# Hunting ban



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Should the hunting ban be repealed as wanted by alot of MPs?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

They have their good day's riding in the countryside....They have their social gathering...They can marvel at the working of hounds....
They only thing missing is terrorizing a beautiful, defenceless animal and ripping it to shreds in the name of "sport" - which is the bit they are pining for!!!

Cruel, sick and absolutely no place for such monstrous behaviour in a civilized society. Shame on Mr Cameron for even considering it.

As suffering can only be requited by suffering, they did them a favour by banning it! It should stay banned.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 8, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> They have their good day's riding in the countryside....They have their social gathering...They can marvel at the working of hounds....
> They only thing missing is terrorizing a beautiful, defenceless animal and ripping it to shreds in the name of "sport" - which is the bit they are pining for!!!
> 
> Cruel, sick and absolutely no place for such monstrous behaviour in a civilized society. Shame on Mr Cameron for even considering it.
> ...


I totally agree with koa


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Animals and morals don't come into it...all politicians think is 'Will it affect us winning the next election?'

If they thought a statue of Jimmy Saville instead of Nelson in Trafalgar Square would keep them in power and cushy jobs...they'd damn well erect one.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Repeal the ban and give the foxes shotguns. Arm those foxes.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> Repeal the ban and give the foxes shotguns. Arm those foxes.


I would love to see the tables turned


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> They have their good day's riding in the countryside....They have their social gathering...They can marvel at the working of hounds....
> They only thing missing is terrorizing a beautiful, defenceless animal and ripping it to shreds in the name of "sport" - which is the bit they are pining for!!!
> 
> Cruel, sick and absolutely no place for such monstrous behaviour in a civilized society. Shame on Mr Cameron for even considering it.
> ...


It should be consigned to the history books like bear baiting, c0ck fighting and badger baiting! However I do also believe there are much more important animal welfare issues.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Nope, I just don't understand how the hunters can possibly really believe it's "fair". I just wish they were honest and up-front and actually admitted they love the chase of the hunt and the kill instead of spouting out all of this cr*p about it being "fair" and keeping the countryside free from foxes and anything else they chase. 


I've seen hunters in our village, 'phoning other hunt members while they're on horseback, telling them which direction the fox has bolted. I see horses being changed every hour because the horse is exhausted and can't keep up with the hunt and I've seen the hounds crash through farmers crops chasing deer. Fair? How is it fair, please tell me because every time I ask the hunt, they give me some codswallop and a pack of lies. 

I will NEVER agree to hunting, NEVER. We're supposed to be civilised...


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

A lot of MPs? Really? Can you please give us the evidence for that statement?


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

It should stay banned, simples.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Not living there, I think it should stay repealed. I say this as they can use the fake bait and have just as much enjoyment. If you have a fox problem then the local farmers should be able to shoot them. Because I live in a farming area I understand how some wild life can become a problem with us its mainly coyotes and gophers, very rarely a fox and all farmers have stock dogs or LGD's on duty....


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> A lot of MPs? Really? Can you please give us the evidence for that statement?


Mr Cameron would like it repealed thats why he has appointed a minister for hunting and shooting and I feel alot of his party would fall in with his wishes if it came to a vote,but just my opinion


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cruel, barbaric, unnecessary, and in no way a sport - of course it should not be repealed.

However, it _was_ in the conservative manifesto that he was going to repeal the act - so all you people who voted for the tories, and all you people who didn't vote and so allowed the tories in .............. this *is* what you wanted, isn't it? Because this is what we're going to get thanks to *your* actions/inactions.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Just re read my answer I do not think you need the fox hunt....even confused myself with my answer


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Mr Cameron would like it repealed thats why he has appointed a minister for hunting and shooting and I feel alot of his party would fall in with his wishes if it came to a vote,but just my opinion
> 
> Repeal « Fox in Parliament


Err Isn't he the Agricultural minster and therefore country sports come under his remit, not that he has been appointed as Hunting and Shooting minster!!!


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

On second thought, giving the foxes tasers might be more entertaining.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

I understand that certain animal species do need to be controlled, but do not believe chasing them with a pack of dogs for "sport" is the way to do it


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

I passed a fox smashed up on the side of the Motorway on Monday, I suspect quite a few had painful deaths today on the roads. 

There won't be a vote on it until it is a vote which can be won and I doubt ths will be anytime soon.


----------



## Gertrude (Feb 7, 2010)

DogLover1981 said:


> Repeal the ban and give the foxes shotguns. Arm those foxes.


I sooo love this answer 



Spellweaver said:


> Cruel, barbaric, unnecessary, and in no way a sport - of course it should not be repealed.
> 
> However, it _was_ in the conservative manifesto that he was going to repeal the act - so all you people who voted for the tories, and all you people who didn't vote and so allowed the tories in .............. this *is* what you wanted, isn't it? Because this is what we're going to get thanks to *your* actions/inactions.


Well said! x


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

suewhite said:


> Mr Cameron would like it repealed thats why he has appointed a minister for hunting and shooting and I feel alot of his party would fall in with his wishes if it came to a vote,but just my opinion
> 
> Repeal « Fox in Parliament


Just thought I'd add for more sensitive members, there's quite an upsetting & graphic picture on that link (sorry Sue, just thought I'd give them a heads up in case  )


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Mr Cameron would? Are you sure? Because his spokesman has just announced that the ban will not be the subject of a vote / debate because not enough MPs support the idea of a repeal. 
So I repeat - Where`s your evidence?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Anyone that would want this type of "entertainment" is a prick imo, to find pleasure in inflicting fear, confusion, then unnecessary slaughter, or maiming on a living creature with its own family and home, is the most selfish, self centered arrogant behavior, worthy of nothing but contempt.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

No never! we should be going forward with animal welfare not leaping backwards! Its loopholes of the current ban that need tightening, Police & CPS to take the law breakers seriously & tougher sentencing.



.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Waterlily said:


> Anyone that would want this type of "entertainment" is a prick imo, to find pleasure in inflicting fear, confusion, then unnecessary slaughter, or maiming on a living creature with its own family and home, is the most selfish, self centered arrogant behavior, worthy of nothing but contempt.


i could not agree more Lils! x


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

i don't agree with fox hunting but ive had also had my grandad's side of this ... my grandad is a farrier (blacksmith) and before he retired this was his lively hood ( shoeing horses not fox hunting ) most of his customers were huntsmen and brought the money in for my family ... i've always stayed on the fence with this simply because of my grandad


----------



## x PIXIE x (Feb 9, 2012)

Waterlily said:


> Anyone that would want this type of "entertainment" is a prick imo, to find pleasure in inflicting fear, confusion, then unnecessary slaughter, or maiming on a living creature with its own family and home, is the most selfish, self centered arrogant behavior, worthy of nothing but contempt.


talking of pricks i just spat my tea out when i saw your signature :blush:


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

smudgiesmummy said:


> i don't agree with fox hunting but ive had also had my grandad's side of this ... my grandad is a farrier (blacksmith) and before he retired this was his lively hood ( shoeing horses not fox hunting ) most of his customers were huntsmen and brought the money in for my family ... i've always stayed on the fence with this simply because of my grandad


Like you I have family who are farriers and also who are farmers, I hear and see both sides of the story, My wonderful chickens and ducks have been victims of the fox and they chased my chickens to exhaustion and then didn't think much of ripping them to pieces in front of me as i tried to save them,

I feel very sad for the proper country fox shy trying to get by I know they can also cause up set but Town foxes need something done about them their numbers are becoming dreadful and they have no fear, the ones in our garden will happily sit by our back door until i send till out to chase them off.

I hate these debates how would you all feel if it was a ride in the country with horses and dogs but no spotters so it was a hunt not a sport. is it because the foxes are chased out of their holes by dogs and set running and scouters keep and eye and inform the hunt of where to go, that you all get so upset or is it the whole package?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

smudgiesmummy said:


> i don't agree with fox hunting but ive had also had my grandad's side of this ... my grandad is a farrier (blacksmith) and before he retired this was his lively hood ( shoeing horses not fox hunting ) most of his customers were huntsmen and brought the money in for my family ... i've always stayed on the fence with this simply because of my grandad


I can see that POV, TBH if all these hunts were drag hunts using human 'prey' the horses would still be in need of a farrier, I feel the pro hunt lobby tend to use the excuse of hounds & horses being culled & the disappearance of rural jobs to try & gain support for their 'sport'. After all, they are still 'hunting' per se, just not killing a defenseless animal at the end.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.

Edited to add anyone who speaks out about foxes behaving badly is subjected to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ox-threatened-by-animal-rights-activists.html


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.
> 
> Edited to add anyone who speaks out about foxes behaving badly is subjected to this:
> 
> Mother of twin girls mauled by fox threatened by animal rights activists - Telegraph


This is painfully true, we all have different opinions and as grown up adults we should all respect that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A bit of a non discussion really this

Hunting ban will not be repealed, Tories admit | Politicus - UK Politics News, Views and Commentary


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

nope. If the toffs still want hunting to continue they can take the foxes place, i'm sure there would be no shortage of people willing to come and hunt them down with dogs. thats the only way i'd agree to "sport" hunting.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

porps said:


> nope. If the toffs still want hunting to continue they can take the foxes place, i'm sure there would be no shortage of people willing to come and hunt them down with dogs. thats the only way i'd agree to "sport" hunting.


But it isn't always the Toffs as you call them that hunt.....normal evryday folk do it to. I know they do I have met them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.


