to kill other animals to survive...if they dont than of course they die, im sure no one is _that_ naive to think otherwise


So would you be happy then for foxes to be so successful they wiped out other species? Some of our native birds are in decline, and it's a difficult fight with everything up against them to encourage numbers to rise. Funny how in areas where birds are shot that they are managing to conserve numbers and help them rise, and at the same time, keep a healthy population of all animals, by controlling numbers of predators.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Every single person I know involved with hunting, shooting, stalking etc, does exactly that Noushka, ie bears in mind the larger picture when carrying out their duties, they don't just kill for fun, they want the environment to flourish and hold a wide variety of wildlife. I've stood next to a gamekeeper on a grouse moor whilst we watched a badger amble past, and he had a shot gun in his hand. Lots of people would have you believe that gamekeepers kill badgers illegally, but haven't got any actual experience or knowledge of this, I have, and I know a shoot in North Yorkshire that have a badgers set outside their garden that they sit and watch on an evening. I also know gamekeepers who have foxes on their land, and leave them be as long as they don't become a nuisance and their numbers are at the right level. I've spoken to gamekeepers who have had to shoot deer despite not wanting to, because of sheer numbers, and know if they don't, the deer will be culled in less humane ways. Every time I walk through shooting land I see so much wildlife and feel privileged, and grateful to the people that go out of their way to manage that land, because if it wasn't managed it wouldn't be the same, this country is too small and the animals are so unbalanced against each other, that very soon, there would be no wildlife if they weren't managed, and that has also been proven when the RSPB bought and left a grouse moor to itself. End result, predators ate everything, then left!!


really?? well forgive me for being scepticle SL, but when an estate releases thousands of one or two species into the environment then that in itself creates an imbalance of nature, then gamekeepers have to exact ruthless predator control in a quest to protect gamebirds from these predators drawn to this abundant food supply....im not saying all estates are bad, but they all do create an imbalance, where i live the estate released several pairs buzzards , how fantastic & refreshing is that!, yet on another nearby estate, i heard only the other week, that they routinely poison their buzzards, i have told the bloke he should report this to the RSPB...he said he never thought of that, and would, but ive not seen him since to ask.

So are those the same grouse moors where the Hen Harrier has been persecuted so much by gamekeepers, that its now on the verge of extinction for the second time in England??

yes, i can see theyre doing a fine job keeping a balance out on the Grouse moors:thumbdown:......

Not too many people I suspect take the time to sit down to ask themselves why iconic raptors like peregrine, hen harrier, goshawk and red kite remain absent from the majority of moorlands in England used for shooting red grouse. Take Geltsdale and the Northern Pennines as a general example, void of these raptors and why, simple reality really, persecution to maintain maximum numbers of game birds for the wealthy few in our society to shoot.

In contrast we must consider the unprecedented expansion of the peregrine falcon into England's inner cities during the last two decades, simply incredible. A recent scientific study published on the Raptor Politics web site has shown clearly that breeding peregrines located on red grouse moors are at least 50% less successful than those pairs breeding in other habitats. The reason for this unacceptable poor productivity throughout England's uplands is the illegal control of raptors by gamekeepers. What better example can there be than the failure of 14 peregrine territories each located on grouse moors in the Forest of Bowland which last year all failed to produce a single fledgling.

Consider for one moment also the plight of the hen harrier, reduced to just 4 successful breeding pairs in England last year. Not only that, because of their persecution by moorland gamekeepers the hen harrier remains restricted to just a single upland estate in Lancashire's Forest of Bowland where their protection is being enforced by the land owner United Utilities Plc. It is significant that although various scientific studies have demonstrated there is sufficient suitable moorland habitat in England to support upwards of 300 pairs the hen harriers remain conspicuous because of their total absence from 99.9% of moorland shooting estates in Northern England. This is in my view totally unacceptable in the 21st Century.

Because of persecution the goshawk is another species being restricted to specific woodland habitats owned by a few sympathetic landowners like the Forestry Commission. Where the goshawk has attempted to breed in woodlands locations adjoining red grouse moors their persecution has been relentless. A good example is the Upper Derwent Valley in Derbyshire. Despite this region being owned by Severn Trent Water, because Derwent Valley is surrounded by red grouse moorland, last year only a single successful goshawk nest was recorded. In the same location in 2010 three goshawk chicks were discovered dead below the nest on the ground just days after the chicks had each been BTO rung. On closer examination of the dead chicks it was found someone had removed the BTO rings from the legs of each of the chicks.

The stark contrast in security between "urban" and "upland" raptors in England today. « Raptor Politics


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)

How many more of these Hunt threads are we going to get, I read the whole thread and it is like ready the last couple that were put up and closed.

Fox Hunting is wrong end off. The riders get a buzz off watching their dogs get into a frenzie searching and hunting that poor fox, then the poor exhausted fox gets caught and ripped to shreds. I have seen many Fox ripped to bit in the country side where I lived. Nasty Nasty sport.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't said you were, I said if you thought otherwise you were naieve, I didn't accuse any one person at all.
> 
> I have never spoken to anyone who has made an artificial earth, or knows anyone who would.
> 
> So would you be happy then for foxes to be so successful they wiped out other species? Some of our native birds are in decline, and it's a difficult fight with everything up against them to encourage numbers to rise. Funny how in areas where birds are shot that they are managing to conserve numbers and help them rise, and at the same time, keep a healthy population of all animals, by controlling numbers of predators.


*On the point of people creating artifical earths,fact is they do do it.
On your 2nd point.ie. about other species being wiped out.I will argue,first and foremost that is nature.imo i think humans are interfering with far too much.
*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> really?? well forgive me for being scepticle SL, but when an estate releases thousands of one or two species into the environment then that in itself creates an imbalance of nature, then gamekeepers have to exact ruthless predator control in a quest to protect gamebirds from these predators drawn to this abundant food supply....im not saying all estates are bad, the one where i live released buzzards onto their estate, how fantastic is that!, yet on another nearby estate, i heard only the other week, that they routinely poison their buzzards, i have told the bloke he should report this to the RSPB...he said he never thought of that, and would, but ive not seen him since to ask.
> 
> So are those the same grouse moors where the Hen Harrier has been persecuted so much by gamekeepers, that its now on the verge of extinction for the second time in England??
> 
> ...


The old hen harrier argument, you obviously don't speak to the same gamekeepers as me, not all are anti harriers, the ones I speak to are happy for hen harriers to nest on their land. And new ways of controlling how they predate are being found, so they don't impact on grouse numbers. Of course it's important that at the same time we encourage numbers of black grouse to rise, one of the prey items for hen harriers. Nice that when they are struggling so much, a pair were predated on by an alien species introduced by the RSPB on one of their own reserves, but then they glossed over that one quite quickly.

And none of the arguing about raptors answers the question, would you be happy to see other species wiped out or decimated so that foxes could thrive? Or do you just believe that wouldn't happen?

I can't open your link about goshawks and haven't read enough to comment on them, but will say that gamekeepers do get frustrated as not one licence I believe has been granted to control numbers of some species of raptors that are a nuisance, such as sparrowhawks, where numbers are at a high level. I don't agree at all with killing birds of prey illegally, but it's not hard to see why some gamekeepers take that route when faced with a brick wall on controlling numbers of those birds with high populations.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't said you were, I said if you thought otherwise you were naieve, I didn't accuse any one person at all.
> 
> I have never spoken to anyone who has made an artificial earth, or knows anyone who would.
> 
> ...


of course not, but please dont make the fox a scape goat, in most cases bird populations, mammal populations,invertebrate populations etc etc... are either directly or indirectly on the decline because of pressure from us!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> of course not, but please dont make the fox a scape goat, in most cases bird populations, mammal populations,invertebrate populations etc etc... are either directly or indirectly on the decline because of pressure from us!


The people I speak to are very frank about how they work. For example, the gamekeeper I spoke to about culling deer, which was at the time the Exmoor Emperor was shot, explained how, they have to reach a certain figure otherwise the government steps in, and they cull the deer, and not in a nice way. So he has had to shoot hinds and calves before, didn't like it, but if you have to do it to stop others from coming in and culling in a less humane way, you get on with it.

So what about the grouse moor the RSPB bought and left to it's own devices? No-one lived up there, and yet the predators just ate everything, and then either died or left. That didn't thrive without any human pressure, it became devoid of any wildlife because it wasn't managed at all, let alone well. I believe the RSPB have since changed their views (thankfully) just a shame that overall they are a numpty charity with outdated views on management and conservation overall.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The old hen harrier argument, you obviously don't speak to the same gamekeepers as me, not all are anti harriers, the ones I speak to are happy for hen harriers to nest on their land. And new ways of controlling how they predate are being found, so they don't impact on grouse numbers. Of course it's important that at the same time we encourage numbers of black grouse to rise, one of the prey items for hen harriers. Nice that when they are struggling so much, a pair were predated on by an alien species introduced by the RSPB on one of their own reserves, but then they glossed over that one quite quickly.
> 
> And none of the arguing about raptors answers the question, would you be happy to see other species wiped out or decimated so that foxes could thrive? Or do you just believe that wouldn't happen?
> 
> I can't open your link about goshawks and haven't read enough to comment on them, but will say that gamekeepers do get frustrated as not one licence I believe has been granted to control numbers of some species of raptors that are a nuisance, such as sparrowhawks, where numbers are at a high level. I don't agree at all with killing birds of prey illegally, but it's not hard to see why some gamekeepers take that route when faced with a brick wall on controlling numbers of those birds with high populations.


SL do you realise there are now only 4 breeding pairs of Hen Harriers left in England?? and all found on one estate , there is now a total absence of them on every other moorland shooting estate in Northern England!.....says it all doesnt it!!

sorry but i find that last statement disgusting! and just proves the way i know most gamekeepers tick!

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> SL do you realise there are now only 4 breeding pairs of Hen Harriers left in England?? and all found on one estate , there is now a total absence of them on every other moorland shooting estate in Northern England!.....says it all doesnt it!!
> 
> sorry but i find that last statement disgusting! and just proves the way i know most gamekeepers tick!
> 
> .


I think you've completely taken what I said out of context, I referred to raptors such as sparrowhawks, not hen harriers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you've completely taken what I said out of context, I referred to raptors such as sparrowhawks, not hen harriers.


no i havent taken it out of context at all! they are a protected species!....& the fact that you can see why they would illegally kill sparrow hawks, tells me what i aready knew, that they would _and do_ targeted other, highly endangered species, that are way more efficient killers of their precious game birds than any sparrow hawk!....& this is another reason why i am so anti..


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> no i havent taken it out of context at all! they are a protected species!....& the fact that you can see why they would illegally kill sparrow hawks, tells me what i aready knew, that they would _and do_ targeted other, highly endangered species, that are way more efficient killers of their precious game birds than any sparrow hawk!....& this is another reason why i am so anti..


It's your perogative to jump to assumptions and make sweeping generalisations about people you don't know, but it's sad that you don't give some people the credit for taking the initiative with wildlife management and conservation when there are many gamekeepers out there actually doing this, and the proof is there. I don't agree with illegal poaching and killing at all, even though your posts imply that, but I said I could understand why some people take this approach, doesn't mean I agree with it at all.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's your perogative to jump to assumptions and make sweeping generalisations about people you don't know, but it's sad that you don't give some people the credit for taking the initiative with wildlife management and conservation when there are many gamekeepers out there actually doing this, and the proof is there. I don't agree with illegal poaching and killing at all, even though your posts imply that, but I said I could understand why some people take this approach, doesn't mean I agree with it at all.


im not making sweeping generalisations, the facts speak for themself SL, ive already said that not all estates are as bad, the one i live close to is proof of that,but 99.9% of those grouse moors you mention are beyond bad!.. its really blinkered to believe that nature is kept in a balance because that isnt a balance....if only all gamekeepers did look at the bigger picture, and landowners wernt so damn greedy, things could be so much better for all our wildlife.

if you knew they were killing a protected species would you do anything about it? i'd report my own Dad if i had to!, would you even sign the petition?

Introduction of offence of vicarious liability for raptor persecution in England - e-petitions

Introduction of offence of vicarious liability for raptor persecution in England

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Scotland, recognising that those who persecute birds of prey frequently do so at the direction of their employers or others with vested interests, has introduced an offence of vicarious liability, the purpose of which is to bring those parties to justice.
This petition calls on the government to introduce an offence of vicarious liability to bring to justice those who direct or turn a blind eye to raptor persecution in England.

As an indication of how bad thing are, in the last year only four pairs of hen harriers successfully reared chicks in England, fourteen peregrine falcon territories failed on grouse moors in Lancs forest of Bowland, and only one successful goshawk nest was recorded in the Derwent Valley, Derbyshire.

Current legislation is not enough to deter those who break the law and destroy our heritage; the introduction of vicarious liability would hit those directing the slaughter


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *There is no excuse for fox hunting and those that do it are blood thirsty morons.Some will have us believe there are too many foxes about,and that they are vermin.This is far from the truth.
> Fox populations are self regulating. They cannot over-populate, but will always breed back to replace numbers lost since the previous breeding season.
> A few facts you might like to read.
> 
> ...


 I have been called a few things in my time but moron is a first and yes in my eyes fox's are vermin, and round here if they are causeing a problem to farmers livestock then yes they need to be got rid of .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tallyho said:


> I have been called a few things in my time but moron is a first and yes in my eyes fox's are vermin, and round here if they are causeing a problem to farmers livestock then yes they need to be got rid of .


nice.......


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

Read the link you put up , and this bit stood out for me as its absolute bullshit, i have never heard such crap in all my life , he has obviously never spent any time with working dogs as the statement below is so far from the truth .

The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. 
:nono::thumbdown::nonod:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tallyho said:


> Read the link you put up , and this bit stood out for me as its absolute bullshit, i have never heard such crap in all my life , he has obviously never spent any time with working dogs as the statement below is so far from the truth .
> 
> The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run.
> :nono::thumbdown::nonod:


what link i put up??