Yes, but ask most people if they would chose to have their pet ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds when it is young rather than grow old and die a natural death, I reckon the number who would choose the ripping to shreds option would be zero!

Honestly - anyone on here fancy that kind of death for their pets?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, but ask most people if they would chose to have their pet ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds when it is young rather than grow old and die a natural death, I reckon the number who would choose the ripping to shreds option would be zero!
> 
> Honestly - anyone on here fancy that kind of death for their pets?


A death in seconds or a death in months? Are you willing to watch your pets starve to death slowly and die, or would you intervene? Not a question about the hounds, because dogs are not hunted, but foxes are naturally hunted, and that is a natural death for them. So let's not equate the death of a pet dog to the death of a wild animal


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> A bit of a non discussion really this
> 
> Hunting ban will not be repealed, Tories admit | Politicus - UK Politics News, Views and Commentary


Not really - as one or two on here have already said, if Cameron thinks it will win him votes it will go ahead (it *is* in the manifesto, after all, and decisions made today can be reversed tomorrow). The only reason it is not going ahead just now is because most of the people in the country are totally against this barbarism and Cameron knows he can't afford to lose yet more votes.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A death in seconds or a death in months? Are you willing to watch your pets starve to death slowly and die, or would you intervene? Not a question about the hounds, because dogs are not hunted, but foxes are naturally hunted, and that is a natural death for them. So let's not equate the death of a pet dog to the death of a wild animal


fgs SL most foxes never make it to two years old!

.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A death in seconds or a death in months? Are you willing to watch your pets starve to death slowly and die, or would you intervene? Not a question about the hounds, because dogs are not hunted, but foxes are naturally hunted, and that is a natural death for them. So let's not equate the death of a pet dog to the death of a wild animal


Pretty sure a wild animal feels pain like a pet does, hardly natural when its man made.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So let's not equate the death of a pet dog to the death of a wild animal


No, you should not have done that originally, I agree. However, you did, so I responded in kind


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> fgs SL most foxes never make it to two years old!
> 
> .


Would that be, let me think about it, because they are over populated? What a shock?!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.
> 
> Edited to add anyone who speaks out about foxes behaving badly is subjected to this:
> 
> Mother of twin girls mauled by fox threatened by animal rights activists - Telegraph


more demonising...this is no different from people who demonise certain dog breeds.

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No, you should not have done that originally, I agree. However, you did, so I responded in kind


You obviously misread my post then, because I didn't equate the death of a dog to a fox, I pointed out the difference between the two. Good points for trying though!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> more demonising...this is no different from people who demonise certain dog breeds.
> 
> .


So this poor couple who were subjected to abuse from people who are basically scum, are making it up? Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So this poor couple who were subjected to abuse from people who are basically scum, are making it up? Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing.


OMG do you deliberately misunderstand Everything i say?...

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not really - as one or two on here have already said, if Cameron thinks it will win him votes it will go ahead (it *is* in the manifesto, after all, and decisions made today can be reversed tomorrow). The only reason it is not going ahead just now is because most of the people in the country are totally against this barbarism and Cameron knows he can't afford to lose yet more votes.


But I don't think he or any other MP would be stupid enough to think it would get them more votes!!

I know they aren't the brightest people, but I'm sure even they can work that one out


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> OMG do you deliberately misunderstand Everything i say?...
> 
> .


 :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Classic


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> more demonising...this is no different from people who demonise certain dog breeds.
> 
> .





noushka05 said:


> OMG do you deliberately misunderstand Everything i say?...
> 
> .


No, I don't, but you can't disagree that their children were attacked by foxes, and that foxes are becoming more of a problem? 

And where does all this stem from I wonder? Well let's take your example, status dogs are made into a poor example of a dog by certain owners/breeders. Foxes, which should be a wild animal, are encouraged to co-exist by certain segments of society, and look where it gets us?!

Let's just call them all chavs and get it over and done with :001_tongue:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You obviously misread my post then, because I didn't equate the death of a dog to a fox, I pointed out the difference between the two. Good points for trying though!


Oh, sorry - so when you posted



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ask most people if they would choose *when their pet would die*, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.


you weren't really meaning to compare the death of a pet to the death of a fox?  You can't point out the differences between the two without comparing them - because if you did not compare them, how would you know there were differences?


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

OK going off on a different track, has anyone ever witness how they kill wild rabbits in the country, Shooting, snaring, terriers and also when the rabbits shoot out their hole because a ferrets are chasing them only to run into a net be flung into the air and them hang in the net terrified than have their necks snapped. 

Humans do unspeakable things to each other and other beasts it is nature it is what it is. 

If you could eat a fox and the hunt was being used to catch it and the animal and its pelt didn't lay and rot would you be more understanding of the hunt?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Would that be, let me think about it, because they are over populated? What a shock?!


*If foxes are over populated, which we know is far from the truth. then why the need for artificial fox earths?*
http://www.league.org.uk/news/1024/artificial-earths-maintained

"The League Against Cruel Sports has today published a new report showing the extent of artificial earths being maintained in areas known to be used by hunts. League investigators have uncovered a number of artificial fox earths being maintained which suggests fox number are being kept artificially high.

A massive undercover operation spanning three months, 16 counties and 24 hunts has recorded undisputable evidence that individuals are encouraging foxes in artificial earths. League investigators have found evidence of earths which have been built or renovated since the passing of the Hunting Act where food and water is being supplied."


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> But I don't think he or any other MP would be stupid enough to think it would get them more votes!!
> 
> I know they aren't the brightest people, but I'm sure even they can work that one out


I'm sure you are right - which is why they are not having a vote on it now. But if all those who have protested against it so far fall silent, and the pro-hunters keep up their sly underhand tactics (such as inculcating innocent school kids as was in the news the other week) then the picture could change - and the MPs might then think the majority want the act repealed.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, I don't, but you can't disagree that their children were attacked by foxes, and that foxes are becoming more of a problem?
> 
> And where does all this stem from I wonder? Well let's take your example, status dogs are made into a poor example of a dog by certain owners/breeders. Foxes, which should be a wild animal, are encouraged to co-exist by certain segments of society, and look where it gets us?!
> 
> Let's just call them all chavs and get it over and done with :001_tongue:


Fox attacks on humans are Extremely rare! .....so YOU are doing your usual demonising again, a lot of people feel priviledged if they have foxes that frequent their gardens, urban foxes have a better chance of survival as there is less persecution... so good luck to em i say!.

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, sorry - so when you posted
> 
> you weren't really meaning to compare the death of a pet to the death of a fox?  You can't point out the differences between the two without comparing them - because if you did not compare them, how would you know there were differences?


The death of a pet dog and a fox is not equal, so you can't equate the two. We choose when we have our pets put to sleep, and denigrate those who allow pets to live longer than we perceive they should, but we choose to make a difference when it comes to foxes, and other fluffy wild animals. They should wander off and die of natural causes that we can't see and can't feel guilty about as far as most people are concerned.

Of course if they were hunted, and God forbid taken due to natural selection, the same as the animals they hunt, well, that's hardly fair is it?!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The death of a pet dog and a fox is not equal, so you can't equate the two. We choose when we have our pets put to sleep, and denigrate those who allow pets to live longer than we perceive they should, but we choose to make a difference when it comes to foxes, and other fluffy wild animals. They should wander off and die of natural causes that we can't see and can't feel guilty about as far as most people are concerned.
> 
> Of course if they were hunted, and God forbid taken due to natural selection, the same as the animals they hunt, well, that's hardly fair is it?!


do you seriously expect people to believe that the hunt kills only old & sick animals?...so what about cubbing?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Fox attacks on humans are Extremely rare! .....so YOU are doing your usual demonising again, a lot of people feel priviledged if they have foxes that frequent their gardens, urban foxes have a better chance of survival as there is less persecution... so good luck to em i say!.
> 
> .


Oh well that's alright then, the couple whose kids were attacked are in a minority, not just for the attack on their kids from the fox, but from the anti hunting community.

It may promote a side thread but I think three of those found to be sending abusive messages to this couple for simply speaking the truth, were found to be reliant on benefits. How on earth did they afford to persecute this one individual whilst trying to find a job?


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> do you seriously expect people to believe that the hunt kills only old & sick animals?...so what about cubbing?


you need to explain that one, I know but to make it fair for the debate on both sides the meanings should be explained.

pre-ban cubbing or autumn hunting was very much a job of work to train the young hounds what not to hunt and to disperse the juvenile fox populations. This was done by holding up the coverts and culling


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The death of a pet dog and a fox is not equal, so you can't equate the two.


I didn't. You did:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die*, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but *common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting*.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> , urban foxes have a better chance of survival as there is less persecution... so good luck to em i say!.
> 
> .


Are you sure that's true?

They are much more likely to get Mange
I had a vixen that lived next to one of my pheasant pens that was at least 7


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I didn't. You did:


Are you going in a circular argument or are you actually making a point? I responded in the previous post.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh well that's alright then, the couple whose kids were attacked are in a minority, not just for the attack on their kids from the fox, but from the anti hunting community.
> 
> It may promote a side thread but I think three of those found to be sending abusive messages to this couple for simply speaking the truth, were found to be reliant on benefits. How on earth did they afford to persecute this one individual whilst trying to find a job?


good lord it was one tragic incident! it IS the same mentality as those who tar All staffies with the same brush because of isolated incidents!

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> good lord it was one tragic incident! it IS the same mentality as those who tar All staffies with the same brush because of isolated incidents!
> 
> .