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

not you noushka  the one janice199 put up from brian may.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tallyho said:


> not you noushka  the one janice199 put up from brian may.


sorry my misunderstanding, i thought you were refering to a link i'd put up.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

you see, in my experience those who see an animal as vermin have no respect for it, because they see it as somehow lesser, to be 'got rid of' as you say Tally ho.

here are snippets from the account of professional huntsman Clifford Pellow, its a good insight into the mentality of these people, how they treat foxes and hounds, and its from someone who was involved in what goes on for 20 odd years.

An awful truth

The aspect of his hunting career that, today, causes him most remorse is his participation in 'cubbing' - the annual hunting and destruction of foxes aged no more than five to seven months, with the aim of teaching their family group as well as the new entry of hounds a suitable lesson.

It is a barbaric, hideous business in which the victims are still completely and utterly inexperienced and still dependent on their mothers.

It works like this: a huntsman, who knows his salt, knows there is a vixen in a particular covert and that there are five cubs with her. He goes into the covert and soon the hounds pick up the vixen's scent and speak to her. They rattle around a bit. She'll try to warn them off and, when the going gets tough, put her cubs to what she considers safety underground, in the earth.

'She will then break covert to take the hounds - she knows, she's experienced - away from the cubs. She'll run across the fields and when she decides to go, she'll go, never mind that there are 50 frightful people out there making noises and shouting. The hounds will come out and chase her a bit. This is a good thing. It enables your young hounds to know what happens when you're hunting across a field.

'After a field or field-and-a-half the huntsman will call them back. Now they go to the earth where the cubs are and they dig them out. And they don't kill one or two or three but every one of them - after which they congratulate themselves on a beautiful morning's cubbing.

'Sometimes the cubs themselves break covert. I remember seeing one - no bigger than a ten-inch ball of fluff - up at the Lamerton (in Devon). When he saw all these people shouting at him he stopped, looked at the hounds in a clump of brambles a distance away and thought, "Oh well, I'm safe here", and sat down. He was no more than ten feet away. And of course, the hounds came and he never moved. The master, a chap called Robbins, said to me: "Committed suicide that one." When a second cub came out, the same thing happened to her.

At the other end of the hunting season in March, many vixens are either already nursing their new-born cubs or at least heavily pregnant.

'At the Tredegar, my last hunt, we had a vixen to ground. We just happened to come across her hiding, if you like. One of the bitches slipped away and started to mark the ground. The master said, "We haven't had a kill so we'll have this one." When we got to it, I said to the master 'Whoops vixen in cub sir!" And he said, "That don't matter, we'll still have her." 'We carried on digging but by now my blood is boiling, for this is against all etiquette. And, now, he said, "Don't bother to shoot it, just fire into the ground and we'll leave her to the hounds." But I couldn't.

I did shoot her. I couldn't be bothered to go through the ritual, either, of holding her up. I just threw her and the hounds ripped her to pieces, and as they ripped her, there were four little baby foxes, not yet with hair. They were naked, or bald, or call it what you like. And the master went along and just screwed them into the ground with his feet'

If cubbing is the practice that, when looking back, most 'revolts and sickens' him, the element within the hunt for which he reserves his greatest contempt are the terriermen. These are the hunt addicts who, aided by their fearless terrier dogs, block potential fox escape routes prior to the hunt and, on the day itself, dig out and either bolt or shoot animals who still manage to go to ground.

As well as 'official' terriermen - those attached formally to hunts - there are the 'unofficials', who freely assist the officials on hunt days for the pleasure of 'working' their dogs.

Often, this second category will race to be first to get their dogs down earths so that they can test them in underground battles with the cornered fox. They enjoy vying with each other to see who has the toughest, most aggressive terrier and will proudly display their animal's, sometimes appalling, wounds.

Whenever a dog-fighting or badger-digging case comes to court, a terrierman will more often than not be at the centre of it.

Terriermen' says Pellow, 'are the thugs of the hunt. They are, quite frankly, a law unto themselves. They consider themselves in charge of things and completely indispensable. If you get too close when they are digging out and producing a fox - 90 per cent of the time by foul means - they become aggressive. I've heard them even tell a hunt master to bugger off and come back when they've finished.

'They are aggressive because, deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong and they believe you will see something and report them. What's in it for them is that they get the fox in the end. It doesn't matter whether they throw it to the hounds, bash it on the head with a spade or stick an iron bar through its guts. And I've seen it all.

I've seen an iron bar stuck right through the lower jaw of a fox. "Whheeerrr, you bastard," this one said to me "The ****** won't get away now." And he, literally, had him pinned with an iron bar through his nose and jaw.'

The activities of terriermen, says Pellow, are tolerated because the spectacle of such men at work is enjoyed by a large number of hunting's foot followers. And it is these people who provide valuable revenue through their membership of supporters'


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2012)

I have been following this discussion for some time now, I must say there is a lot of genralisation out there, but then there always are in debates like this.

Before I start I would like to say that I can see points of views from both sides of the argument. I am completely against BAD hunts (ya know the *odd few* that have been caught breeding foxes to hunt, and the *odd few* that used to dig out the fox), but I can also understand the pro-hunt side.

Just to add I do not hunt, but I am a country bumpkin, so I have no problems with people hunting for food or conservation (so long as the bigger picture is taken into consideration).

The thing that gets me is Anti-hunt campaigners do not help themselves, the fact that they show exactly the same video's time and time again (many taken 20 years ago) so people start to wonder why they rely on out dated sources, the fact they try to tell the general public that hounds are beaten into submission to make them hunt or they are skinny wrecks (I have seen a fair few hunts pass me in my time and can hand on heart say I have NEVER seen a skinny abused hound) when in reality they are showing scratches the dog received when rummaging through hedges (ya like like normal dogs), and finally how the hell can anyone take someone seriously when they compare the hunting ban with the child molestation law 



> 1.	Its a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we dont understand it.	Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I dont think so.


I'm sorry but I just can't take anyone seriously when they are that "radical" :frown2:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

"Like" doesn't seem appropriate for that post, Noushka 
My biggest reservation with any kind of hunting (and I'm not anti per se) is that there is tendency for certain kinds of people to be attracted to certain activities as it legitimises a thuggish, vindictive and violent aspect of their personality which they enjoy. Which isn't to say everyone who takes part is like that. 
Disturbing reading.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tallyho said:


> Read the link you put up , and this bit stood out for me as its absolute bullshit, i have never heard such crap in all my life , he has obviously never spent any time with working dogs as the statement below is so far from the truth .
> 
> The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run.
> :nono::thumbdown::nonod:


*"Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes."
"Rubbish. It is in no way natural. Weve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature  timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. Its the charming practice of cubbing, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already toughened up and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of natural selection designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.

Its interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too  brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them."
That is the full post taken from the save me site..
NOTE! it does state the average dog.*


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

I can't ever remember having to mistreat my lurches


----------



## Tallyho (Feb 18, 2012)

I give up wih this topic now, i will carry on doing what i do and supporting the hunts no matter what , off now to brutalise my dogs , might even throw them out in the rain, they might just be vicious enough come winter time .


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles Pages/PDFs/Red Fox in the UK CI-UK 01-2007.pdf

Black grouse UK - Published in support of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for black grouse

Conservation Evidence.com - sharing conservation experience

http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Red Fox Advice Leaflet.pdf

European Journal of Wildlife Research, Volume 56, Number 4 - SpringerLink

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Predator Report_tcm9-177905.pdf

A few more balanced and factual sites


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles Pages/PDFs/Red Fox in the UK CI-UK 01-2007.pdf
> 
> Black grouse UK - Published in support of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for black grouse
> 
> ...


*Taken from one of the links above.*
"Generally speaking, the numbers of predators and prey
remain in some sort of balance. If we were able to travel
forwards in time to the UK countryside of 20, 40 or 60
years hence and if, and its a big if, the countryside were
generally similar in nature, we would expect to see
roughly the same numbers of predator and prey species
as now. Sparrowhawks would still be much rarer than
sparrows but both would still be around  as they have
been for thousands of years. In most cases, it is human
interventions that upset the balance of nature between
the eaten and the eaters."
*So humans should leave mother nature to do her job.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Taken from one of the links above.*
> "Generally speaking, the numbers of predators and prey
> remain in some sort of balance. If we were able to travel
> forwards in time to the UK countryside of 20, 40 or 60
> ...


The point is, in the past we have completely unbalanced things, and so mother nature isn't in balance now to leave to herself, that point got made much earlier in the thread.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The point is, in the past we have completely unbalanced things, and so mother nature isn't in balance now to leave to herself, that point got made much earlier in the thread.


*I have read the thread.But imo there is no good reason for fox hunting.And as rona put the links up i thought i'd respond.*


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

My husband shoots in national competitions but not animals. His opinion and I think it's one I share is that a single good shot taken after waiting and calculating which key animals need to go is a good solution. It isn't the same as just shooting birds on a hunt.Competitive shooting is meditated and controlled.
Nothing is full proof though hmm 
I have two scent hounds and I have to say they do by innate instinct hunt fox and deer scent no one has told them to they have never met a fox or deer but I personally doubt they could be left alone in a room with a fox. I can see why people want to get into it because I love seeing them track it is amazing to see what they can do. 

Basset griffons are a bit different to some other breeds they seem to generally flush out and tire animals for humans to kill. Before I got them I looked it up to see what they are capable of and it looks like bothering them, they did the same around a dying bird they found, and I quickly moved them away from. I don't think I would like to see a fox hunt. I wouldn't however be as bothered using them for beating. I am a vegetarian but think that if the bird has lived in the wild I would rather people shoot and eat them. 

I used to be very anti hunting. Now I don't know. Hunting doesn't always help the countryside if it means banning access which happens a lot of locally. However there is a lot of money that can be spent on land management and conservation from hunting.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I realise from the number of posts that this thread has probably moved on, but I've not been on for 3 days (just done 3 x 13 hr shifts in a row)and so I'm playing catch up. But I just had to reply to this one before I went any further:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it's very sad the only way you try to increase your argument is by trying to make it sound as though my side of the argument is wrong, by referring to me cringing. You've just done it again, you're making assumptions about the level of stress a fox is under when being hunted, read your own posts, and tell me you're not.
> 
> I've posted about foxes being observed preying on other animals, whilst themselves being hunted, which shows foxes do not have the ability to perceive that being hunted with dogs will necessarily end up with them being *ripped to shreds* - yet you haven't come up with one argument to say a fox feels more stress one way or the other, which ever hunting method is used, you merely show your lack of understanding on the subject by continuing to attribute human emotions to a fox, implying if suffers more with one method than another, with no facts to back it up.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming no more than you are about stressors for foxes. I assume that the level of stress for a fox is greater being chased or being ripped to shreds whilst still alive. You assume the level of stress for a fox is greater being trapped in a cage that smells of humans.

I am basing my assumptions on two things.

Firstly, the amount of urban foxes and the amount of foxes who steal from farms and gardens (all areas populated by humans) would lead me to believe that the human smell holds no great terror for foxes - so any stress experienced will be the stress of being trapped.

But secondly, and more importantly, I'm basing my assumptions on scientific knowledge. When an animal - any animal - is fleeing from a predator, or is at bay from a predator, the sympathetic nervous system stimulates the adrenal glands to produce extra adrenaline and noradrenaline. This has the effect of honing the animal's body system to deal with fight or flight - but one of the side effects of all this extra adrenaline and noradrenaline in the system is extreme stress. Ergo any animal in a situation of flight (eg a fox being chased by hounds) or fight (eg a fox when it is caught by the hounds) will be in extreme stress. So, based in current scientific knowledge, a fox in flight or a fox in a fight will be more stressed than a fox trapped in a cage.

Note: no anthropomorphism, no fluffy Disney characterisation, no lack of understanding of the subject - all of which you have erroneously accused me of several times. Instead, my assumptions are based upon understanding of the subject and plain scientific fact.

And if you read back through my posts without your blinkers you will see that none of them have anthropormorphised foxes. None of them have spoken of foxes as cute little Disney characters. None of them have showd lack of understanding of the subject. However, you have accused me of all these on several occasions - and _that_ is why I said you would cringe when - or perhaps I should have said "if" - you go back and read the posts. I did not mean you would cringe because your argument is wrong (although I do believe your argument is wrong) but that you would cringe when you realised that all this anthropomorphism you were accusing me of just is not there.

And by trying to pretend it is there when it isn't, you devalue your own argument. If your own argument was so strong, you would be able to defend it without the need to invent a supposed anthropomorphism.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> No I do not need to add "in my experience" as the FACTS are that very few turn up in rescue or live their lives on a lead becoming crippled wrecks.
> 
> As they are EUTHANISED before that happens!





dexter said:


> have you? well i haven't and i'd be hard pushed to know one hound from another and i certainly have never seen a painfully thin hound.


We had a rescued foxhound back in the nineties. She was extremely thin when we got her from the RSPCA - she had been reduced to eating stones because she was so hungry. She was ok with women but terrified of men - she had been badly beaten several times (had a myriad of scars) and so we presume it must have been a man who beat her.

Sadly, we only had her for a couple of years before she died from internal complications arising from her bad treatment 

After seeing what happend to poor Bridie, no-one will ever convince me that fox hounds are treated well.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> We had a rescued foxhound back in the nineties. She was extremely thin when we got her from the RSPCA - she had been reduced to eating stones because she was so hungry. She was ok with women but terrified of men - she had been badly beaten several times (had a myriad of scars) and so we presume it must have been a man who beat her.
> 
> Sadly, we only had her for a couple of years before she died from internal complications arising from her bad treatment
> 
> After seeing what happend to poor Bridie, no-one will ever convince me that fox hounds are treated well.


Just thought I say that you can not base how all hounds are treated because you saw one hound that was badly treated in the nineties.
That is like me saying all rabbit owners are bad because I've seen some badly treated ones come into rescue..