But it wasn't one tragic post, there have been other incidents, with children, and pets, but what the heck, let's just have foxes eat anything they like. Livestock, children, pets. Who cares!


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

same old circular argument not actually getting the nitty gritting just back biting its a comfort to know this excellent forum hasn't changed. :blush:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you going in a circular argument or are you actually making a point? I responded in the previous post.


Making the point that the only person comparing the death of foxes to the death of pets and calling foxes fluffy creatures is you 

If you didn't want me to post the other side to your argument then you should not have compared the death of a pet to the death of a fox in the first place. You can't submit a post comparing the two and then tell everyone else they should not do that - not with any credibility, anyway..


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

piggybaker said:


> same old circular argument not actually getting the nitty gritting just back biting its a comfort to know this excellent forum hasn't changed. :blush:


Glad to see you back noodle btw, I always notice when you go awol on us


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

piggybaker said:


> same old circular argument not actually getting the nitty gritting just back biting its a comfort to know this excellent forum hasn't changed. :blush:


But don'tcha know those foxes and badgers will (eventually) lie down with the chickens and the pet cats, and all will be well with the world.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Making the point that the only person comparing the death of foxes to the death of pets and calling foxes fluffy creatures is you
> 
> If you didn't want me to post the other side to your argument then you should not have compared the death of a pet to the death of a fox in the first place. You can't submit a post comparing the two and then tell everyone else they shold not do that - not with any credibility, anyway..


If you read my post, I did actually say you can't compare them.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Glad to see you back noodle btw, I always notice when you go awol on us


Agreed :thumbsup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

piggybaker said:


> same old circular argument not actually getting the nitty gritting just back biting its a comfort to know this excellent forum hasn't changed. :blush:


It's bound to with this argument because the only way the pro-hunters can justify their blood lust is to try to make people lose sight of that fact by taking the argument off at a tangent


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's bound to with this argument because the only way the pro-hunters can justify their blood lust is to try to make people lose sight of that fact by taking the argument off at a tangent


And the only tangent most people who are anti hunting is that little fluffy creatures live out their lives naturally.

The reality is that nature is cruel, it's about living or dying the whole way through life, man isn't the cruel thing, being born is.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Are you sure that's true?
> 
> They are much more likely to get Mange
> I had a vixen that lived next to one of my pheasant pens that was at least 7


Tbh no im not sure, i was only basing it on a documentary about an urban fox family in Edinburgh i think it was. Thats a fantastic age for a wild fox, you were obviously very compassionate towards her to let her live so close to the pheasants


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you read my post, I did actually say you can't compare them.


Yes you did, ibut not until post #53 - waaaaaaaaaay after you yourself had actually compared them in this post:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die*, and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but *common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting.*


I don't think that the two can be compared - I just object to being told "don't do as I do, do as I say"!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But it wasn't one tragic post, there have been other incidents, with children, and pets, but what the heck, let's just have foxes eat anything they like. Livestock, children, pets. Who cares!


What about the incidences of hounds going off the scent, entering private gardens & killing people's pets? The Faily Mail don't seem to jump on that band wagon.

They'd rather blame the urban fox, an animal (therefore amoral) with animal instincts, rather than look at the bigger problem of humans overbuilding on green belt land & leaving fewer & fewer natural areas for animals to exist in.

Incidentally, this will surely see a rise in the number of hounds killing peoples' pets as more & more housing estates are located in rural areas?

How would hunting answer the 'problem' of urban foxes anyway?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And the only tangent most people who are anti hunting is that little fluffy creatures live out their lives naturally.
> 
> The reality is that nature is cruel, it's about living or dying the whole way through life, man isn't the cruel thing, being born is.


And the cruellest part of nature is mankind.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Tbh no im not sure, i was only basing it on a documentary about an urban fox family in Edinburgh i think it was. Thats a fantastic age for a wild fox, you were obviously very compassionate towards her to let her live so close to the pheasants


She was no problem, raised many a litter, right there.

If she had gone, another more troublesome could have taken her place.

Did have a pretty stunning dog fox that unfortunately started breaking into the turkey sheds and had to be dealt with 

I think from what I've just found, your statement was wrong

The fox website | Urban foxes | Health
In captivity foxes can live up to fifteen years but wild foxes live very short lives, on average about two years. In London, when local authorities were still culling foxes, the average life expectancy was just fourteen months. In Bristol, before mange, life expectancy was slightly longer, on average eighteen months.

It's captive foxes that can have very long lives, but who would want a wild animal kept in captivity? :nonod:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But it wasn't one tragic post, there have been other incidents, with children, and pets, but what the heck, let's just have foxes eat anything they like. Livestock, children, pets. Who cares!


demoniser.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But don'tcha know those foxes and badgers will (eventually) lie down with the chickens and the pet cats, and all will be well with the world.


how patronising!



Sleeping_Lion said:


> And the only tangent most people who are anti hunting is that little fluffy creatures live out their lives naturally.
> 
> The reality is that nature is cruel, it's about living or dying the whole way through life, man isn't the cruel thing, being born is.


people who make their fun Hunting wild animals for some perverse bloodlust is about as far removed from 'nature' as it gets!

.

.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

I've read all the posts and I still cannot hear one single reason as to why hunters think it's fair. 

I was watching the TV news tonight, Boxing Day hunts blah blah blah, who do these hunts think they're kidding?? Turning up at a given time, outside a usual pub, hounds ready, horses ready and a spokesperson saying on camera that "these hundreds of people here WANT the hunting ban to be lifted" yet, when the camera panned out, there were a handful of people there, probably no more than 30 or so. So, if most of the country WANT to see this ban repelled, then surely there would have been more than the few hanging about on a wet miserable day. Stupid comment, not really thought out and certainly not one to change anyone's mind.

The other party interviewed on camera against the hunt had a far better argument and more followers. 

It just beggars belief that most people who hunt, think those of us that don't, who are against this cruelty, are thick townies who know diddly squat about anything to do with the countryside. Wrong. 

I still have a question that needs answering: What part of hunting is considered "fair" and why? If someone can possibly give me a good answer I'll shut up and go away, but it needs to be a succinct answer.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes you did, ibut not until post #53 - waaaaaaaaaay after you yourself had actually compared them in this post:
> 
> I don't think that the two can be compared - I just object to being told "don't do as I do, do as I say"!


So me pointing out they can't be compared is comparing them? Go figure!



simplysardonic said:


> What about the incidences of hounds going off the scent, entering private gardens & killing people's pets? The Faily Mail don't seem to jump on that band wagon.
> 
> They'd rather blame the urban fox, an animal (therefore amoral) with animal instincts, rather than look at the bigger problem of humans overbuilding on green belt land & leaving fewer & fewer natural areas for animals to exist in.
> 
> ...


I never said hunting would solve the problem of urban foxes, I posted when people started coming up with absolutel preposterous rubbish about foxes and their wild/urban populations. The local hunt was over the back of my house last weekend, beautiful to watch, skillful riders, beautiful hounds.

There is no room for creatures that are not subject to our environment, would you kill a mosquito, or fly, or wasp, if it presented a problem? Why not a fox, or are they different? All have their place, in the correct numbers, some people think all creatures should live irrespective of whether they have the prospect of a healthy life.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> She was no problem, raised many a litter, right there.
> 
> If she had gone, another more troublesome could have taken her place.
> 
> ...


if only everyone treated them with the same respect as you did...& this is why i hate the way foxes are indescriminaly killed, many foxes that have never come into conflict with man pay the ultimate price just because they Are a fox.

thanks for the link Rona... i dont agree with keeping them in captivity either, they should be able to live out their lives in the wild where they belong.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Hunting for fun is disgusting hunting for food or a need for pest control is fair, I feel these lines very often become blurred, there is a need to control a fox as there is the rabbits I posted on earlier that no one has commented on.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> people who make their fun Hunting wild animals for some perverse bloodlust is about as far removed from 'nature' as it gets!.


Yep, because those wild animals just wait for each other to drop dead before they eat each other, or did you think they ordered take out?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> if only everyone treated them with the same respect as you did...& this is why i hate the way foxes are indescriminaly killed, many foxes that have never come into conflict with man pay the ultimate price just because they Are a fox.
> 
> thanks for the link Rona... i dont agree with keeping them in captivity either, they should be able to live out their lives in the wild where they belong.


She was a cheeky little devil. Would be wandering around the the pen as I fed.

She obviously had the odd bird but nothing noticeable except the year she was injured, and I could have strangled her that year  

Had more damage from a passing Stoat, blooming thing


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Yes, I saw your comment about hunting rabbits. Not quite the same as hounding them over miles though, on horse-back for hour after hour then having it ripped apart.

Usually, the rabbits that are "hunted" in the countryside are put in the pot, or used to feed dogs etc. No comparison IMO.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

piggybaker said:


> Hunting for fun is disgusting hunting for food or a need for pest control is fair, I feel these lines very often become blurred, there is a need to control a fox as there is the rabbits I posted on earlier that no one has commented on.


Couldn't agree more, if you get a rogue they need dealing with, no matter what the species. Man included


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

8tansox said:


> Yes, I saw your comment about hunting rabbits. Not quite the same as hounding them over miles though, on horse-back for hour after hour then having it ripped apart.
> 
> Usually, the rabbits that are "hunted" in the countryside are put in the pot, or used to feed dogs etc. No comparison IMO.