Just saying 

I will bow back out again now :smile:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Just thought I say that you can not base how all hounds are treated because you saw one hound that was badly treated in the nineties.
> That is like me saying all rabbit owners are bad because I've seen some badly treated ones come into rescue..
> 
> Just saying
> ...


Ah, but we are not talking about individual pet owners here, we are talking about packs of hounds with one owner. Does it makes sense that one dog out of a pack will be ill-treated? If one dog in a pack has been ill-treated; it's almost odds-on that others in that pack will have been. And some masters of hounds have more than one pack - so we could be talking about a lot of dogs here.

I do accept your point that just because one establishment treats its hounds in this way, then it does not necessarily follow that every establishment does. However, there is a heck of a ot of stuff out there about how badly hounds are treated. Now, if you read my other posts (on all sorts of things) you will realise that I am a great advocate of "don't believe everything you see and hear through the media". But when my own personal experience bears out the things that I hear and see, then I give them some credence.

And to pre-empt SleepingLion's reply  I am not wanting working hounds to be treated like fluffy little disney-type lap dogs - but there is a difference in having healthy, happy working dogs and beadly-beaten, starving working dogs.

ETA - I don't know why "working dogs" has been highlighted in blue and shows an IAMS advert when you click on it - certainly not been done by me because I am no great advocate of this brand or the ethics of its parent company

ETA again - now it's gone ont the "lapdogs" bit????


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Howl said:


> I used to be very anti hunting. Now I don't know. Hunting doesn't always help the countryside if it means banning access which happens a lot of locally. However there is a lot of money that can be spent on land management and conservation from hunting.


Well, a lot of money will be paid to the people who allow their land to be used for hunting - whether that gets ploughed back into conservation is another matter entirely 

And even if it was - can we justify something so cruel just so we can make money out of it? Isn't that a bit like saying that the more dogs puppy farmers sell, the more tax they pay, and the country needs money so we'll turn a blind eye to all the suffering?

If we go down that road, where will it end? Shall we turn a blind eye to the "sport" of dog-fighting, for example, because it puts money into the pockets of thugs and prevents them from doing so much stealing? Shall we stop worrying about what happens to ex-racing greyhounds because their "sport" has made a lot of money for their owners and they, and people who bet on them and have won money, have paid more tax (again good for the country)? Shall we stop worrying about the cruelties involved in factory farming because that provides cheaper meat for people? Shall we stop worrying about animal testing so we can have more and more cleaning products and cosmetics? I could add more but this will suffice to make my point.

Accepting any form of cruelty just because it can generate money (or save money) is the thin end of the wedge.

Accepting any form of cruelty just because it is a "sport" or a "national past-time" or even because "it is how things are always done in the countryside" is even worse.

(And again pre-empting replies from SL and Hutch  - just to make it clear I live in a rural farming area in the middle of the Dukeries - a prime hunting/shooting/fishing area)


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

Everone on here should read *The Belstone Fox by David Rook*, fictional yes, but it is an insight into a fox hound kennels & the way it works. A film was made of the book as well & it is pretty much true to the book.

The Belstone Fox [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: Eric Porter, Jeremy Kemp, Bill Travers, Rachel Roberts, Heather Wright, Dennis Waterman, James Allen, John Wilcox, James Hill, Peter Tanner, Basil Rayburn, Julian Wintle, Sally Shuter, David Rook: Film & TV

Ballad of the Belstone Fox: Amazon.co.uk: David Rook: Books


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Ah, but we are not talking about individual pet owners here, we are talking about packs of hounds with one owner. Does it makes sense that one dog out of a pack will be ill-treated? If one dog in a pack has been ill-treated; it's almost odds-on that others in that pack will have been. And some masters of hounds have more than one pack - so we could be talking about a lot of dogs here.
> 
> I do accept your point that just because one establishment treats its hounds in this way, then it does not necessarily follow that every establishment does. However, there is a heck of a ot of stuff out there about how badly hounds are treated. Now, if you read my other posts (on all sorts of things) you will realise that I am a great advocate of "don't believe everything you see and hear through the media". But when my own personal experience bears out the things that I hear and see, then I give them some credence.
> 
> ...


Yes I see your point there, but only one dog was seen so you can only base your facts on that dog,not what "could" be happening elsewhere.
As I have said before I have seen many, many hounds run past me (I repeat I don't hunt) and not once have I seen a skinny, abused hound. The majority of hunt masters will take very good care of their hounds but unfortunately people (general people, not directed at you) hang on to things that happened years ago without any proof that it still happens..


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Staysee said:


> Now i know this could cause a debate, i'd rather it didnt and pro hunters just replied with thier answer, i know a thread on hunting is always delicate, but if it turns nasty then i'd rather it was locked and i wont take part in any of the arguing.
> 
> What makes fox hunting so fun/enjoyable/pleasurable etc to you?
> 
> ...


BANNED???? WHY is it still going on then OR are The ''royals'' exempt from the ban :cursing:


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Plenty of lurchers are trained to catch & kill rabbits & hares, maybe not legally, so is this ok?


Ever so slightly wrong but still in a big way.

Only a poorly trained lurcher will kill a rabbit as the killing motion of any dog it to shake and this requires a much harder bite which would puncture the flesh and the shaking would also produce further damage rendering the rabbit pretty much inedible.

The vast majority of lurchers (an we are talking 90%+) retrieve the rabbit alive in a soft mouth to the owner who then quickly finishes the rabbit by necking or chinning which take a matter of a second or two.

In a 5 acre field of say 30 rabbits a good lurcher would be doing a grand job if it returned 3 rabbits to the handler as they are only slipped onto a rabbit that will provide a higher chance of being caught. If there us myxi in the warrens then that number will be greatly increased and that can only be a good thing.

Training a lurcher to chase rabbits is dead easy - stick it in a field with a rabbit and it will give chase, the only training is to not bark, recall and retrieve, just what you probably do with your dog.

My saluki cross is at the stage of being moved up to working with a dead rabbit as she can retrieve a frisbee, a ball, a dummy and a dummy with a rabbit fur on but the difference between a solid type dummy with fur on and the soft flesh of an animal is a bit of a step due the dog wanting to naturally shake it about to deliver the kill. After that it is a case of putting the dog in with a high chance of a successful catch.

A dog, such a bull x, will show some natural instinct of following fox scent and if you are out lamping you only have to turn the light beam around for the eye shine to turn from red (rabbit) to a green/yellow (fox) and they will be within a short distance of you.

Foxes (despite what someone put up in an earlier post) are not very good runners. They can't outrun rabbits at all so they rely on stalking and rabbits far enough away from the burrow with the wind in their favour giving them a chance to turn the rabbit as they can turn just as quick.
A rabbit has pretty much 360 degree vision (small blind spot directly in front and an even smaller one directly behind), ears that can rotate to cover all angles and channel the slightest sound directly to the listening tools, a pace of around 24-40mph depending on breed and health, they can turn at that speed on their own body length, they can swim (they dont like it but they are pretty good at it), they kick and bite, their fur is designed by evolution to allow then to dive through thick and spiny hedgerows without sustaining any damage, is very well camouflaged, lives underground with all manner of safety guards in place (some that burrow near rivers will partially flood a burrow as they can get through the water but stoats and weasels will baulk the opportunity  ferrets will though and loads of folk report wet ferrets coming out of warrens), they can climb to a reasonable height, they live in colonies where perimeter sentry guards are positioned to provide early warning of encroaching predators and they breed at a prolific rate. Rabbits are not poor helpless little creatures by any means and their natural predators to not actively hunt them on a regular basis due to the poor success rate v effort required to catch one.
With the rabbit proving a more than adequate adversary for predators of foot or wing they will in turn to other easier meals that are more readily available such as voles or mice. Due to the larger number of smaller rodents required to equate to a rabbit more of them are eaten and the population of these rodents dwindles rapidly. When the food source becomes scarce so do the predators due to starvation and they will fail to reproduce due to the inability to feed their young  foxed may increase with the easy availability of voles but due to lots of other predators relying on this food source then one predator or more will fail due to the lack of its staple food source, like owls for example. What you will see is when myxi makes its two year cycle (at the wrong time of year for farmers and poachers alike) once the dead and dying are picked off the rabbit numbers decrease considerably until the kitts that were born from a pregnant doe that was infected during pregnancy but recovered (with the tell-tale signs), reach sexual maturity and are then able to breed , the number of these predators will decrease and litters/clutches etc. will fail the following year. That is just one example of what goes wrong when nature is left to try and balance itself out, it simply doesnt happen.

What you see when you hear of folk shooting, hunting, trapping and coursing species such as fox or rabbit is a mindless act for a thrill or a thirst for blood and destruction. What is ACTUALLY happening is that the wildlife is being farmed to allow each species a greater opportunity to flourish with increased chances of access to food and shelter allowing them to breed.

If you dont believe this then you are either a vegetarian, a vegan, a blinkered ant-hunt protestor or, as stated previously, a keyboard eco warrior. If you are not vegetarian or vegan then you really should stop eating meat as your demand for your daily or weekly dose of flesh puts more pressure on wildlife, causes more wild animals to die, creates more suffering and cruelty than any hunt could ever produce but as you obtain it in a nicely lit, sheltered, warm, friendly and pleasurable environment far removed from the reality whilst music softly lulls you down the aisles then you are unaware of all of this.

The account retold of the behaviour shown on the fox hunt by the terrier men may be true or it may be put out there by a guy that was pro-hunt but then went anti-hunt so could sensationalise the incidents to create frenzy around the activity rarely seen by outsiders of the hunt groups. Either way, yes, that type of behaviour is uncalled for and I would be surprised if the guys that carried out such brutality didnt have a criminal record for violence. He even states that it goes against hunting etiquette, so there is an unwritten code of practice which shows morals are involved and it is then down to the hunt master to deal with such people appropriately so they too are to blame for the acts describes as much as the people that carry them out because without the opportunity to do so they would not be able to legally.

I am sure that people would feel more comfortable with any fox going to earth being classed as a result, the pack called off with the earth marked and the shooters and smokers called in.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Yes I see your point there, but only one dog was seen so you can only base your facts on that dog,not what "could" be happening elsewhere.
> As I have said before I have seen many, many hounds run past me (I repeat I don't hunt) and not once have I seen a skinny, abused hound. The majority of hunt masters will take very good care of their hounds but unfortunately people (general people, not directed at you) hang on to things that happened years ago without any proof that it still happens..


Yes, so have I (I don't hunt either, surprise surprise ) but seeing a pack of young healthy hounds doesn't stop me from wondering why that is all you (the generic you) see, and why we don't see older, less well dogs, and what will happen to all these dogs once they are past their prime - or what has happened to the dogs who have gone lame, or contracted some other illness. The best that can be hoped for in euthanasia - and even that is a sad waste of a life - but I believe that in Bridie I have seen if not the worst, then something very close to it.

And if I tried to make myself believe that what happened to Bridie was one isolated incident I don't think I could live with my conscience..


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> Yes I see your point there, but only one dog was seen so you can only base your facts on that dog,not what "could" be happening elsewhere.
> As I have said before I have seen many, many hounds run past me (I repeat I don't hunt) and not once have I seen a skinny, abused hound. The majority of hunt masters will take very good care of their hounds but unfortunately people (general people, not directed at you) hang on to things that happened years ago without any proof that it still happens..


Do you dispute that hounds, even those who Do make the grade, have short lives though, B3rnie? here is an account of huntsman Clifford Pellow's experience.....

' As summer wears on, they are introduced to the kennel activity proper and trained to obey the various commands. At this stage, they are still "un-entered", which means they have no hunting experience. This comes during the cubbing season - starting in August - when they will be 12 to 18 months old. Those that fail to make the grade get the bullet; they are taken round the back and shot'.

Dogs past their prime (generally, older than five or six years) are also killed. Altogether, says Pellow, out of a pack of 60 animals, eight to ten are disposed of every season.

How does a dog fail his or her master? There are many ways: A hound that won't draw (search for a fox) when a fox goes into covert but sits outside waiting for somebody else to do it, he's no good to anyone. Nor is the hound that won't speak (bark) - because there's no point a hound finding a fox if it won't tell you about it. Or you might have a hound that speaks at everything that moves - at a blackbird flying into a tree. Babbling it's called.

'Every-day injuries were thorns in feet and minor and major rips from barbed wire. But I've seen hounds with their intestines hanging out, their eyes hanging down, and hounds with broken toes, broken legs, exposed testicles, and with ribs that have stuck through their flesh; a collision with a vehicle or with a horse would be the likely cause. I've never had a hound die in the field, though. One had a heart attack back in the kennels but she didn't die until the Sunday morning'


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

snoopydo said:


> BANNED???? WHY is it still going on then OR are The ''royals'' exempt from the ban :cursing:


The hunts you see are trail hunts where someone sets out early doors with a scented rag on a rope and drags it over hill and country to lay down a scent trail.

Tarquin and friends then mount up with hounds, have a glass of claret whilst discussing how much there housekeepers complain about the minimum wage and should be grateful for a job in the first place before setting off on their prized hunters.

The hounds p;ick up the laid scent but, and this happens a lot of the time, teh hounds pick up a real scent "undetected" by the hunt master and they tear arse after live quarry. When the animal isn't insight they don't really know do they (having been told where the trail will go so knowing what to expect, avoiding anything that could cause injury to the horses) but when the fox is in sight they don't usually call the whole thing off despite onlookers kicking off and then when brough up in front of their room buddy at Eaton who stopped the lady starved bigger boys having their wicked way with them, they are given a slap on the wrist, a small fine and asked not to let it happen again wink wink   All of this ridiculous circus is then taken from the public pocket for the priviledge and it is free to happen again with the same results - don't worry though, the same will happen to you if your dog chases any animal on land you don't have written permission to be there and hunt with a hound on if you get reported for coursing, so count yourself lucky for such leniency, regadless if it is accidental or not it will be classed as poaching as they have no proof otherwise to say it is or isn't so a small fine and warning will surfice. If it is livestock that your dog chases then that is different and the costs can be much higher.