And I totally respect that, why its called a debate


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

piggybaker said:


> Hunting for fun is disgusting hunting for food or a need for pest control is fair, I feel these lines very often become blurred, there is a need to control a fox as there is the rabbits I posted on earlier that no one has commented on.


hunts have exported foxes so they can hunt them in other countries, imported foxes when they wiped them out here & its well documented that hunts 'breed' foxes, so the hunting to control numbers doesnt really wash.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yep, because those wild animals just wait for each other to drop dead before they eat each other, or did you think they ordered take out?




.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> hunts have exported foxes so they can hunt them in other countries, imported foxes when they wiped them out here & its well documented that hunts 'breed' foxes, so the hunting to control numbers doesnt really wash.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Yep because there's so few foxes now in the UK, they're not a problem, they're not attacking children, or pets, or livestock....... in disneyland that is


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Couldn't agree more, if you get a rogue they need dealing with, no matter what the species.* Man included*


But they often aren't are they, thanks to our soft justice system. 'Rogue' animals are almost always culled 'for the safety of _people_' but God forbid if people, frequently the most vicios animal on the planet were treated the same.

And SL, I begrudge killing any species by my own hand, be it fly, ant, whatever. However, I have 2 rabbits- flies & mosquitoes pose a significant risk to them, so I do take measures to either discourage them, or I will kill them if they are in my home. Do I like it? No, but my bunnies come first.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yep because there's so few foxes now in the UK, they're not a problem, they're not attacking children, or pets, or livestock....... in disneyland that is


are you in denial that foxes were imported now?...or just twisting my words again? jeeze!

.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> She was a cheeky little devil. Would be wandering around the the pen as I fed.
> 
> She obviously had the odd bird but nothing noticeable except the year she was injured, and I could have strangled her that year
> 
> Had more damage from a passing Stoat, blooming thing


We had a stoat get in my nan's 40ft aviary- it killed all but one fledgling budgie & 3 young cockatiels, everything else was dead by morning  she was absolutely devastated


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> We had a stoat get in my nan's 40ft aviary- it killed all but one fledgling budgie & 3 young cockatiels, everything else was dead by morning  she was absolutely devastated


Vicious little buggers 

Was a joy to see it leaping in and out of the bracken, but not finding dead birds every day
Luckily it was only around for 5 days


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So me pointing out they can't be compared is comparing them? Go figure!


Sigh!

No matter how much you try to wriggle out of it, in post #29 you did compare pets to foxes:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Ask most people if they would choose when their pet would die, *and they would say it would be cruel to allow an animal to grow old, be subject to disease and die, but *common sense is an oxy moron when it comes to hunting*.


'Tis all there is black and white 

And it's not until post #59 that you decide to dictate to us all that we should not do that. So it's ok for you to do it, but not anyone else, eh?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Vicious little buggers
> 
> Was a joy to see it leaping in and out of the bracken, but not finding dead birds every day


They are beautiful- but so fearless! When Gem was alive & before Bob came to us, her & Trix confronted one on the crest of a grassy bank- they were mesmerised by him & he was just staring at them, almost daring them to come closer. I made a bit of a prat of myself waving my arms about & bellowing at them to come back to me  which they did, eventually


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

IMO fox hunting is wrong! Chasing an animal to exhaustion and then letting them get ripped to pieces......oh yeah I forgot, usually someone comes along and says that the foxes receive a bite to the back of the neck and they die instantly!  yeah and I believe in Santa.

I get sick if hearing how mean foxes kill chickens, of course they do! That's why it's the owners responsibility to lock them up safely at night. If I owned chickens and woke up to find them ripped to pieces I'd blame myself not the fox!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> They are beautiful- but so fearless! When Gem was alive & before Bob came to us, her & Trix confronted one on the crest of a grassy bank- they were mesmerised by him & he was just staring at them, almost daring them to come closer. I made a bit of a prat of myself waving my arms about & bellowing at them to come back to me  which they did, eventually


Used to be lots of them on that farm along with resident Barn Owls and nesting Kestrels , but the National Trust opened it up to people more and more and it became a bit of a wasteland for wildlife :cryin: :cryin:
Even the Buzzards brood numbers have fallen dramatically


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yep, because those wild animals just wait for each other to drop dead before they eat each other, or did you think they ordered take out?


There is a huge difference between an animal hunting and killing for food and man hunting because it's "fun".

If the only way you can justify fox-hunting is to be patronising towards posters who have evidenced none of the assertions of anthropormorphising wild creatures you are throwing at them, then it is evident that you have no credible argument. So far, the only person mentioning fluffiness, Disney, etc etc is you.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yep because there's so few foxes now in the UK, they're not a problem, they're not attacking children, or pets, or livestock....... in disneyland that is


So if you have a problem fox or fox population the most logical way you can think to deal with it is to assemble a large pack of hounds and dozens of people on horse back to spend all day following scents which may or may not result in them catching 1 or 2 random foxes??? 

Surely it would be more effecient, less cruel and less expensive to use a rifle and a lamp or a trap.....like any farmer or pest controller will tell you.

Hunting foxes with hounds is not and never has been about pest control, it's 100% a matter of sport and tradition.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> It should be consigned to the history books like bear baiting, c0ck fighting and badger baiting! However I do also believe there are much more important animal welfare issues.


Dog fighting was considered a legal and genuine sport at one time as well.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Used to be lots of them on that farm along with resident Barn Owls and nesting Kestrels , but the National Trust opened it up to people more and more and it became a bit of a wasteland for wildlife :cryin: :cryin:
> Even the Buzzards brood numbers have fallen dramatically


That's a real shame, we've just lost several fields in our village to developers for 120 new houses- I'd seen hare, deer & all sorts of wild birds (I saw a wood pigeon that was almost completely white one day, that was pretty amazing!) when walking on the footpath, as well as lots of bats at twilight. We are right in the middle of Broadland, so a 'national park', but the amount of people moving here the lat 10 years is insane


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> That's a real shame, we've just lost several fields in our village to developers for 120 new houses- I'd seen hare, deer & all sorts of wild birds (I saw a wood pigeon that was almost completely white one day, that was pretty amazing!) when walking on the footpath, as well as lots of bats at twilight. We are right in the middle of Broadland, so a 'national park', but the amount of people moving here the lat 10 years is insane


I find it awful that it's getting harder and harder to keep away from humans, I hate to think what it's like for the animals 

It's one of the reasons I don't mind one or two of these huge private estates. At least the wildlife aren't harassed 24/7 by people and their dogs and have some sanctuaries


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> I find it awful that it's getting harder and harder to keep away from humans, I hate to think what it's like for the animals
> 
> It's one of the reasons I don't mind one or two of these huge private estates. At least the wildlife aren't harassed 24/7 by people and their dogs and have some sanctuaries


We have several here too, though the Westwick Estate allows fishing on it's large pond, something I'm not overly keen on, as I follow the local water bird rescue in the parish magazine & almost all their swan casualties are a result of careless fishermen leaving tackle behind


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> We have several here too, though the Westwick Estate allows fishing on it's large pond, something I'm not overly keen on, as I follow the local water bird rescue in the parish magazine & almost all their swan casualties are a result of careless fishermen leaving tackle behind


Got a lot to answer for us humans haven't we?


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

Humans suck, humans are the inhumane ones.


There is no way on earth that i'll ever ever move slightly from my detesting of fox hunting or any kind of hunting.

Its in no way a sport, how can chasing down a living and breathing animals which feels pain and having it scared, stressed and then ripped too shreds, be enjoyable?


Tell you what hunt supporters, if you have kids let them out and then if a load of people in cars chased them down the streets and shot at them, what would you do? Even if it was considered a "sport" its the same thing really, but we wont let that happen cos people have voices to object.

Foxes dont have voices so its fine too hunt them? This debate will never be settled, but i can tell you one thing, it'll never be right to do any kind of hunting.

Let the wild animals live by thier own ways, let them kill eachother for thier own food/protection of territory/protection of young. We dont need to control them at all, where i live now we have been told by neighbours that they've seen less and less foxes over the years and how many have they seen in the last year? None...i heard one.

So yeah, foxes are an issue and so populated they need controlling....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Staysee said:


> Let the wild animals live by thier own ways, let them kill eachother for thier own food/protection of territory/protection of young. We dont need to control them at all, where i live now we have been told by neighbours that they've seen less and less foxes over the years and how many have they seen in the last year? None...i heard one.
> 
> So yeah, foxes are an issue and so populated they need controlling....


10 years after the introduction of the hunting ban. Mmmm maybe they need to start hunting again if fox numbers are dropping since it's introduction


----------



## Staysee (Oct 19, 2009)

rona said:


> 10 years after the introduction of the hunting ban. Mmmm maybe they need to start hunting again if fox numbers are dropping since it's introduction


Yes, thats whats needed in an area with hardley any foxes, fox hunting!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

why do pro hunt people try to invent reasons to justify it? surely the only reason you would start to invent stuff to justify what you're doing is when you know that theres no real justification. 

I mean if you're gonna do it, fine, but at least have the balls to say "i enjoy watching a pack of dogs rip a fox to pieces" instead of inventing all this (provably false) crap about overpopulation of foxes or how you're doing it to keep peoples children safe from fox attacks (wow so noble of you!).. seriously do you even beleive that yourself or do you just think we're all so stupid that you can spout any old nonsense and we'll lap it up?