Now, try and think why the ban was ridiculed when it was brought in.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Valanita said:


> Everone on here should read *The Belstone Fox by David Rook*, fictional yes, but it is an insight into a fox hound kennels & the way it works. A film was made of the book as well & it is pretty much true to the book.
> 
> The Belstone Fox [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: Eric Porter, Jeremy Kemp, Bill Travers, Rachel Roberts, Heather Wright, Dennis Waterman, James Allen, John Wilcox, James Hill, Peter Tanner, Basil Rayburn, Julian Wintle, Sally Shuter, David Rook: Film & TV
> 
> Ballad of the Belstone Fox: Amazon.co.uk: David Rook: Books


A mate's uncle still manages a fox hound pack of 30 or so hounds for trailing so I know how they are managed and looked after and it isn't fiction as they are there to see and interact with.
There are four packs within 20miles of my parent's that I sometimes walk past and always take a wander over to and look at as you walk straight through the yard where they are kept as public access.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

hutch6 said:


> Ever so slightly wrong but still in a big way.
> 
> Only a poorly trained lurcher will kill a rabbit as the killing motion of any dog it to shake and this requires a much harder bite which would puncture the flesh and the shaking would also produce further damage rendering the rabbit pretty much inedible.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that there are considerate people involved in hunting, I don't think everyone involved is a thug or blood thirsty but these people do exist, I have seen plenty of abuses; hound, horses & terriers when watching hunts so am not just a keybopard eco warrier.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> What you see when you hear of folk shooting, hunting, trapping and coursing species such as fox or rabbit is a mindless act for a thrill or a thirst for blood and destruction. What is ACTUALLY happening is that the wildlife is being farmed to allow each species a greater opportunity to flourish with increased chances of access to food and shelter allowing them to breed.
> 
> If you don't believe this then you are either a vegetarian, a vegan, a blinkered ant-hunt protestor or, as stated previously, a keyboard eco warrior.


Call me all of the above if if makes you feel better (although none of them are true). I live in a rural farming area and understand the need to control pests in order to farm livestock. However, this does not preclude me from knowing that fox-hunting is a very inefficient way of doing this. Why, therefore, as "farming" of wild animals is so necessary, is the preferred method such an inefficient one? There must be another reason for it happening. What other reason could there be other than the people who do it, enjoy it? If their sole motivation for fox-hunting is that they are wanting to control the fox population in order to protect farmed livestock, why aren't they out there choosing a more efficient method?

Because what is ACTUALLY happening is that they are feeding their blood lust.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Call me all of the above if if makes you feel better (although none of them are true). I live in a rural farming area and understand the need to control pests in order to farm livestock. However, this does not preclude me from knowing that fox-hunting is a very inefficient way of doing this. Why, therefore, as "farming" of wild animals is so necessary, is the preferred method such an inefficient one? There must be another reason for it happening. What other reason could there be other than the people who do it, enjoy it? If their sole motivation for fox-hunting is that they are wanting to control the fox population in order to protect farmed livestock, why aren't they out there choosing a more efficient method?
> 
> Because what is ACTUALLY happening is that they are feeding their blood lust.


Because it added large amounts of revenue to the local struggling economy.
Much as many conservation bodies make money out of Stalking.

And many also using Snares for foxes to protect other species


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Do you dispute that hounds, even those who Do make the grade, have short lives though, B3rnie? here is an account of huntsman Clifford Pellow's experience.....
> 
> ' As summer wears on, they are introduced to the kennel activity proper and trained to obey the various commands. At this stage, they are still "un-entered", which means they have no hunting experience. This comes during the cubbing season - starting in August - when they will be 12 to 18 months old. Those that fail to make the grade get the bullet; they are taken round the back and shot'.
> 
> ...


Nope, and I never said otherwise 

It is awful the way *SOME* hounds have been treated, but that is the key thing for me. I can not, and will not say that ALL hounds are mistreated when that is not the case :nono:, accidents happen in all walks of life with all sorts of animals so tbh I can't really take that article as proof of anything it is hearsay


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Because it added large amounts of revenue to the local struggling economy.
> Much as many conservation bodies make money out of Stalking.


So you believe cruelty is ok as long as humans can make money out of it?



rona said:


> And many also using Snares for foxes to protect other species


You and I have had conversations about snares before so you know how dreadful I think they are, and that I do not in any way condone their use. But trying to say foxhunting is better than snaring is an argument that is going nowhere. It's like saying rape is better than paedophilia. Both are dreadful. Both should be banned.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It's like saying rape is better than paedophilia. Both are dreadful. Both should be banned.


Don't worry, they are both illegal.

Here are a few facts and figures gathered to represent the value of hunts to the local economies in which they were situated for the Burns Inquiry (this is not an argument for or against it is just the figures they gathered):

There are 318 registered hound packs in England and Wales:

184 Foxhound packs recognised by the Masters of Foxhounds Association (1)

20 Harrier packs recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles (1)

3 Deer packs recognised by the Masters of Deer Hounds Association

72 Beagle packs recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles (1)

10 Basset packs recognised by the Masters of Basset Hounds Association

20 Mink packs recognised by the Masters of Mink Hounds Association

9 Fell packs recognised by the Central Committee of Fell Packs

50% were founded before 1869 and 29% post 1930.

Only 36 hunts are the result of amalgamation; 33% pre 1969,33% 1970-1984 and 33% post
1985.

272 packs have total registered hunting country amounting to 133,600 square miles. 26% of
this is not hunted for reasons of safety (motorways, roads, railways and development), only
3% is not hunted because permission is denied.

The majority of hunts own their property, facilities and equipment. Their inventory includes
200 owned kennels, 152 slaughter houses, 145 incinerators, 309 houses, 64 flats, 6460 acres
of covert and 1440 acres of paddocks.

They own 241 lorries, 188 trucks and pick ups and 23 quad bikes and ATV's.

They own 834 horses probably worth some £1.7million, 15,000 'entered' hounds and 4178
'un-entered' hounds.

There are 748 joint or single hunt Masters (average 2.7 per hunt). They have 510 full time
hunt employees (average 2.6 per hunt) and 325 part time employees (average 1.7 per hunt).
Total employees plus 'professional' masters amount to about 950.

260 hunts have the services of 3115 'puppy walkers', an average of 12 per hunt.

*Attendance*

273 hunts have a total of 28,300 subscribers, including members (100 per hunt).

205 hunts have a total of 39,000 supporters club members (190 per hunt).

158 mounted packs average 13 mounted visitors per hunting day. This is an annual attendance
of 176,700 day visitors per season.

273 hunts hold a total of 18,000 hunting days each season.

Total annual 'attendance' at all meets is 1,280,000 persons of 541,000 (42%) are on horses
and 741,000 (58%) are on foot.

Fox hunts caught 13,987 foxes last season, of which 8,896 (64% ) were 'above ground' and
5,091 (36% ) were dug.

285 hunts organise over 21 different types of equestrian and social events. Each year this total
3,950 functions with an overall attendance of 1,326,000 people. They raise £4.5million.

*Income & Revenue*

Total hunt income is £14.9million per annum. This derives 57% from member and subscriber
charges, 30% from hunt fund raising and 13% from other sources.

Hunt revenue expenditure is £14.07 million per annum. 40% of expenditure is direct
employment. Annual capital expenditure averages £2.9million in total.

Fallen stock; 200 hunts collect 366,000 head of fallen stock per annum. This is an average of
1,830 head per hunt. 80% of hunts estimate that demand for this service from farmers is
growing by up to 50% per annum

These 200 hunts spend a total of £3.37million annually on collecting this stock. This is an
average of £18,000 per hunt and £9.20 per animal collected.

*Hunt Supporters *

124 supporters' clubs associated with foxhounds, staghounds, beagles and harriers and
terriers and lurchers. Total membership is 21,576.

45% of all members are female, 13% are under 18 and 34% are a part of a family group.

Members have a diverse range of occupations, most frequent are: 
Retired 20%

Agricultural workers 17%

'Professionals' 14%

Membership is two-thirds 'rural' based: 
living in rural situations 41 %

living in a village 23%

living in a town 17%

living in a city 7%

Ethnic grouping. 80% of clubs have only 'white' members. Seven clubs have an average of
2-3 members who are 'non-white', nine clubs have just 1-2 'non-white' members.

81% of clubs follow only their own hunt. Half of the clubs have some link with at least one
other club.

It is estimated that the average supporters' club member will attend more than 20 'hunting'
events within a season.

89 clubs state that in addition to their average membership of 170 people, a further 87 non-
members (average) are regular visitors to the hunts they support. Over the 124 packs, this is
a further 10,700 non-member followers.

7.5% of hunt supporters follow the hunt by car.

15% follow the hunt on foot.

6% follow the hunt on motor bikes.

4% follow the hunt on bicycles.

These 124 supporters clubs organise 1,680 social or fund raising functions each year, an
average of 14 for each club.

260 charities (50 different ones) are supported by 123 of these 124 clubs. Over 2 per club.

Annual membership costs between £6 and £12 with some flexibility.

Were there to be a ban on hunting with dogs, 260 club members (1.2%) might follow blood
hounds, 466 members (2.2% ) might follow drag hounds.

*Employment*

Classification of businesses was difficult but broadly they are: 
44 % Service businesses

30 % Retailers

15 % Mixed

9% Manufacturers

Business structure -46% are sole traders, 32% partnerships, 21% limited companies.

75% of all businesses trade with hunts. On average with over 3 hunts.

95% of the businesses deal with hunt subscribers or followers.

42% of all the businesses derive more than 30% of their turnover from hunts or hunt subscribers.

Amongst the 249 'small' businesses (£50,000) 60% derive more than 30% of their turnover
from hunts or hunt subscribers.

914 of these businesses together employ over 8,300 full time employees and 650 employ
3,200 part time employees. Average: 9.1 full time and 4.9 part time.

About 70% of all full time workers are employed by the 258 'large' businesses. The 249 small
businesses employ only 380 (5% ) full time employees.

56% of the part time workers work with 'large' businesses, 10% with 'small' businesses.

However, 41% of all full time workers are village based as are 54% of all part timers.

Businesses with more than 30% of their turnover dependant upon hunts or hunt subscribers
employ 1,386 full time workers and 560 part time.

523 businesses (52% ) claimed that they would have to reduce staff if a hunting ban were
applied.

259 businesses with more than 30% of their turnover from hunts and hunt subscribers were
more pessimistic. About 80% of these forecast staff reduction.

523 businesses envisage around 1,000 job losses in total: 
about 750 from village based businesses.

about 300 in the Midlands region.

about 550 from businesses with more than 30% turnover dependent upon hunting.

96% of all businesses claimed a hunting ban would have some effect on them. 
38% a "limited effect"

38% a "serious effect"
and 19% said that "they may not even survive".

The segments most adversely affected being: 
69% of small businesses.

61% of village based businesses

Prospects for re-employment were not clear or were seen as very limited.

75% of informants rate hunting as being at least "quite important" to their personal and social
life. 54% of all informants claimed it as being "a part of my life".

*Info on Figures*

1. Figures taken from MFHA, AMHB evidence to Burns Inquiry

All other figures from Produce Studies Research:

National Survey of Hunts. February 2000
Employment Generated by Foxhunting in Great Britain. February 2000
A study of Hunt Supporters clubs in England & Wales. February 2000


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So you believe cruelty is ok as long as humans can make money out of it?
> 
> You and I have had conversations about snares before so you know how dreadful I think they are, and that I do not in any way condone their use. But trying to say foxhunting is better than snaring is an argument that is going nowhere. It's like saying rape is better than paedophilia. Both are dreadful. Both should be banned.


Did I actually say that? 
My god you always twist what I write 

I work on facts, personal experience and also by listening to knowledgeable people. 
I have no "side" with fox hunting, both have valid points and I have never been on a hunt either as a hunter or as a sab, so I cannot have an informed opinion.
I have just been picking up either correct or incorrect points being made by either side, while also putting the snare message out there


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

rona said:


> I work on facts, personal experience and also by listening to knowledgeable people.
> I have no "side" with fox hunting, both have valid points and I have never been on a hunt either as a hunter or as a sab, so I cannot have an informed opinion.


With you on that one.

I personally think there are better ways to deal with the situation and there are fairer ways for a foxhound pack hunt to end if the fox goes to earth but if they get off on the cruelty of the sport then be it on their conscience. When I hunt I know I cause minimal stress (excpet maybe when the will dog get released) and deliver a swift clean kill along with utilising what I hunt to the full extent from food to product.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Interesting read this 

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/HWMMI-12-11.pdf

As does this. Not many law breakers it seems considering how many still go out with hounds 
http://www.publications.parliament..../cm110607/text/110607w0006.htm#11060826003939

Convictions: Hunting

Neil Parish: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of convictions under the Hunting Act 2005 have related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations. [57580]

Mr Blunt: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts in England and Wales in 2010 (latest available) for offences under the Hunting Act 2004 can be viewed in the table.

The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database contains information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Other than where specified in a statute statistical information available centrally does not include the circumstances of each case. It is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations.
Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts, for offences under the Hunting Act 2004, England and Wales, 2010 (1, 2)

Number/percentage

Proceeded against (number)

49

Found guilty (number)

36

Conviction ratio (percentage)

73
(1) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The point is, in the past we have completely unbalanced things, and so mother nature isn't in balance now to leave to herself, that point got made much earlier in the thread.


and if gamekeepers, such as the one you mentioned on the grouse moors, are doing this fantastic job keeping a balance, then why is the Hen Harrier on the very brink of extinction?? why are Goshawk,Peregrine, Red kite disappearing or GONE from moorlands in England used for Grouse shooting?

and if pro-hunters really cared about conservation Why arent they speaking out against this traversty?...why are estates like the grouse moors, where protected species are being persecuted, still being supported???