And what about the cases we hear of large birds of prey swooping down and making off with peoples pets... perhaps then we should hunt birds of prey to protect peoples pets.. cos i mean, if an extremely rare and freak occurance like that can happen extremely rarely, that must mean all pets are in danger all the time from all birds of prey and we should nobly find a way to horribly kill them as stressfully, painfully and unfairly as we possibly can. Makes perfect sense to me.

I can only hope that one day you too will be hunted and ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. And i mean that as sincerely as is possible.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

piggybaker said:


> Let the wild animals live by thier own ways, let them kill eachother for thier own food/protection of territory/protection of young. .


lol i agree with most your post cept this.. we have the cane toad wiping out our natural wildlife, some tool introduced it, and its deadly most our creatures will become extinct if it isnt eradicated, so when its seen it is killed or bagged to be killed, its a brutal animal, eats everything smaller and kills everything bigger by poison, and when eaten it kills them cos its toxic, so yea some animals are pests and do need to be culled.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> lol i agree with most your post cept this.. we have the cane toad wiping out our natural wildlife, some tool introduced it, and its deadly most our creatures will become extinct if it isnt eradicated, so when its seen it is killed or bagged to be killed, its a brutal animal, eats everything smaller and kills everything bigger by poison, and when eaten it kills them cos its toxic, so yea some animals are pests and do need to be culled.


but thats an introduced species which left unchecked would destroy a whole ecosystem.. Even people who dont get off on the torment of wild animals should see the sense in that cull - Its a man made problem needing a man made solution and the sacrifice of the toads is lesser than the sacrfice of the rest of the ecosystem... it's very different to hunting an animal that is well established within its own ecosystem simply for fun or tradition.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

porps said:


> but thats an introduced species which left unchecked would destroy a whole ecosystem.. Even people who dont get off on the torment of wild animals should see the sense in that cull - Its a man made problem needing a man made solution and the sacrifice of the toads is lesser than the sacrfice of the rest of the ecosystem... it's very different to hunting an animal that is well established within its own ecosystem simply for fun or tradition.


oh yea I know, was just pointing out to the other poster, that her comment wasnt viable. 

edit ~ weird, it quoted as if it was piggy but it was staysee.. oops


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ah i thought so.. hope you had a nice xmas wl


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> 10 years after the introduction of the hunting ban. Mmmm maybe they need to start hunting again if fox numbers are dropping since it's introduction


If 10 years after the hunting ban the fox population has dropped, then surely that refutes the argument that fox hunting is needed as a form of pest control?

I mean, anyone with half a brain could always see it was a pretty far-fetched excuse to try to justify hunting in the first place, but this sort of proves it as nonsense, doesn't it?


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yep because there's so few foxes now in the UK, they're not a problem, they're not attacking children, or pets, or livestock....... in disneyland that is


Someone recently posted a cat in need of a new home, the owners wanted it moved quickly, the cat is now safe in rescue.

I went back to read the original thread on ALUK - reason for rehoming, other cat killed by fox. This was an urban area.

In response to the post that the only people who hunt are "toffs". What tosh.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

negative creep said:


> I understand that certain animal species do need to be controlled.


Ironic isn't it. We do all we can to control the numbers of certain species whilst doing absolutely nothing about controlling the number of our own.

Herein lies the real problem!

The concept of pest control is as screwed up as those who originally implemented it. :frown:


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

CavalierOwner said:


> IMO fox hunting is wrong! Chasing an animal to exhaustion and then letting them get ripped to pieces......oh yeah I forgot, usually someone comes along and says that the foxes receive a bite to the back of the neck and they die instantly!  yeah and I believe in Santa.
> 
> I get sick if hearing how mean foxes kill chickens, of course they do! That's why it's the owners responsibility to lock them up safely at night. If I owned chickens and woke up to find them ripped to pieces I'd blame myself not the fox!


Normally I would be totally in agreement with you , stupid chicken owner fancy not using every precaution in the book to protect your pet ( tut)

But on this occasion I won't this thus wonderfully creature of nature ripped through my chicken wire into the pen then chewed it's way in to their locked chicken house where I put them each night to protect them from this wonderful creature of nature and it got through to then chase my chicken to exhaustion and rip them up, the noise of the massica woke us up we ran to their aid only to save three chickens and to have this fox try and attack my daughter who was holding a chicken. Needless to say once I went for the pitch fork and gave it a few button holes to chase it off it went. Leaving me with the carnage to clear up and a very shaken daughter.

So as for these wonderful creatures of nature I have no feelings for what so ever, but I still believe to hunt is ok to have people flushing foxes out is sport, I don't like that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If 10 years after the hunting ban the fox population has dropped, then surely that refutes the argument that fox hunting is needed as a form of pest control?
> 
> I mean, anyone with half a brain could always see it was a pretty far-fetched excuse to try to justify hunting in the first place, but this sort of proves it as nonsense, doesn't it?


My comment was said in a sense of humour kinda way  

But as you've put a question I will answer 

The decline in the fox might possibly be because of initial explosion in population, leading to disease and death for many due to the weak and mange ridden surviving or is more possible, the farmers in the area shooting far more due to the hunting ban.
To them, there's no reason to allow an animal that could wipe out your chickens or take your young stock or attack your pheasants or spread disease to your working dogs, there are no benefits to having them co exist now there's no revenue from the hunt

Farming is a hard life and is all about life and death, what possible reason have they to encourage or protect the fox?

That's not to say all farmers would do that, but an example of what could be the reason


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> My comment was said in a sense of humour kinda way
> 
> But as you've put a question I will answer
> 
> ...


Not disagreeing with any of this, Rona - in fact, I'm certain you are right about the farmers, going by the frequent sounds of shooting coming from the farm behind us. But what you have done is put forward another excellent argument that farmers are quite capable of controlling the fox population and that fox-hunting is therefore not needed as a form of pest control.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

piggybaker said:


> Normally I would be totally in agreement with you , stupid chicken owner fancy not using every precaution in the book to protect your pet ( tut)
> 
> But on this occasion I won't this thus wonderfully creature of nature ripped through my chicken wire into the pen then chewed it's way in to their locked chicken house where I put them each night to protect them from this wonderful creature of nature and it got through to then chase my chicken to exhaustion and rip them up, the noise of the massica woke us up we ran to their aid only to save three chickens and to have this fox try and attack my daughter who was holding a chicken. Needless to say once I went for the pitch fork and gave it a few button holes to chase it off it went. Leaving me with the carnage to clear up and a very shaken daughter.
> 
> So as for these wonderful creatures of nature I have no feelings for what so ever, but I still believe to hunt is ok to have people flushing foxes out is sport, I don't like that.


Wow, it tried to attack your daughter? All I can say is it must have been desperately hungry because thats incredibly rare. Foxes will normally flee from people. When was this?

That said, what would hunting them have achieved? Yes that individual might have been killed by hounds but equally another innocent fox might have been ripped apart. You might like to consider the amount of vermin foxes kill to eat? They wouldnt hesitate to eat any rats or mice they find near your hens. In many ways, foxes are a farmers friend. However even if that fox had been killed by hounds, another would simply have taken the newly vacant territory so you probably wouldnt be any better off. Foxes arent going to go away so we need to learn to live with them.

PS a a former hen keeper I do sympathise with your loss because I love hens too.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> Wow, it tried to attack your daughter? All I can say is it must have been desperately hungry because thats incredibly rare. Foxes will normally flee from people. When was this?
> 
> That said, what would hunting them have achieved? Yes that individual might have been killed by hounds but equally another innocent fox might have been ripped apart. You might like to consider the amount of vermin foxes kill to eat? They wouldnt hesitate to eat any rats or mice they find near your hens. In many ways, foxes are a farmers friend. However even if that fox had been killed by hounds, another would simply have taken the newly vacant territory so you probably wouldnt be any better off. Foxes arent going to go away so we need to learn to live with them.
> 
> PS a a former hen keeper I do sympathise with your loss because I love hens too.


It was in march /April time so these i think were cubs (we had two in the pen one fled straight away) the foxes around here roam during the day they have no fear of humans at all. we are semi rural but the foxes round here do not behave the same as the foxes i have almost seen in the wild..

There is no right or wrong answer to hunting. and it is a circular answer we can only respect the persons own opinion and experience of this animal.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I have killed many wild animals when they have been sick or so badly injured in road accidents that they would die a slow painful death,it affects me every time, our local farmer shots rabbits and pigeons etc he also has said he gets no pleasure from it just part of his job.Then we come to people that do it for pleasure,sport call it what you like! course hares, pursue deer to exhaustion this is what I object to.:frown:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not disagreeing with any of this, Rona - in fact, I'm certain you are right about the farmers, going by the frequent sounds of shooting coming from the farm behind us. But what you have done is put forward another excellent argument that farmers are quite capable of controlling the fox population and that fox-hunting is therefore not needed as a form of pest control.


Never having been hunting but have been around when foxes were shot, I'm still not sure that the fox is any better off from the threat of a gun 

Though I would defend the right of any farmer to protect his/her stock, very often it is not them that does the vermin control (they haven't the time normally) it's Joe Blogs from down the road.
Now Joe Blogs may be very proficient but there are many many Joe Blogs that aren't 
They use the wrong shot size, take shots that are too far and aren't careful enough to ensure a clean kill.

While many countrymen and farmers are as caring as myself, there is an element (like any in society) which is not 

A shot and wounded fox must suffer terribly and for a very long time, a fox caught by the hounds would suffer for a much shorter time.

This is the only thing I can in any way support hunting fox with hounds, but not having the facts and figures it makes it a very mute argument. 
I only look from the foxes welfare point of view, nothing to do with the people who used to partake 

Does the fact that more are being shot mean that there is more suffering!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

porps said:


> ah i thought so.. hope you had a nice xmas wl


Thanks noodle, hope yours was better then mine 



Cookieandme said:


> Someone recently posted a cat in need of a new home, the owners wanted it moved quickly, the cat is now safe in rescue.
> 
> I went back to read the original thread on ALUK - reason for rehoming, other cat killed by fox. This was an urban area.
> 
> In response to the post that the only people who hunt are "toffs". What tosh.


What an irresponsible owner, then, to just get rid of a cat instead of making it an indoor cat, where they are safer from dogs, and cars as well not just foxes.


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> What an irresponsible owner, then, to just get rid of a cat instead of making it an indoor cat, where they are safer from dogs, and cars as well not just foxes.


I can't repeat what my view on the subject was, especially when I googled the address


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Cookieandme said:


> I can't repeat what my view on the subject was, especially when I googled the address


ah ok, I misunderstood you then, I assumed you were pissed at the fox not the owners lol.


----------



## Tamiyamumma (Sep 13, 2012)

rona said:


> Never having been hunting but have been around when foxes were shot, I'm still not sure that the fox is any better off from the threat of a gun
> 
> Though I would defend the right of any farmer to protect his/her stock, very often it is not them that does the vermin control (they haven't the time normally) it's Joe Blogs from down the road.
> Now Joe Blogs may be very proficient but there are many many Joe Blogs that aren't
> ...


I am in total agreement! If hunting is so cruel then why is shooting and trapping still allowed where a poor animal either starves to death in a trap or slowly bleeds to death with a badly aimed shot.

I do however feel there should be a control on how many dogs are used and how many hunts are permitted per season.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tamiyamumma said:


> I am in total agreement! If hunting is so cruel then why is shooting and trapping still allowed where a poor animal either starves to death in a trap or slowly bleeds to death with a badly aimed shot.
> 
> I do however feel there should be a control on how many dogs are used and how many hunts are permitted per season.


Nothing just nothing, even hounds can be worse than an animal dieing slowly in a (legal) snare  

That is where the focus should be in my opinion


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Tamiyamumma said:


> I am in total agreement! If hunting is so cruel then why is shooting and trapping still allowed where a poor animal either starves to death in a trap or slowly bleeds to death with a badly aimed shot.
> 
> I do however feel there should be a control on how many dogs are used and how many hunts are permitted per season.


And what would be the objective of the hunting? It doesnt reduce fox numbers. Well ok, it removes the sitting fox but that just allows a new fox to move in and take over the patch. If there is no clear objective then it starts to look like chasing foxes with hounds, just for fun.


----------



## Cookieandme (Dec 29, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> ah ok, I misunderstood you then, I assumed you were pissed at the fox not the owners lol.


I was pissed at the owner, but I also don't have a problem with hunting.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Cookieandme said:


> I was pissed at the owner, but I also don't have a problem with hunting.


If it were a pet dog or cat (similar sized) chased for miles and ripped apart, then would you have a prob with it?


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> If it were a pet dog or cat (similar sized) chased for miles and ripped apart, then would you have a prob with it?


well no I would be dead, couldn't say anything!!!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

piggybaker said:


> well no I would be dead, couldn't say anything!!!


why would you be dead ?


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> why would you be dead ?


LOL just re read the post,,, I thought it said if you were a pet being chase, sorry chaps my mistake and stupid one it was to :scared:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Nothing just nothing, even hounds can be worse than an animal dieing slowly in a (legal) snare
> 
> That is where the focus should be in my opinion


I agree that snaring is just as barbaric as fox hunting but that means BOTH need to be fought against, not one or the other.

It is perfectly possible to set humane traps and for the trapper to be trained to kill an animal painlessly. The fact that that does not happen now is as wrong as fox hunting imo.


----------



## Tamiyamumma (Sep 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree that snaring is just as barbaric as fox hunting but that means BOTH need to be fought against, not one or the other.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to set humane traps and for the trapper to be trained to kill an animal painlessly. The fact that that does not happen now is as wrong as fox hunting imo.


There are one not enough large estates left and two now where near enough fully trained gamekeepers to manage snares and traps well enough to put these animals out of their misery as soon as they are trapped.

My reason for mentioning large estates is they were the only people with the facilities to manage wild life correctly and game keeping skills were passed down father to son with in the estate.

This topic will always circle in opinions. Mine is that better managed hunts should defiantly be allowed and snares should be illegal or 1000 times better managed than they are now x


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tamiyamumma said:


> There are one not enough large estates left and two now where near enough fully trained gamekeepers to manage snares and traps well enough to put these animals out of their misery as soon as they are trapped.
> 
> My reason for mentioning large estates is they were the only people with the facilities to manage wild life correctly and game keeping skills were passed down father to son with in the estate.
> 
> This topic will always circle in opinions. Mine is that better managed hunts should defiantly be allowed and snares should be illegal or 1000 times better managed than they are now x


It does not matter how well-managed a hunt is, the end result is still the same. The hunting ban should stay in place and should be better enforced. Despite the propaganda of the pro-hunters, it is glaringly obvious that fox-hunting has no effect as a method of pest control, so the only possible reason left for people to fox-hunt is because they enjoy it. I have said this before and I will say it again and again ad nauseum - I cannot for the life of me see how anyone who kills animals for pleasure can call themselves an animal lover.

As for the trapping and snaring of animals, estates (or farmers) should be policed so that if they cannot manage to trap and kill animals humanely then they should not be allowed to do it at all.

And estates "managing wildlife correctly" - managing it correctly for whom? The hunters? Left to her own devices Mother Nature has a tendency to be able to manage things on her own!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And estates "managing wildlife correctly" - managing it correctly for whom? The hunters? Left to her own devices Mother Nature has a tendency to be able to manage things on her own!


I have just such an estate near me, they are re-wilding about half of their 3,500 acres, with free roaming pigs,cattle,ponies and deer and the other is being managed for farming,shooting and hunting.
It will be very interesting as time goes by, which is the more diverse.

As it stands at the moment, I can say that insect life has increased on the re-wilding site after about 15 years. I will be keeping a close eye on it all.

I feel privileged to have such forward thinking land owners in my area


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

piggybaker said:


> you need to explain that one, I know but to make it fair for the debate on both sides the meanings should be explained.
> 
> pre-ban cubbing or autumn hunting was very much a job of work to train the young hounds what not to hunt and to disperse the juvenile fox populations. This was done by holding up the coverts and culling


sorry PB i didnt see this last night.

foxes being territorial dont need any help dispersing ,

I dont think theres anyone better to explain cubbing than a Professional Huntsman of 20 yrs, Clifford Pellow submitted this account of cubbing to Lord Burns Hunting Inquiry....

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.

,


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

rona said:


> I have just such an estate near me, they are re-wilding about half of their 3,500 acres, with free roaming pigs,cattle,ponies and deer and the other is being managed for farming,shooting and hunting.
> It will be very interesting as time goes by, which is the more diverse.
> 
> As it stands at the moment, I can say that insect life has increased on the re-wilding site after about 15 years. I will be keeping a close eye on it all.
> ...


That sounds so interesting, i would love you to keep me up dated on it all  you are very lucky to live near there.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

dobermummy said:


> That sounds so interesting, i would love you to keep me up dated on it all  you are very lucky to live near there.


I'll send you a link then you can keep up with it 

I'll try and visit soon and take a few pictures, though it's a bit rough over there at the mo because of the hooves and soft ground 
Not good for an old dog


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tamiyamumma said:


> There are one not enough large estates left and two now where near enough fully trained gamekeepers to manage snares and traps well enough to put these animals out of their misery as soon as they are trapped.
> 
> My reason for mentioning large estates is they were the only people with the facilities to manage wild life correctly and game keeping skills were passed down father to son with in the estate.
> 
> This topic will always circle in opinions. Mine is that better managed hunts should defiantly be allowed and snares should be illegal or 1000 times better managed than they are now x


to leave an animal in a snare or trap for a single minute is still inhumane, no matter how well managed snares & traps are i cant even begin to imagine the terror and pain these awful devices inflict.

there needs to be a campaign to see these banned aswell..along with poisons.

.

.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> sorry PB i didnt see this last night.
> 
> foxes being territorial dont need any help dispersing ,
> 
> ...


 No what I honestly didn't know that.... again not a hunt,, that's sport. there's no skill involved in that at all that's slaughter.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Nothing just nothing, even hounds can be worse than an animal dieing slowly in a (legal) snare
> 
> That is where the focus should be in my opinion


Let's not forget poisoning, another 'legal' method- it's not just the vermin it's intended for that consume it, & no animal, no matter how loathed by humans, deserves to die that sort of slow & painful death


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Let's not forget poisoning, another 'legal' method- it's not just the vermin it's intended for that consume it, & no animal, no matter how loathed by humans, deserves to die that sort of slow & painful death


Apart from the rat man on the pig farm and other farms, I've never known anyone who has used poison as a method to dispatch anything


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

rona i would be really interested in what butterflies you see this summer on this land. Hubby and I belong to the butterfly conservation so it would be nice to know if you notice and influx of our little friends.:thumbup:


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Its nothing to say its fair.

Farmers for hundreds or years have shaped what the country side is today there is very little natural countryside unless you go up in the highlands or high up in the welsh mountains.

Other wise we would have no food, no economy and many would have no work.

Deer, crows, rabbits are culled regulary to keep numbers in check.