B3rnie said:


> Nope, and I never said otherwise
> 
> It is awful the way *SOME* hounds have been treated, but that is the key thing for me. I can not, and will not say that ALL hounds are mistreated when that is not the case :nono:, accidents happen in all walks of life with all sorts of animals so tbh I can't really take that article as proof of anything it is hearsay


some would say, the routine killing of young healthy dogs, was in itself, dreadful treatment:blink:.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> some would say, the routine killing of young healthy dogs, was in itself, dreadful treatment:blink:.


Some would say that, yes.

Stray dogs collected in 2008-09 - 113,000
Stray dogs destroyed - 7,285 (6%)

Destroyed on medical grounds - 1,322
Destroyed yet healthy - 1,846 (after 7day grace period) 
Destroyed with no reason given - 4,117


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hutch6 said:


> Some would say that, yes.
> 
> Stray dogs collected in 2008-09 - 113,000
> Stray dogs destroyed - 7,285 (6%)
> ...


erm and?? do these statistics somehow make it right?


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> and if gamekeepers, such as the one you mentioned on the grouse moors, are doing this fantastic job keeping a balance, then why is the Hen Harrier on the very brink of extinction?? why are Goshawk,Peregrine, Red kite disappearing or GONE from moorlands in England used for Grouse shooting?


Ever heard of poachers?



noushka05 said:


> some would say, the routine killing of young healthy dogs, was in itself, dreadful treatment:blink:.


As I said that article is hearsay, no proof that it actually happens and to what extent so can not and will not comment on that 
My original point was not ALL hounds are starved and abused which is a fact no matter how hard you find that to swallow....

Anyway I'm not sure why I feel I have to do this all the time when talking about things like this, I am neither pro-hunting nor anti-hunting. I can see both sides of the argument and besides *some* hunt sabs aren't exactly sweetness and light no one can justify to me gluing horses eyes shut, laying out barbed wire on a hunt route to harm the hounds and dogs, poisoning hounds and the list goes on. These animals don't ask to do the job they do but *some* sabs are no better than the hunters they claim to despise


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> and if gamekeepers, such as the one you mentioned on the grouse moors, are doing this fantastic job keeping a balance, then why is the Hen Harrier on the very brink of extinction?? why are Goshawk,Peregrine, Red kite disappearing or GONE from moorlands in England used for Grouse shooting?
> 
> and if pro-hunters really cared about conservation Why arent they speaking out against this traversty?...why are estates like the grouse moors, where protected species are being persecuted, still being supported???


In the past decade, 57,000 acres of moorland have been regenerated and recovered from over-grazing, afforestation and bracken encroachment, smashing the Government's 2010 conservation target by 170 per cent

This is particulalry poinient when it coems to Hen Harriers - The RSPB: News: Critical link between hen harrier and livestock numbers

More than 60 per cent of England's upland Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are managed as grouse moors. Many are also designated Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation for rare birds and vegetation respectively - makes those bank holiday weekends worth the travel now doesn't it?

RSPB research shows that many rare upland wading birds are up to five times more abundant on moorland managed by gamekeepers than on other moorland and, in the North of England, 95 per cent of the surviving 800 or so breeding black grouse males - a Red List species - occur alongside moorland actively managed for red grouse - What do Hen Harriers eat again?

Hen Harriers eat moorland food sources which will include pipits (firm favourite - healthy pipit population generally = healthy Hen Harrier numbers - until they hammer the pipits and then they focus on voles but owls and plenty other raptors feed on voles so they suffer too so then they might switch to small birds but Hobbys rely on those on moorland so they suffer too etc. etc. etc), small wading birds and voles and other small mammals. Yes they eat game birds but they are far more likely to eat smaller birds that are in the nest than anything else.
Persecution of birds of prey in my mind is a terrible crime but the courts, again slap a fine on the gamekeeper which the estate pays and they carry on as normal. Why? Because a good gamekeeper that has worked those moors fo rthe last 30-40years etc is hard to come by so the knowledge they have is vital to its (the moorland that is) survival. When you get the next strain of gamekeepers coming through (their qualification actually contains a great deal around working with, not against, other species and birds of prey is high on the list through scientific findings and studies that they use to discover and develop more ecologically friendly methods) you will find the poisoning will reduce dramatically if not completely. Watch this space


----------



## JJAK (May 28, 2010)

Now then, i know im about 4 days late with my "why i enjoy hunting" 2p....but here it is!! 

To me, it isnt about the kill....quite frankly i enjoy being out in the fresh air, jumping everything that is placed infront of me. Surrounded by good company, great friends & having fun. With the hecktic life i lead theres nothing better than 'escaping' into the countryside for a few hours (Yes im well aware i can get out on a general hack...but it isnt the same) 

I enjoy the adrenaline rush. I enjoy blowing away the cobwebs with a good gallop over all sorts of terrain. I enjoy going to places i never usually would on a normal hack and ending up in the most bizzare of places a few hours later! Its also to do with a change of 'job' for my horse, variety is the spice of life and all that....and she loves being surrounded by the other horses and the hounds (shes most relaxed in the hunting field, nothing is big and scary!!!!) 

All in all....if meets were arranged where no scent was laid and no foxes were flushed then i would still go.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> Ever heard of poachers?


funny how they all seem to be 'poached' from the grouse moors then int it...unless of course youre meaning it in the context that gamekeepers turn poachers, when they target protected species?...like this one Gamekeeper turned poacher: How National Trust employee trapped wild birds on his own estate | Mail Online

The stark contrast in security between urban and upland raptors in England today. « Raptor Politics
Not too many people I suspect take the time to sit down to ask themselves why iconic raptors like peregrine, hen harrier, goshawk and red kite remain absent from the majority of moorlands in England used for shooting red grouse. Take Geltsdale and the Northern Pennines as a general example, void of these raptors and why, simple reality really, persecution to maintain maximum numbers of game birds for the wealthy few in our society to shoot.

In contrast we must consider the unprecedented expansion of the peregrine falcon into Englands inner cities during the last two decades, simply incredible. A recent scientific study published on the Raptor Politics web site has shown clearly that breeding peregrines located on red grouse moors are at least 50% less successful than those pairs breeding in other habitats. The reason for this unacceptable poor productivity throughout Englands uplands is the illegal control of raptors by gamekeepers. What better example can there be than the failure of 14 peregrine territories each located on grouse moors in the Forest of Bowland which last year all failed to produce a single fledgling.

Hen harrier facing second extinction, warns RSPB | Environment | guardian.co.uk

A spokesman said the bird sometimes preys on red grouse on upland shooting estates, making them unpopular on many grouse moors. He said the bird had been the victim of illegal trapping, shooting, poisoning and destruction of eggs and nests.

"There should be capacity in the English uplands for something like 300 pairs of hen harriers if they were allowed to breed freely but they are only really tolerated in Bowland," he said. "That is something that is shameful, really.

Why county

But, amazingly, illegal killing is the major reason why the hen harrier could be absent as a breeding bird from England in as little as five years.

Hen harriers breed on moors and upland, which are also the key habitat exploited by the multimillion-pound grouse industry.

They prey on voles and pipits, but they will kill and eat red grouse if readily available. As a result, harriers and gamekeepers have been enemies for decades. To compensate for the alarming decline in the birds fortunes, they became protected by law  killing a hen harrier now carries a fine of up to £5,000 or six months in prison.

Yet the hen harrier still boasts the dubious title of being one of the most persecuted bird of prey in the UK



> As I said that article is hearsay, no proof that it actually happens and to what extent so can not and will not comment on that
> My original point was not ALL hounds are starved and abused which is a fact no matter how hard you find that to swallow....
> 
> Anyway I'm not sure why I feel I have to do this all the time when talking about things like this, I am neither pro-hunting nor anti-hunting. I can see both sides of the argument and besides some hunt sabs aren't exactly sweetness and light no one can justify to me gluing horses eyes shut, laying out barbed wire on a hunt route to harm the hounds and dogs, poisoning hounds and the list goes on. These animals don't ask to do the job they do but some sabs are no better than the hunters they claim to despise


oops sorry i took it you were agreeing that young,healthy hounds were killed, cos when i said this..



> Do you dispute that hounds, even those who Do make the grade, have short lives though, B3rnie? ..


you replied with this....



> Nope, and I never said otherwise


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> erm and?? do these statistics somehow make it right?


Never said it made it right. Forgot to mention that these are the ones carried out by local authority dog pounds and the RSPCA. The same group that go about persecuting and demanding greater jurisdiction killed a good part of 7,000 dogs, 11,000 cats and thousands of other animals on top of that, the vast majority (60%) were healthy animals.

I don't support idiots on horseback as best I can but then I dont actually go out and try to stop them either. I can see the numbers they cull and see the benefit they bring but I also see the results of prosecution and it is laughable.

All the ban has done is, the same as any legislation making something illegal, push it underground, hush hush, ask me no questions I tell you no lies... so there will be  far more atrocities happening now than there was when the hunt was legal. If they made it legal again but as I have said foxes that go to earth are not dug out but marked, monitored and shot, it would be much better for everyone.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hutch6 said:


> In the past decade, 57,000 acres of moorland have been regenerated and recovered from over-grazing, afforestation and bracken encroachment, smashing the Governments 2010 conservation target by 170 per cent
> 
> This is particulalry poinient when it coems to Hen Harriers - The RSPB: News: Critical link between hen harrier and livestock numbers
> 
> ...


and by the time this new breed of gamekeeper comes along the Hen Harrier will be gone...extinct for the 2nd time! ...sorry i dont share your optimism Hutch, despite the abundace of meadow pipits and voles on the grouse moors....the Hen Harrier has been wiped out....its Gone!

the only 4 breeding pairs in the whole of England, are in the Forest of Bowland, All are on land belonging to United Utilities...says it all really!.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Im against any "sport" that kills out of pure entertainment ....and fox hunting is one of them......simples - people can dress it up as much as they want about loving being out in the countryside and giving the horses a good gallop and socialising with friends and keeping numbers of foxes down blah blah blah - ALL of the above activities IMO can be achieved without having to hunt a living thing down and killing it just for the fun of it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> funny how they all seem to be 'poached' from the grouse moors then int it...unless of course youre meaning it in the context that gamekeepers turn poachers, when they target protected species?...like this one Gamekeeper turned poacher: How National Trust employee trapped wild birds on his own estate | Mail Online


You really don't help yourself in debates such as this, I have already said that I don't listen to propaganda, least of all the Daily Fail :lol:
I didn't say that ALL are poached, in fact I have no idea what the numbers are for poaching, I was merely offering an alternative to the "all game keepers are scum" which some seem to believe.
Poachers are a huge problem in the UK so why is it so hard to believe that they are the issue? Especially as they give no regard to what they kill or how they kill.



noushka05 said:


> oops sorry i took it you were agreeing that young,healthy hounds were killed, cos when i said this..


No idea, no real facts for me to research, but then young healthy dogs are killed all year round in the UK so not sure that proves anything about hounds


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> and by the time this new breed of gamekeeper comes along the Hen Harrier will be gone...extinct for the 2nd time! ...sorry i dont share your optimism Hutch, despite the abundace of meadow pipits and voles on the grouse moors....the Hen Harrier has been wiped out....its Gone!
> 
> the only 4 breeding pairs in the whole of England, are in the Forest of Bowland, All are on land belonging to United Utilities...says it all really!.


Hang on. Is it gone or are there 4 breedign pairs left?

You don;lt hold any optimism after the Bald Eagle (fish eagle)( was reintroduced with great success? Golden Eagles came back from the brink? Beaver have been successfully reintroduced? We now have more red kites in the UK since pre WWI? Ospreys have been successfully reintroduced? Woodland is on the increase following the large numbers of deer being culled? Biodiversity actually returns to moorland that is managed? On the local river to me, that usually has dead prostitutes floating in it and hasn't been at all clean for as long as I remember, has a large number of kingfishers down there and a couple of holts have been spotted.

Are we not learning, managing and creating a better allround eco-system through data collected by and work mostly carried out by people that partake in "Bloodsports"?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> and by the time this new breed of gamekeeper comes along the Hen Harrier will be gone...extinct for the 2nd time! ...sorry i dont share your optimism Hutch, despite the abundace of meadow pipits and voles on the grouse moors....the Hen Harrier has been wiped out....its Gone!
> 
> the only 4 breeding pairs in the whole of England, are in the Forest of Bowland, All are on land belonging to United Utilities...says it all really!.


  

Where did your information come from?

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc441.pdf
On the basis of 10km square models, the potential national hen harrier population of Scotland is estimated to be within the range 1467-1790 pairs. This compares with population estimates of 436 and 633 pairs, respectively, in the 1998 and 2004 surveys. Potential national population estimates are also calculated for England (323-340 pairs), Northern Ireland (148-156 pairs) and Wales (246-260 pairs). The estimates for England should be treated with caution because no data from England were used in the models developed to predict potential hen harrier breeding distribution, and because the accuracy of such models is in any case lower in areas of very low breeding density, such as England. The UK potential population is estimated to be 2514-2653 pairs, whilst recent UK population estimates from national surveys are 521 pairs in 1998, and 749 pairs in 2004, plus an additional 50-60 pairs on the Isle of Man. Overall, estimates of potential population sizes, especially in England and Scotland, should be regarded as conservative because of the effect of illegal persecution, and potentially other factors such as predation (which could affect productivity), prey densities (voles cycle) and habitat quality (heather cover for nesting birds), in limiting the hen harrier densities observed in recent national surveys.

This little snippet too

In some regions foxes are thought to be an important predator of young harriers and could potentially be an important predictor of breeding success.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> and by the time this new breed of gamekeeper comes along the Hen Harrier will be gone...extinct for the 2nd time! ...sorry i dont share your optimism Hutch, despite the abundace of meadow pipits and voles on the grouse moors....the Hen Harrier has been wiped out....its Gone!
> 
> the only 4 breeding pairs in the whole of England, are in the Forest of Bowland, All are on land belonging to United Utilities...says it all really!.


Err where did you get that?

According to the RSPB there were 617 pairs (and 29 on the Isle of Man) in 2010


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> Err where did you get that?
> 
> According to the RSPB there were 617 pairs (and 29 on the Isle of Man) in 2010


A bit more info 

BTO BirdFacts | Hen Harrier


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> You really don't help yourself in debates such as this, I have already said that I don't listen to propaganda, least of all the Daily Fail :lol:
> 
> lol no i guess the daily mail wasnt the best choice, but i dont know why you think its 'propaganda, the moron was prosecuted!....heres the RSPB's version The RSPB: News: Derbyshire gamekeeper loses appeal for attempting to kill birds of prey
> I didn't say that ALL are poached, in fact I have no idea what the numbers are for poaching, I was merely offering an alternative to the "all game keepers are scum" which some seem to believe.
> ...


I dont think poachers have anything to gain from killing raptors risk prosecution for what?...were as gamekeepers have a vested interest and you only need to look at where the last 4 breeding pairs of Hen Harrier are, they are ALL on one estate, an estate owned by a water company...on the neighbouring grouse estates they have ALL disappeared...how odd!!!!



hutch6 said:


> Hang on. Is it gone or are there 4 breedign pairs left?
> 
> Gone, off every single grouse moor except the one owned by United Utilites!
> 
> ...


im always over the moon when i hear of successful reintroductions...or species comebacks, yes the red kite is thriving but strangely, like other raptors,Not on the grouse moors...Last of red kites introduced to the Highlands dies | Highlands & Islands | STV News ,http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/PeakMalpractice_tcm9-132666.pdf

& take your Golden Eagle example, now in serious risk of decline through persecution, i keep up to date with Raptor politics, and sorry but gamekeepers are still persecuting raptors, their treatment on far too many estates is diabolicle...its depressing.

Dave Dick says those guilty of bird crimes in Scotland are being let off the hook. « Raptor Politics

so in answer to your question, no lol, & im certainly not against controlling populations where needed either, but not in the unstructured, individualistic, 'species bias' way that it is, ..it should be managed something like wildlife on these estates are managed.. John Muir Trust Properties , or Alladale.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> I dont think poachers have anything to gain from killing raptors risk prosecution for what?...were as gamekeepers have a vested interest and you only need to look at where the last 4 breeding pairs of Hen Harrier are, they are ALL on one estate, an estate owned by a water company...on the neighbouring grouse estates they have ALL disappeared...how odd!!!!


The black market for endangered eggs are what they gain 
And again 4 breeding pairs??? Are you saying that the RSPB are lying then?


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> Im against any "sport" that kills out of pure entertainment ....and fox hunting is one of them......simples - people can dress it up as much as they want about loving being out in the countryside and giving the horses a good gallop and socialising with friends and keeping numbers of foxes down blah blah blah - ALL of the above activities IMO can be achieved without having to hunt a living thing down and killing it just for the fun of it.


Same! I can't understand how ANYONE can get pleasure from killing an animal I really don't. So many other things you can do that don't involve killing an animal


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Could this be part of the problem?
You can't keep ignoring that there are other factors involved

Natural England/RSPB: Caught on camera: Eagle Owl raids Hen Harrier nest

Part of the problem could also be that Harriers are prey to Eagles of all kinds and will vacate areas that have a resident Eagle


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Where did your information come from?
> 
> http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc441.pdf
> On the basis of 10km square models, the potential national hen harrier population of Scotland is estimated to be within the range 14671790 pairs. This compares with population estimates of 436 and 633 pairs, respectively, in the 1998 and 2004 surveys. Potential national population estimates are also calculated for England (323340 pairs), Northern Ireland (148156 pairs) and Wales (246260 pairs). The estimates for England should be treated with caution because no data from England were used in the models developed to predict potential hen harrier breeding distribution, and because the accuracy of such models is in any case lower in areas of very low breeding density, such as England. The UK potential population is estimated to be 25142653 pairs, whilst recent UK population estimates from national surveys are 521 pairs in 1998, and 749 pairs in 2004, plus an additional 50-60 pairs on the Isle of Man. Overall, estimates of potential population sizes, especially in England and Scotland, should be regarded as conservative because of the effect of illegal persecution, and potentially other factors such as predation (which could affect productivity), prey densities (voles cycle) and habitat quality (heather cover for nesting birds), in limiting the hen harrier densities observed in recent national surveys.
> ...


okay only 4 pairs bred successfully in the whole of England, are you not horrified by that fact Rona????

again its funny that the 4 successful pairs were all on the one estate belonging to the water company...yet on the neighbouring grouse estates, where i dare say foxes are ruthlessly controlled....no Hen Harriers bred successfully....hmmm


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> okay only 4 pairs bred successfully in the whole of England, are you not horrified by that fact Rona????
> 
> again its funny that the 4 successful pairs were all on the one estate belonging to the water company...yet on the neighbouring grouse estates, where i dare say foxes are ruthlessly controlled....no Hen Harriers bred successfully....hmmm


Maybe they have Eagles, moving the harriers to a clear area to breed!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Maybe they have Eagles, moving the harriers to a clear area to breed!


 can you elaborate?, sorry i dont know what you mean, the only eagles im aware of in England are in Cumbria.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> can you elaborate?, sorry i dont know what you mean, the only eagles im aware of in England are in Cumbria.


That's odd. They seem more widespread than that by the recent sightings.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)

As do the Hen Harrier 

Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> That's odd. They seem more widespread than that by the recent sightings.
> 
> Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
> White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)
> ...


why odd?, i said thats the only place i was 'aware' there were Eagles, sorry im really lost, i dont know where youre going with this, are you somehow trying to prove that Hen Harriers arnt being persecuted on grouse moors, and their demise is down to eagles? lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> why odd?, i said thats the only place i was 'aware' there were Eagles, sorry im really lost, i dont know where youre going with this, are you somehow trying to prove that Hen Harriers arnt being persecuted on grouse moors, and their demise is down to eagles? lol


this is the link Rona posted a little while ago



rona said:


> Could this be part of the problem?
> You can't keep ignoring that there are other factors involved
> 
> Natural England/RSPB: Caught on camera: Eagle Owl raids Hen Harrier nest
> ...


I don't think Rona is blaming ALL the issues on Eagles but they are definitely playing a part


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> why odd?, i said thats the only place i was 'aware' there were Eagles, sorry im really lost, i dont know where youre going with this, are you somehow trying to prove that Hen Harriers arnt being persecuted on grouse moors, and their demise is down to eagles? lol


No!!...................


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Yet another link giving you other reasons for the decline since the 70s

Coillte: Hen Harrier
http://www.ucc.ie/en/planforbio/Documents/Ibis151.pdf

Also what springs to my mind is the decline in song birds over that same period. If this has had an impact I don't know, but it's another possible.

Open your mind


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

HEN HARRIER PERSECUTION ROW RAGES | Scottish Gamekeepers

In Perthshire, where the RSPB and SNH are involved in conservation measures, and where no persecution has taken place, harrier numbers have halved in the last five years. In the Isle of Man, where there are no driven grouse moors, numbers have declined from 57 pairs to 29 pairs, for reasons which the RSPB admits are "not fully understood".

Yesterday Mr Housden confirmed that harrier numbers had declined seriously on Orkney (though they have since recovered) because nesting ground had been used for agricultural purposes. There is no grouse-shooting on Orkney.

Is that enough proof or shall I keep looking?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> this is the link Rona posted a little while ago
> 
> I don't think Rona is blaming ALL the issues on Eagles but they are definitely playing a part


Im quite sure Rona meant what she said...i know she would never confuse an eagle owl with an eagle .



rona said:


> No!!...................


 no need to shout, the penny dropped what you meant, so no im quite sure they dont have eagles to move them on lol



rona said:


> Yet another link giving you other reasons for the decline since the 70s
> 
> Coillte: Hen Harrier
> http://www.ucc.ie/en/planforbio/Documents/Ibis151.pdf
> ...


of course habitat loss is a huge factor, but heather moorland is prime habitat for hen harriers, nice try though lol Moorland wildlife


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

hutch6 said:


> Training a lurcher to chase rabbits is dead easy - stick it in a field with a rabbit and it will give chase, the only training is to not bark, recall and retrieve, just what you probably do with your dog.


Yep my point about hound just doing what instinct tells them. I did scent train Doris to increase her focus but Elsie never had that training and goes sniffing out rabbits. Doris tracks with focus and knows when she is off the track and when to double back. They both bark but the breed are noisy when hunting but it's different from a bark you don't hear it unless they are on the scent. Anything about it being taught is not true.



hutch6 said:


> Rabbits are not poor helpless little creatures by any means and their natural predators to not actively hunt them on a regular basis due to the poor success rate v effort required to catch one.


Also true our rabbit took on a cat who dared to wander into the garden, a male rabbit is a force to be reckoned with. 


hutch6 said:


> What you see when you hear of folk shooting, hunting, trapping and coursing species such as fox or rabbit is a mindless act for a thrill or a thirst for blood and destruction. What is ACTUALLY happening is that the wildlife is being farmed to allow each species a greater opportunity to flourish with increased chances of access to food and shelter allowing them to breed.


Sometimes.... hmm this is where I would argue no. I always hope that this is the case but in reality the older members of the larger shooting clubs often get together and visit farmers. My OH doesn't agree with this because many of them are poor shots. He believes there is a shortage of young shooters doing this who shoot regularly. Your eyes and reflexes simply aren't as good as you get older but going to a gun club full of older chaps isn't seen as a cool hobby. Talking to them they like shooting and aren't really considering conservation, neither are they blood thirsty nutters. They like a good day out with there friends and that is about all. They aren't getting pleasure from killing as far as I can tell anymore than someone that works at an abattoir they simply shoot because they like to shoot the calm focus and mediation that goes with it and are doing it because someone asked them to and it involved taking home a few rabbits and a day out with their friends. 
I also think in the days where owning a gun legally is getting harder they are keen to show a purpose to what they do. 
I know people who do hunt. I think they do it because they like riding and the thrill of chasing something bit like people like shooting but I don't think their motivation is important really it's the end result that people agree or disagree with how it happens.



> If you dont believe this then you are either a vegetarian, a vegan, a blinkered ant-hunt protestor or, as stated previously, a keyboard eco warrior.


I'm a vegetarian but I believe a lot of what you're saying makes sense and you are correct. I am a vegetarian who wants the Yorkshire farmers to keep going. We have amazing milk and cheese. If the rabbit population was left to nature no field would be fit for cattle and certainly not for anything else including bio fuel crops etc. Same goes for wood pigeons which this year are a real problem. We also can't let the local rat population go unchecked.



> If you are not vegetarian or vegan then you really should stop eating meat as your demand for your daily or weekly dose of flesh puts more pressure on wildlife, causes more wild animals to die, creates more suffering and cruelty than any hunt could ever produce but as you obtain it in a nicely lit, sheltered, warm, friendly and pleasurable environment far removed from the reality whilst music softly lulls you down the aisles then you are unaware of all of this.


I am vegi because we are over populated and our meat production can't meet our hunger for it. I am happy to support people producing meat locally for my dogs but after being vegi such a long time I don't have a taste for it personally. I do think meat shot is a better outcome than being barn produced but then nature is also brutal. I am not vegan but I buy most of my dairy and eggs from within 5 miles but I am well aware not everyone can do this. You can't keep chickens producing locally and free range if the local fox population is allowed to run riot. 
If there weren't any farms then the land would be sold on to developers and same goes for land used for hunting without the money to maintain it as a habitat for foxes/grouse etc it would probably also end up as over priced new builds. 
Deer culling has had a lot of debate but it seems some people would rather the deer not be killed and starve to death which I personally think is a much worse way to go.

I think it is complicated because how the country is managed is as complex as nature. Many of these problems don't have clear answers from what I see. The money going into fox hunting isn't like that which went into dog fighting or greyhound racing, the landscape would change I think without it. I dont see it as a simple moral call anymore. I think the solution is to find a way for the countryside to make more money in other ways and make money made from tourism go back into making it profitable. It will mean a lot of change for land owners because at the moment there are activities that would make money but aren't possible due to land restrictions eg. Kayaking trips are complicated because of permissions and ownerships.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Im quite sure Rona meant what she said...i know she would never confuse an eagle owl with an eagle .
> 
> no need to shout, the penny dropped what you meant, so no im quite sure they dont have eagles to move them on lol
> 
> of course habitat loss is a huge factor, but heather moorland is prime habitat for hen harriers, nice try though lol Moorland wildlife


I don't understand the point of this post, I've given you links that address your statements.
Moorland is only part of the needs of Harriers.
You haven't read the links about conifer forests or sheep grazing have you? 
Or the bit about Eagles either?

If you aren't interested then I shall stop fact finding :001_tt2:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> HEN HARRIER PERSECUTION ROW RAGES | Scottish Gamekeepers
> 
> In Perthshire, where the RSPB and SNH are involved in conservation measures, and where no persecution has taken place, harrier numbers have halved in the last five years. In the Isle of Man, where there are no driven grouse moors, numbers have declined from 57 pairs to 29 pairs, for reasons which the RSPB admits are "not fully understood".
> 
> ...


blimey of course im not im not disputing that habitat loss isnt a factor. But cant you accept that so is illegal persecution by gamekeepers??

Mark Avery is the RSPB's Director of Conservation. He said: "The hen harrier is one of our most wonderful birds of prey, but it also the species most threatened by illegal persecution. Every year hen harriers are targeted on grouse moors across the UK and it is clear that this onslaught is having a significant impact on our population. We believe that gamekeepers are killing them illegally - under pressure from their land-owning masters.