Foxes are culled regulary too. In my opinion a 10minute chase with pack of dogs is much FAIRER than months of a ganerous leg or paralyzed back because someone took a poor shot. Someone round my old house was shooting and didn't kill foxes, I had to shoot three that were suffering.

NoOne ever published about the RSPCA who released a load of sterilised males out with stitches in many died of sepsis.
Nothing was published to my knowledge I only knew as I found a dead fox with stitches in the right place. (my shed was a fox tomb as many chose to die there).

I don't think anyone has the right to make the decision about how an animal should be killed to maintain a healthy population unless you are prepared to get out there and do the job YOURSELF so that you can see first hand just how difficult it is to do. And I hate to say it but the foxes need to come out of the towns and back into the countryside where they belong. There is more trouble in the towns than the ones in the country. In the towns is where children are mauled, pets are killed, mange is spread. But at current what with our house building and the number of foxes they are a species that have been forced to move out of their "natural habitat" and I can tell you now hunting ban or not foxes in the country live longer lives and are healthier in the counryside than some of the pitiful sights I have seen where I work in a city.

*So please tell me what would your solution be to maintaining the fox population of the UK???!!!!*

Because hunts are still controlling fox numbers all year round with the means of the gun, normally the animal spends the night in a trap before being shot point blank.

And leaving them alone is not an option other wise forget chicken, lamb, many species of ground nesting birds and some mammals as these are fox food.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

piggybaker said:


> rona i would be really interested in what butterflies you see this summer on this land. Hubby and I belong to the butterfly conservation so it would be nice to know if you notice and influx of our little friends.:thumbup:


Was just bog standard butterflies last year, but on the other part of their estate, they have an open Oak woodland where many many people come to catch a glimpse of the Purple Emperor


----------



## Tamiyamumma (Sep 13, 2012)

toffee44 said:


> Its nothing to say its fair.
> 
> Farmers for hundreds or years have shaped what the country side is today there is very little natural countryside unless you go up in the highlands or high up in the welsh mountains.
> 
> ...


What you have said is so true. At the end of the day foxes and suffering which ever way you look at it. Scrounging for food in inner city bins and attacking people and animals just to get a meal. Is this fair on the poor little fox? X


----------



## DollyGirl08 (Dec 1, 2012)

I know people who hunt, and they said that it's only the old or sick foxes that get caught and killed, as the young healthy ones are able to get away. 

Must say, i've NEVER seen a fox around here....and i live 20 minutes from Birmingham City Centre, but also plenty of green areas...wonder where they are hiding?! 

I don't like the thought of hunting any animal really. After all, it's us that have encroached on their territories and built into their natural habitats, so where else are they supposed to go.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Tamiyamumma said:


> This topic will always circle in opinions. Mine is that better managed hunts should defiantly be allowed and snares should be illegal or 1000 times better managed than they are now x


Well not sure I agree with it being allowed at all but I definitely agree they are defiant.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Its nothing to say its fair.
> 
> Farmers for hundreds or years have shaped what the country side is today there is very little natural countryside unless you go up in the highlands or high up in the welsh mountains.
> 
> ...


There are farmers who embrace wildlife on their land, ive met a few on twitter, they dont have this urge to shoot everything that moves which many farmers seem to have these days, foxes are appreciated for the good they do predating on rabbits and rodents which destroy their crops...sadly this type of farmer seems to be as rare as a hen harrier these days.

& People will always shoot foxes whether fox hunts exist or not.

"According to the UK Government Burns Commission, "the overall contribution of traditional fox hunting, winthin the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole"

predator numbers are limited by the availability of territories plus availability of prey...so the fox population wouldnt suddenly burgeon out of control if All forms of 'control' stopped!...& lets face it vehicles & other manmade hazards take a huge toll on their numbers.

.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Apart from the rat man on the pig farm and other farms, I've never known anyone who has used poison as a method to dispatch anything


My brother-in-law is a pest controller who uses poison on a regular basis, I've caused a bit of a rift in OH's family as a result of voicing my opinions of him using it 

While I don't really like it due to my love of rats, I think ratting with terriers is more humane than putting down poisons- at least the death is quicker.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> There are farmers who embrace wildlife on their land, ive met a few on twitter, they dont have this urge to shoot everything that moves which many farmers seem to have these days, foxes are appreciated for the good they do predating on rabbits and rodents which destroy their crops...sadly this type of farmer seems to be as rare as a hen harrier these days.
> 
> & People will always shoot foxes whether fox hunts exist or not.
> 
> ...


So it's ok to run them over with my car then, but not to let my dogs chase them in case they are slightly perturbed 

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

Do people honestly think farmers all have appropriate fire arms for lamping? Some might do, many won't, if you're shooting a fox you use a rifle with the appropriate calibre ammunition, you don't just blast the heck out of it and hope. That's just downright cruel.

As for burgeoning out of control, perhaps if wildlife centres didn't release them next to chicken farms it may help.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> There are farmers who embrace wildlife on their land, ive met a few on twitter, they dont have this urge to shoot everything that moves which many farmers seem to have these days, foxes are appreciated for the good they do predating on rabbits and rodents which destroy their crops...sadly this type of farmer seems to be as rare as a hen harrier these days.
> 
> & People will always shoot foxes whether fox hunts exist or not.
> 
> ...


Foxes naturally regulate their own population. Before hunting, farming, culling, was the land overrun with foxes? Well I wasnt around then but my guess is no, it wasn`t. Predator populations are heavily dependent on available prey so an increase in fox numbers will result almost certainly in a decrease in prey, probably resulting in smaller litters and a lower survival rate. Not guaranteed, no, but it is I believe, reasonable and likely. 

I may be wrong but I believe only the dominant pair in a territory will breed, so with a finite amount of territory, there can only be so many breeding pairs.

I`m wasted on here!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> Foxes naturally regulate their own population. Before hunting, farming, culling, was the land overrun with foxes? Well I wasnt around then but my guess is no, it wasn`t. Predator populations are heavily dependent on available prey so an increase in fox numbers will result almost certainly in a decrease in prey, probably resulting in smaller litters and a lower survival rate. Not guaranteed, no, but it is I believe, reasonable and likely.
> 
> I`m wasted on here!


So we're back to the it's ok for them to starve to death and die in a slow horrible way, or die of disease when a population becomes so large disease is easily spread and uncontrolled?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So it's ok to run them over with my car then, but not to let my dogs chase them in case they are slightly perturbed
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


I wish anyone who feels the need to shoot any animal would have the skill to beable to kill it humanely.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> My brother-in-law is a pest controller who uses poison on a regular basis, I've caused a bit of a rift in OH's family as a result of voicing my opinions of him using it
> 
> While I don't really like it due to my love of rats, I think ratting with terriers is more humane than putting down poisons- at least the death is quicker.


Agreed


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> There are farmers who embrace wildlife on their land, ive met a few on twitter, they dont have this urge to shoot everything that moves which many farmers seem to have these days, foxes are appreciated for the good they do predating on rabbits and rodents which destroy their crops...sadly this type of farmer seems to be as rare as a hen harrier these days.
> 
> & People will always shoot foxes whether fox hunts exist or not.
> 
> .


I don't think farmers have a urge to shoot everything that moves. HOWEVER foxes can be a problem to those that farm livestock.

And see my comments regarding people shooting foxes.



noushka05 said:


> "According to the UK Government Burns Commission, "the overall contribution of traditional fox hunting, winthin the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole"
> 
> predator numbers are limited by the availability of territories plus availability of prey...so the fox population wouldnt suddenly burgeon out of control if All forms of 'control' stopped!...& lets face it vehicles & other manmade hazards take a huge toll on their numbers.
> 
> .


And if you further read the Burns Comission fox hunting is only accountable for controlling about 5% of the fox population. This is because hunts do not just hunt anywhere they fancy. They hunt on peoples land with their permission and payments made. As not all the land you see belongs to farmers then not all the UK is hunted.

A large amount of the fox population is controlled by culling whether organised or just by a guy who owns a shot gun (as in anyone of any marksman skill good or bad)or a snare. This for me is the biggest problem is that anyone can just go out shooting.

Foxes fighting for territory because numbers have increased is not a healthy fox population. Humans shaped the "countryside" and therefore have a duty to maintain it.

And at the time of the Ban only 36% actually supported the hunting ban. 
UK democracy at its best :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So we're back to the it's ok for them to starve to death and die in a slow horrible way, or die of disease when a population becomes so large disease is easily spread and uncontrolled?


I would suggest a lot of animals starve to death. It sounds grim but I suspect there is truth in it. What happens to the toothless elephant, the injured lioness, the sparrowhawk, no longer fast enough to catch small birds? And yes, the elderly arthritic fox. Old, slow, toothless. Again it sounds grim but I think that`s natures way of ensuring only the fittest animals survive to breed.

One day everyone will accept I am always right.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sussexplumber said:


> Foxes naturally regulate their own population. Before hunting, farming, culling, was the land overrun with foxes? Well I wasnt around then but my guess is no, it wasn`t. Predator populations are heavily dependent on available prey so an increase in fox numbers will result almost certainly in a decrease in prey, probably resulting in smaller litters and a lower survival rate. Not guaranteed, no, but it is I believe, reasonable and likely.
> 
> I may be wrong but I believe only the dominant pair in a territory will breed, so with a finite amount of territory, there can only be so many breeding pairs.
> 
> I`m wasted on here!