"The 2010 hen harrier survey backs up the findings of the government-commissioned hen harrier framework, which reported that persecution was the principal factor limiting this bird of prey's UK population.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> blimey of course im not im not disputing that habitat loss isnt a factor. But cant you accept that so is illegal persecution by gamekeepers??
> 
> Mark Avery is the RSPB's Director of Conservation. He said: "The hen harrier is one of our most wonderful birds of prey, but it also the species most threatened by illegal persecution. Every year hen harriers are targeted on grouse moors across the UK and it is clear that this onslaught is having a significant impact on our population. We believe that gamekeepers are killing them illegally - under pressure from their land-owning masters.
> 
> ...


Like with Fox hunting, I'm well aware that there are some rogue Gamekeepers/land owners, however as the Harrier declined in other areas too I think the statement from the RSPB is more for press coverage than factual.
You do know the RSPB allows shooting on many of their sites? They don't advertise it but they do take the shooters money!!!


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Birds of Prey....how i love them!

Its just horrible how other persecute them for living. Y'know a bird may take part in or kill someone animal/livestock and so the person takes revenge....so why is it ok for him to eat the meat too? If you follow me

These birds are just trying to survive as much as we are.

The decline in birds has many factors...habitat loss, egg thieves, being poisened and killed in other ways y'know.

I dont think all can be blaimed on the people who poison them, but its those i detest the most [along with egg thieves of course] i mean, how can you kill something thats just trying to survive in this humanised world? They were here well before us, so they are now adapting to the food thats become available to them.

Bring back the Haast's Eagle and lets see who is bothered with sea eagles/golden eagles and eagle owls then


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> blimey of course im not im not disputing that habitat loss isnt a factor. But cant you accept that so is illegal persecution by gamekeepers??
> 
> Mark Avery is the RSPB's Director of Conservation. He said: "The hen harrier is one of our most wonderful birds of prey, but it also the species most threatened by illegal persecution. Every year hen harriers are targeted on grouse moors across the UK and it is clear that this onslaught is having a significant impact on our population. We believe that gamekeepers are killing them illegally - under pressure from their land-owning masters.
> 
> ...


That's odd as the quote I've found says

"A study to determine the cause of decline, funded by RSPB Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and University of Aberdeen, has revealed a direct link between the number of sheep grazed on land favoured by hunting Hen Harriers and the success of the species. Food shortage was determined to be the primary cause of the fall in numbers, especially at the start of the breeding season when the males hunt for both themselves and the females in order to bring them into good breeding condition."

That's from the Bird Guides site. 
Seems it depends who they are talking to as to what they say!!!!
I've never liked the RSPB, this happens all the time with them 
Try the BTO site, they are factual and less emotional 
It's no good doing studies and then giving your own interpretation on it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Biodiversity & Conservation

Hen Harriers:

A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom was published in February 2011 by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Scottish Land & Estates, together with four other organisations, branded the report as out of date and misleading. The report, coordinated by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), looks into the conservation status of Hen Harriers but only up to 2004. Contrary to the impression given in this outdated report of a Hen Harrier population still being constrained by persecution, there has only been one confirmed incident of Hen Harrier persecution between 2004 and 2009 indicating that efforts to tackle that problem are now being effective. SNH acknowledged that the report would have to be revised almost as soon as it was published to bring in new data.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Like with Fox hunting, I'm well aware that there are some rogue Gamekeepers/land owners, however as the Harrier declined in other areas too I think the statement from the RSPB is more for press coverage than factual.
> You do know the RSPB allows shooting on many of their sites? They don't advertise it but they do take the shooters money!!!


no, but it doesnt surprise me.:tongue_smilie:



rona said:


> That's odd as the quote I've found says
> 
> "A study to determine the cause of decline, funded by RSPB Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and University of Aberdeen, has revealed a direct link between the number of sheep grazed on land favoured by hunting Hen Harriers and the success of the species. Food shortage was determined to be the primary cause of the fall in numbers, especially at the start of the breeding season when the males hunt for both themselves and the females in order to bring them into good breeding condition."
> 
> ...


well at least thats one thing we agree on... the BTO site...so nighty night, im off to bed!:001_tt2: x

BTO - Breeding Birds of the Wider Countryside: Hen Harrier

Status summary 
Red listed because of substantial declines over the last two centuries, this species has suffered in recent decades from loss of habitat as forestry plantations have matured (Bibby & Etheridge 1993) but more especially from continuing illegal persecution (Etheridge et al. 1997). Although the Hen Harrier and other raptors have been protected under UK law since 1961, many are still unlawfully killed or disturbed in efforts to protect the economic viability of driven shooting of Red Grouse (Thompson et al. 2009). The UK population was unchanged between surveys in 198889 and 1998, with declines in Orkney and England but increases in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (Sim et al. 2001). A decrease of 70% in the Orkney population over the last 20 years has been linked to reductions in the area of unmanaged grassland (Amar & Redpath 2005); the demographic drivers of this decline have been a decrease in polygyny and reduced nesting success among secondary females (Amar et al. 2005). The latest survey reveals a 41% increase in the UK and Isle of Man during 19982004, but with decreases in the Southern Uplands, east Highlands and England, all being areas with many managed grouse moors (Sim et al. 2007a). Although average clutch size declined substantially during the 1980s, further investigation has shown that this trend is due to the increased proportions in recent years of records from Orkney, where clutch sizes tend to be smaller than on the mainland (Summers 1998, Crick 1998). Recent results confirm that rough grass is a critical habitat for Orkney Hen Harriers, providing the necessary food during the incubation period (Amar et al. 2008).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

No hen harriers here, and it does seem as if rat poison may be one of the main issues to raptors 

http://www.sasa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Positive_results_2011_Q1Q2Q3Q4.pdf


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> no, but it doesnt surprise me.:tongue_smilie:
> 
> well at least thats one thing we agree on... the BTO site...so nighty night, im off to bed!:001_tt2: x
> 
> ...


Hen harriers and red grouse: moving towards consensus? - Redpath - 2009 - Journal of Applied Ecology - Wiley Online Library

"This paper follows our original forum article and the replies from colleagues in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)"

Do you see the problem here?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Hen harriers and red grouse: moving towards consensus? - Redpath - 2009 - Journal of Applied Ecology - Wiley Online Library
> 
> "This paper follows our original forum article and the replies from colleagues in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)"
> 
> Do you see the problem here?


Please dont tell me youre still somehow trying to get gamekeepers off the hook because i found something on the BTO site, the site that _you_ recommended, that backs up what ive been saying?:001_unsure:

apologies in advance if im off the mark here


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Please dont tell me youre still somehow trying to get gamekeepers off the hook because i found something on the BTO site, the site that _you_ recommended, that backs up what ive been saying?:001_unsure:
> 
> apologies in advance if im off the mark here


No, the point I'm making there is that the RSPB have had a hand in that statement.
The RSPB are like the RSPCA and The national Trust in my eyes, huge money making businesses that have lost sight of their roots. All they seem to do is chase government grants, court publicity and become bigger and bigger land/property owners.

I wouldn't trust any of those so called "charities". You don't have to delve very far below the surface to find anomalies everywhere.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rona said:


> No, the point I'm making there is that the RSPB have had a hand in that statement.
> The RSPB are like the RSPCA and The national Trust in my eyes, huge money making businesses that have lost sight of their roots. All they seem to do is chase government grants, court publicity and become bigger and bigger land/property owners.
> 
> I wouldn't trust any of those so called "charities". You don't have to delve very far below the surface to find anomalies everywhere.


Rona, that's so true. The bigger charities get they seem to forget what they are really there for, all they seem to want is to get as much money as they can and keep it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> That's odd as the quote I've found says
> 
> "A study to determine the cause of decline, funded by RSPB Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and University of Aberdeen, has revealed a direct link between the number of sheep grazed on land favoured by hunting Hen Harriers and the success of the species. Food shortage was determined to be the primary cause of the fall in numbers, especially at the start of the breeding season when the males hunt for both themselves and the females in order to bring them into good breeding condition."
> 
> ...


ahh it seems you got two studies mixed up Rona, thats why the findings were different yours were based on studies done specifically in the Orkneys https://www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/308812-breeding-success-for-orkney-hen-harriers

the study i refered to was this one... The RSPB: News: Illegal persecution killing Britain's hen harrier population


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Predator Report_tcm9-177905.pdf
> 
> A few more balanced and factual sites





rona said:


> No, the point I'm making there is that the RSPB have had a hand in that statement.
> The RSPB are like the RSPCA and The national Trust in my eyes, huge money making businesses that have lost sight of their roots. All they seem to do is chase government grants, court publicity and become bigger and bigger land/property owners.
> 
> I wouldn't trust any of those so called "charities". You don't have to delve very far below the surface to find anomalies everywhere.


no there are things ive not agreed with re the RSPB, and i wont even go into whet i think of the RSPCA:tongue_smilie:

But even you have used their findings to back up your opinions Rona....and i too thought that link was, on the whole, a good one


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> no there are things ive not agreed with re the RSPB, and i wont even go into whet i think of the RSPCA:tongue_smilie:
> 
> But even you have used their findings to back up your opinions Rona....and i too thought that link was, on the whole, a good one


But what I'm saying is that the RSPB is the only organization that is putting persecution as the main issue.
Yes it is still an issue but from all the other information I have found is becoming less of an issue and other factors are coming to the fore as possible explanations. 
Sorry, the RSPB have blinkers on and unless they look at the whole picture, even I worry about the plight of the Hen Harrier.
Luckily there are others without blinkers.

I think I've only used the RSPB findings when link with others, unfortunately they have power!!!
So many large landowners have signed up to protect this bird but you don't read that on the RSPB site


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> ahh it seems you got two studies mixed up Rona, thats why the findings were different yours were based on studies done specifically in the Orkneys https://www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/308812-breeding-success-for-orkney-hen-harriers
> 
> the study i refered to was this one... The RSPB: News: Illegal persecution killing Britain's hen harrier population


You don't think that first link could apply elsewhere?

That second link is laughable to me, it's all conjecture again. no proof behind that statement at all. Could it be that other land is monitored more closely, preventing egg thieves etc?

See any discrepancy? 
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/bird-poison14032012


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

And yet another possible reason that needs looking at.
These are on the increase.

Conservation group expresses serious concern over wind farm plans > Opinion > Opinion | Click Green


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> But what I'm saying is that the RSPB is the only organization that is putting persecution as the main issue.
> Yes it is still an issue but from all the other information I have found is becoming less of an issue and other factors are coming to the fore as possible explanations.
> Sorry, the RSPB have blinkers on and unless they look at the whole picture, even I worry about the plight of the Hen Harrier.
> Luckily there are others without blinkers.
> ...


No Rona the RSPB is NOT the only organization putting persecution as the main issue....and that so many landowners have signed to protect the bird means sod all...when the FACT remains that in England, despite grouse moorland being prime breeding habitat...NONE were allowed to successfully breed!

anyway heres what other organisations have to say on the matter

DEFRA's Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust, .....The situation in northern England is very different. Only very small numbers of hen harriers are present and breeding densities are currently far too low to have any significant impact on grouse numbers. As breeding hen harriers have been absent or present in only very low numbers in England during the 20th century, they have clearly played no role in the decline in grouse bags seen in some areas.

Despite this, illegal persecution carried out primarily on moorland managed for grouse shooting is thought to be the main factor limiting the hen harrier breeding population in England.

It has been estimated by the Game Conservancy Trust that there is sufficient moorland habitat in England to support about 230 pairs of hen harriers. There are, however, only two small areas in England where hen harriers have bred regularly in recent years, Bowland Fells in Lancashire and the Geltsdale area straddling the Cumbria/Northumberland border.

In 2000, these areas supported only five successful pairs and, in 2001, the situation deteriorated further. A small number of pairs bred at Bowland but none at all were found at Geltsdale. It is clear that urgent action is required in order to save the hen harrier from becoming extinct in England for the second time in its history

heres what studies by Natural England also found ...(i dont know how to add the link ,its a document) The causes of Hen Harrier breeding
failure in England 20022008
The frequency with which Hen Harriers disappeared whilst breeding We identified the cause of failure in 45 of the 55 failed attempts. For convenience, we have allocated each failure to one of seven categories of cause (for definitions see Table 1), with the largest three categories; persecution,predation and unknown,

It is evident that the main causes of failure differ between land classes.Persecution accounted for the failure of nearly all failed attempts on driven grouse moors away from the Bowland Fells. It was a much less important factor on grouse moors in the Bowland Fells and on other moorlands and absent as a cause of failure on land managed by United Utilities. By contrast, failures due to predators were relative high away from grouse moors.
Of all birds of prey, the Hen Harrier is the most heavily persecuted in relation to population size in the UK. The significance of persecution for Hen Harrier populations is well-established: populations in Scotland have been proven to be limited by persecution (Redpath &Thirgood 1997); and models suggest that in the absence of persecution, numbers in Scotland would rapidly recover (Etheridge et al. 1997). Potts (1998) estimated that in the absence of persecution the English uplands would support 232 territorial females.

Whilst evidence of persecution is irrefutable,it should be noted there is no proof linking incidents to particular individuals, as proven by the lack of successful prosecutions. This in no way diminishes the effect of criminality.
We believe that whilst illegal killing continues to be a widespread activity both in this and in neighbouring countries, the prospects for the Hen Harriers return to its former range and numbers unaided are slight.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> rona said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think that first link could apply elsewhere?
> ...


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> No Rona the RSPB is NOT the only organization putting persecution as the main issue....and that so many landowners have signed to protect the bird means sod all...when the FACT remains that in England, despite grouse moorland being prime breeding habitat...NONE were allowed to successfully breed!
> 
> anyway heres what other organisations have to say on the matter
> 
> ...


As there has been very few successful prosecutions how can you say that the persecution is linked to gamekeepers and not poachers?
You can't because there is no proof according to the snippet you quoted 

Oh and I don't listen to beliefs or thoughts, I prefer cold hard facts :tongue_smilie:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

That was my first link I believe Noushka and needs to be read in context to the rest. If you look at it they admit to information being from 2004 or before.

This I think has to be the way forward
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub05_birds of prey_chapter41.pdf

"Public relations and perceptions do matter, however, and a recognition of the important role of land managers in helping to determine the overall direction and implementation of countryside change is important. Perhaps the conservation community could recognise more freely and openly the valuable role that land managers, gamekeepers and others play in the overall well-being of our countryside."

We have several largish land owners around here that do more for wildlife than either the local wildlife trust (I am a member of another local group who are better ), the local national trust  or any of the pieces of ground put aside by the council as wildlife reserves.

Lucas is one, he has put aside fields for butterflies (nearly all species on one site) and barn owls once they had been found on his land
Also the Burrell family who are doing stunning things on virtually all of the land owned by them 
This is just one
Welcome to the Knepp Castle Estate
And a farmer who I don't know the name of who has planted a new wood for the use of humans and wildlife alike

I'm afraid the worst thing anyone can do for wildlife is to PERSECUTE those who look after the vast majority of the countryside.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> As there has been very few successful prosecutions how can you say that the persecution is linked to gamekeepers and not poachers?
> You can't because there is no proof according to the snippet you quoted
> 
> Oh and I don't listen to beliefs or thoughts, I prefer cold hard facts :tongue_smilie:


funny that you missed out the most important word int it B3rnie lol...*Irrefutable*....im afraid theres not much chance of catching gamekeepers red handed out on the moors, now is there...though there are plenty of lowlifes that have been caught over the years. .



rona said:


> That was my first link I believe Noushka and needs to be read in context to the rest. If you look at it they admit to information being from 2004 or before.
> 
> This I think has to be the way forward
> http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub05_birds of prey_chapter41.pdf
> ...


well chances of catching the culprits are rather slim which is why they are getting away with it!..., but all the evidence is stacked against gamekeepers Not poachers...are you honest telling me you cant see it? didnt they once call you Sherlock 

so even if that report was valid in 2004, the situation for hen harriers is far more dire now! and for other raptors aswell, dont you think its strange that they are vanishing off grouse moors yet doing well else where???, nope im sorry if you and B3rnie want to believe your own theories thats your perogative, i'll stick with those in the know those who monitor and study these birds and their populations, thank you.

A new study has just been published in the international scientific journal Biological Conservation. Following hot on the heels of earlier studies that have demonstrated how illegal persecution on UK upland grouse moors is affecting the conservation status of golden eagles, hen harriers, red kites and goshawks, the latest study shows the damage that this disgusting practice is having on a population of peregrines in northern England.

You need to be a subscriber to the journal Biological Conservation to access the full paper (or alternatively you can buy it [see link at foot of this post] or you can google the paper's lead author, Dr Arjun Amar, to see if he'll send you a free PDF for your own private use), but here is the published abstract:

Wildlife crime can be difficult to quantify, and its true impact on populations can be underestimated if rates are under-recorded. The illegal killing of birds of prey is an important form of wildlife crime, which in the UK, is often associated with land managed for the recreational shooting of red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus. In the UK, increases in peregrine falcons Falco peregrinus following recovery from organo-chlorine pesticides have not been uniform, with slow growth and localised declines in some areas, including those managed for red grouse shooting. In this study, we combined 1081 peregrine nest histories across northern England between 1980 and 2006 with a remotely sensed map of grouse moor management, to test whether breeding performance was lower in areas with active management for grouse shooting. Productivity of pairs on grouse moors was 50% lower than pairs breeding on non-grouse moor habitat. However, clutch size and brood size of successful nests did not differ between habitat types, suggesting that food constraints were unlikely to explain this difference. Population models suggested source-sink dynamics, with populations on grouse moors unable to sustain themselves without immigration. Population data confirmed that growth rates were indeed lower on grouse moors than on non-grouse moor sites. Analysis of wildlife crime data confirmed that persecution of the species was more frequent on grouse moors than in other habitat types. This population will be more secure, and better able to function as a barometer of environmental health and climate change, if illegal persecution of the species ceases on areas of land managed for grouse shooting.

Even more evidence then, yet again, that illegal persecution in the UK is so serious that it is having population-level impacts on several raptor species. I think we can be fairly sure that the game-shooting lobby will try to dismiss these latest findings, especially as the lead author was an RSPB scientist and his co-authors were members of the Northern England Raptor Forum
New study shows extent of peregrine persecution on grouse moors « Raptor Persecution Scotland

ive said all along but i'll say it again, i know not all landowners are bad, and im sure there are some fair gamekeepers, but the evidence stacked against those who manage grouse moors is damning...they are despicable, and they turn members of the general public, who care about these birds, against all gamekeepers!...it ashame the good ones dont come out and condemn those whos estates are practically void of raptors! instead of keeping shtum or making up excuses for why these birds are suffering, might put them in a better light!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

That study as you very well know was basically run by the RSPB 

Covert camera at peregrine nest catches offenders within 48 hours « Raptor Persecution Scotland

Egg-thief Gonshaw gets unprecedented ASBO banning him from Scotland « Raptor Persecution Scotland

Eight month prison sentence for illegal sale of stuffed birds of prey « Raptor Persecution Scotland

Police raid pigeon fanciers in England and Wales in peregrine persecution investigation « Raptor Persecution Scotland

Prolific egg thief jailed for fourth time « Raptor Persecution Scotland

All these give you alternatives.
Honestly Noushka I really don't know why someone like you gets taken in by sites like this 
You don't have to read much to realise what they are!!!!

Latest SASA figures show illegal raptor poisoning continues in Scotland « Raptor Persecution Scotland
Even having a go at the SASA 

Repeat after me: there are too many raptors « Raptor Persecution Scotland
Good bit of propaganda here.

I can't look through any more of your links I'm afraid, I've never read the gutter press and really don't want to read gutter sites

Oh and I had a lovely walk this morning over land belonging to one of those awful people. One that has set up a large wildlife pond in a wood with fitted pump too, to make sure it stays nice an aerated for all them little critters.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> That study as you very well know was basically run by the RSPB
> 
> Covert camera at peregrine nest catches offenders within 48 hours « Raptor Persecution Scotland
> 
> ...


i dont get taken in by anything Rona, the evidence, the dramatic decline of raptors on Englands grouse moors says it all!

the quote below is Sleepinglion's....very telling dont you think!



> but will say that gamekeepers do get frustrated as not one licence I believe has been granted to control numbers of some species of raptors that are a nuisance, such as sparrowhawks, where numbers are at a high level. I don't agree at all with killing birds of prey illegally, but it's not hard to see why some gamekeepers take that route when faced with a brick wall on controlling numbers of those birds with high populations


..., i have never denied that poachers, loss of habitat arnt taking their toll, but out on those grouse moors it doesnt take a genuis to work out who the culprits are, & re the hen harrier if persecution on grouse estates isnt a serious problem, why the need for the Langholm experiment?

below statement from the Game Conservancy Trust....is this good enough, or still propaganda?

The GCT, interested in conserving game birds for shooting, is equally embarrassed. Landowners everywhere, watching what happened at Langholm, have adopted a zero-tolerance approach to harriers. In England, the great grouse moors of Yorkshire and Lancashire are now virtually devoid of them, and numbers are dropping also on Scottish moors

www.land-care.org.uk


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

From your own link, did you actually read the article? 

"For the RSPB, the idea that birds of prey, if allowed to multiply, may wipe out other species, including small birds and rare waders, poses a huge moral dilemma. A society devoted to the preservation of bird life finds it hard to accept that one of its most cherished species may have been responsible for reducing a wildlife area to an ecological desert."

And 
"We met at the Buccleuch estate office in the small village of Langholm, where Mark Oddy, the estate manager, briefed us on the latest position. It was not encouraging. A recent SNH report showed that the number of all birds, large and small, was down but also that, because there were no longer gamekeepers on the moor, the habitat heather - which has to be regularly burnt back - was also in decline.

The first revelation was to find how much common ground exists between the two sides. Both conceded that the huge increase in harrier numbers and then their rapid decline had caught them by surprise. Both agreed that the absence of gamekeepers was a setback. Both were at one in wanting to see both grouse and shooting restored at Langholm."

And
"For the RSPB, Mark Avery made an important concession: "There is no quibbling about the fact that the numbers of raptors that developed here made driven grouse-shooting uneconomic, and finished it off as a going concern," he said.

As we drove out onto the Langholm heights, another surprising fact emerged. The RSPB, an organisation dedicated to the well-being of birds, is actually in favour of shooting. Or rather, it accepts that a well-managed grouse moor, where keepers control vermin such as foxes and crows, is ultimately to the benefit of all wild birds, including the harrier. "It would be rather strange if a well-managed grouse moor did not have grouse, but we accept that good keepering affects a range of other species as well," said Avery. "

And
"For them, the way ahead is "diversionary feeding,", whereby harriers are fed dead rats to blunt their appetite for grouse. "We think it's promising," said Avery, "because it potentially leads to a situation where you have hen harriers tolerated on a grouse moors and are not removing the shootable surplus of grouse. It looks like a win-win situation."

He said that when the scheme was briefly tried out at Langholm it showed that the number of grouse chicks eaten by harriers was reduced by 86 per cent. On the other hand, he had to concede that there was no resulting increase in grouse numbers: "You had hen harriers on the moor eating very few grouse, but the strange thing was that it did not lead to an increase in the number of grouse."

And
"Despite this olive branch, the RSPB's position seems, to a layman like myself, illogical. If Langholm is anything to go by, feeding harriers with a guaranteed supply of dead animals is likely to boost numbers to the point where they would simply pose a renewed threat to the grouse. And, to me, the idea of redressing the balance of nature by shipping in thousands of dead rats is not only absurd but repugnant.

Where would the process end and who would pay for it? Even if the grouse population did stabilise, presumably the harriers would simply revert to attacking grouse as soon as the rat supply ended. Diversionary feeding looked merely like a way of postponing a final decision."

And
"One thing, however, did emerge clearly from our day on the moor. A state of war between the two sides is bad news for the very birds that need protecting. What Langholm shows is that too many harriers in one place will eliminate, not just grouse, but other wildlife as well. The sooner the RSPB accepts the reality of that, the quicker a solution can be found that ends illegal persecution and wins the support of landowners and bird-lovers alike.

The alternative is that some of the wildest and most beautiful parts of Britain will become themselves the silent moors of the future."

As this was from several years ago, seems the prophesy in it came true and the RSPB succumbed to pressure


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh Noush, look what I've found! A former Grouse moor owned and run by the RSPB since the 70s.
Oh deary me!

www.land-care.org.uk

Hen Harrier - A complex picture « Raptor Politics

Adrian suggests that few hen harriers settle to breed locally and that "Even at the RSPB's Geltsdale reserve, no hen harriers have bred successfully since 2006." He said, there are many reasons why this might be the case (including their vulnerability to both ground predators and unkeepered moors and to other birds of prey, 

RSPB accused over birds on flagship reserve - Telegraph


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona;1061948986 said:


> From your own link, did you actually read the article?
> "For the RSPB, the idea that birds of prey, if allowed to multiply, may wipe out other species, including small birds and rare waders, poses a huge moral dilemma. A society devoted to the preservation of bird life finds it hard to accept that one of its most cherished species may have been responsible for reducing a wildlife area to an ecological desert."
> 
> And
> ...


yes of course i read it, ...i used the Game Conservancy Trust as a source because you seem dismisive others, i used it prove that gamekeepers persecuting Hen harrier is the main reason for their decline, & the main reason they cant establish and breed successfully...& that GCT statement even goes even further, it says that since langolm, landowners have zero tollerance towards them!!....afterall isnt that what our debate has been about?? i said...persecution of hen harriers by gamekeepers is the main reason for their decline and youve been trying to prove otherwise...no?

.


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)




----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx (Jul 3, 2009)




----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> yes of course i read it, ...i used the Game Conservancy Trust as a source because you seem dismisive others, i used it prove that gamekeepers persecuting Hen harrier is the main reason for their decline, & the main reason they cant establish and breed successfully...& that GCT statement even goes even further, it says that since langolm, landowners have zero tollerance towards them!!....afterall isnt that what our debate has been about?? i said...persecution of hen harriers by gamekeepers is the main reason for their decline and youve been trying to prove otherwise...no?
> .


Never going to even have middle ground here are we? 
You will always see the majority of land owners and their staff as the scum of the earth. 
I see the majority as the custodians of the countryside.
Yes there was a time when things went awry, back in the 60s ad 70s when the government interfered too much with farming. You can't blame the men on the ground for that. You try and fight a government. It took long enough to get fox hunting banned  
Only the future will tell, and to be honest I hope you are proved wrong about the land owners and I am proved wrong about the RSPB.
Can only dream can't we? 

Hope to lock horns again sometime in the future xx


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Never going to even have middle ground here are we?
> You will always see the majority of land owners and their staff as the scum of the earth.
> I see the majority as the custodians of the countryside.
> Yes there was a time when things went awry, back in the 60s ad 70s when the government interfered too much with farming. You can't blame the men on the ground for that. You try and fight a government. It took long enough to get fox hunting banned
> ...


probably not lol,

i think the proof of the good custodians is in the variety of wildlife we see, & over intensive management as happens on Englands grouse moors is is leaving them baron of predators...but of course i hope youre right & im wrong & instead of seeing a decline of many of our raptor species in these places we'll see the opposite, when i visit the peaks i want to have a chance to see these magnificent birds again.
and as for the RSPB, they arnt my favourite organisation Rona, they do far too much running with the hare and running with the hounds, to maximise donations, for my liking...and they actually have much to be blamed for the Hen harrier plight, they should have left the monitoring to the real experts! Forest of Bowland  The RSPB

yes im sure we will lock horns again Rona lol... theres nowt like a good natured debate hey xx


----------