Brilliant post!!... clearly you understand the ecological principle that predator numbers are regulated by availability of prey!:thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> I would suggest a lot of animals starve to death. It sounds grim but I suspect there is truth in it. What happens to the toothless elephant, the injured lioness, the sparrowhawk, no longer fast enough to catch small birds? And yes, the elderly arthritic fox. Old, slow, toothless. Again it sounds grim but I think that`s natures way of ensuring only the fittest animals survive to breed.
> 
> One day everyone will accept I am always right.


So are you saying you would prefer to see an animal die a slow death, through starvation and/or disease, than hunted and killed quickly?


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Brilliant post!!... clearly you understand the ecological principle that predator numbers are regulated by availability of prey!:thumbup:


But the prey is put there by us so therefore fox's increase.

Lambs, chickens, turkey. So basically your saying is lets stop the farmers farming????


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So are you saying you would prefer to see an animal die a slow death, through starvation and/or disease, than hunted and killed quickly?


As regards the hunt, the hounds will follow whichever scent they pick up. It may be the tired old dog fox, it may be one of the breeding pair. But I`m going to leave it there because I see nothing to be gained by discussing further.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Brilliant post!!... clearly you understand the ecological principle that predator numbers are regulated by availability of prey!:thumbup:


That would be fine if us horrid humans didn't feed them with our disgusting waste


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> As regards the hunt, the hounds will follow whichever scent they pick up. It may be the tired old dog fox, it may be one of the breeding pair. But I`m going to leave it there because I see nothing to be gained by discussing further.


I thought foxes were territorial? So if you are hunting on a territory, surely you'll come across the fox you set out for?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> That would be fine if us horrid humans didn't feed them with our disgusting waste


Don't even get me started on these  I had to drag Rogue out of a hedge after she went in after some dirty beggar's McDonald's leftovers a couple of days ago


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

toffee44 said:


> Deer, crows, rabbits are culled regulary to keep numbers in check.
> 
> Foxes are culled regulary too. In my opinion a 10minute chase with pack of dogs is much FAIRER than months of a ganerous leg or paralyzed back because someone took a poor shot.


You see, this is where you pro-hunters tie yourself up in knots. On one hand you try to make out that shooting foxes is not viable because there are not enough good marksmen around, and on the other hand you say that deer, crows, rabbits etc etc are shot regularly. If there are marksmen accurate enough to kill these animals, why can they not shoot foxes instead of hunting them with hounds?

Of course, the answer is that most foxes *are* shot, just like the other animals you mention, and that hunting foxes has sod all effect on pest control.

As for this "fair" 10 minute chase - well, why is it that only foxes are trested this way? If it is so fair, why don't we hunt deer, for example?



toffee44 said:


> *So please tell me what would your solution be to maintaining the fox population of the UK???!!!!*


*Humane traps, checked regularly by good marksmen*. It's not rocket science ffs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> But the prey is put there by us so therefore fox's increase.
> 
> Lambs, chickens, turkey. So basically your saying is lets stop the farmers farming????


they are also controlled by availability of territories, so if you kill the resident foxes more will only move into the vacant territory.

the most livestock is lost due to poor management ....

The fox website | Foxes & agriculture


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You see, this is where you pro-hunters tie yourself up in knots. On one hand you try to make out that shooting foxes is not viable because there are not enough good marksmen around, and on the other hand you say that deer, crows, rabbits etc etc are shot regularly. If there are marksmen accurate enough to kill these animals, why can they not shoot foxes instead of hunting them with hounds?
> 
> Of course, the answer is that most foxes *are* shot, just like the other animals you mention, and that hunting foxes has sod all effect on pest control.
> 
> As for this "fair" 10 minute chase - well, why is it that only foxes are trested this way? If it is so fair, why don't we hunt deer, for example?


Now I know you're fairly savvy at recognising different breeds of dog, surely you recognise the difference between deer and fox? They are slightly different, I can post pictures if you're struggling


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

"A study based on questionnaires sent to 220 farmers and interviews with 13 Masters of packs of foxhounds in the county of Wiltshire (UK) found that hunting with hounds made an insignificant contribution (5%) to the total fox mortality. Similarly to the study mentioned above, farmers tended to overestimate both the number of foxes on their farm and the number of foxes killed by a hunt. Furthermore, two thirds of all farmers that responded to the questionnaire did not think that foxes were a pest at all, confirming the findings of previous work."

It's not really anything to do with controlling fox numbers at all. Most chickens in the UK are battery farmed so are not at threat and the cost of hiring someone to lamp is very cheap (I know many people who will do it for nothing and many that would actually pay in the case of rabbits).


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sussexplumber said:


> As regards the hunt, the hounds will follow whichever scent they pick up. It may be the tired old dog fox, it may be one of the breeding pair. But I`m going to leave it there because I see nothing to be gained by discussing further.


Sorry I haven't read every single post so it may have already been discussed but I agree, why are old, starving foxes being used as examples? These may be hunted but are not the sort that a hunt want as they would not give much of a chase. Surely a young, healthy fox is preferable (& is from my experiences with hunts) would give everyone a much better day out regardless of the suffering it would endure.

Other animals are shot as means of pest control so why not foxes? if they are old & dying they they would be easier to hit surely


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You see, this is where you pro-hunters tie yourself up in knots. On one hand you try to make out that shooting foxes is not viable because there are not enough good marksmen around, and on the other hand you say that deer, crows, rabbits etc etc are shot regularly. If there are marksmen accurate enough to kill these animals, why can they not shoot foxes instead of hunting them with hounds?
> 
> Of course, the answer is that most foxes *are* shot, just like the other animals you mention, and that hunting foxes has sod all effect on pest control.
> 
> ...


Deer are shot only with a Rifle and for that you need to jump through hoops and be a true marksman. Those that shoot deer are rarely interested in Fox unless a gamekeeper.

Crows and rabbits are a complete different to shooting a fox, much much easy to have a shot size that guarantees death with the small prey.

I'm not well up on shot logistics but just by it's sheer size a fox must be more difficult to kill cleanly


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You see, this is where you pro-hunters tie yourself up in knots. On one hand you try to make out that shooting foxes is not viable because there are not enough good marksmen around, and on the other hand you say that deer, crows, rabbits etc etc are shot regularly. If there are marksmen accurate enough to kill these animals, why can they not shoot foxes instead of hunting them with hounds?
> 
> Of course, the answer is that most foxes *are* shot, just like the other animals you mention, and that hunting foxes has sod all effect on pest control.
> 
> ...


So find me the marksman and the money to pay them to do it and a governing body to maintain they are infact good marksmen. It is not the case of going oh look a fox, bang. You wait all night, stay very still, pray the fox doesnt scent you, and then make sure you get a shot, and if your a respectable human being make sure that fox is infact dead.

As for rabbit etc, you are more likely to either miss or shoot deada rabbit or crow, foxes are bigger and therefore you can hit and maim rather than kill.

Deer you stalk, you do not stalk foxes, they are underground...did you know what the terrier was bred for?

It is a subject that will always go in circles. It is always a subject that will divide a room. It is a subject I know where I stand on and a subject that you know you stand on and I think all the time we have farming the way we farm then culling will always be there in what ever form.

However go to Europe and farm in big barns where livestock dont see the light of day but foxes are no problem and are not in large numbers and TB is not rife in cattle and foxes aren't pest on the streets.

Or go look out in our countryside to see spring lambs, freerange hens but unfortunately the sound of the hunting horn or gun to maintain our only real big predator on our island.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Now I know you're fairly savvy at recognising different breeds of dog, surely you recognise the difference between deer and fox? They are slightly different, I can post pictures if you're struggling


 Nice try - now instead of evading the question try answering it. What I want the pro-hunters to tell me is why you think they should be hunted differently. Why iare all these marksmen accurate enough to kill a deer but not a fox? Why is it "fairer" to chase and rip a fox to shreds when it is young so that it doesn't die of old age, but it is "fairer" to let deer die of old age instead of chasing them and ripping them to shreds when they are young?


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

toffee44 said:


> So find me the marksman and the money to pay them to do it and a governing body to maintain they are infact good marksmen.
> 
> As for rabbit etc, you are more likely to either miss or kill a rabbit or crow, foxes are bigger and therefore you can hit and maim rather than kill.
> 
> ...


Ooooh can we get onto big cats please? I profoundly disagree that the fox is the only real big predator! lol Even a badger is twice the weight!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> *Humane traps, checked regularly by good marksmen*. It's not rocket science ffs.


I read that as *human* traps at first, some images I won't describe went through my head for a few seconds


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Nice try - now instead of evading the question try answering it. What I want the pro-hunters to tell me is why you think they should be hunted differently. Why iare all these marksmen accurate enough to kill a deer but not a fox? Why is it "fairer" to chase and rip a fox to shreds when it is young so that it doesn't die of old age, but it is "fairer" to let deer die of old age instead of chasing them and ripping them to shreds when they are young?


Although tongue in cheek, if you understand the difference between the two animals, that gives you your answer. Sometimes it's easy enough to set out to lamp a shoot a fox depending on the individual situation. Not always.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> Ooooh can we get onto big cats please? I profoundly disagree that the fox is the only real big predator! lol Even a badger is twice the weight!


Yep and I've seen a large deer carcass stripped within 3 days by a family of Badgers, picked clean


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Deer are shot only with a Rifle and for that you need to jump through hoops and be a true marksman. Those that shoot deer are rarely interested in Fox unless a gamekeeper.


So why not bring the same laws in for shooting foxes? Much better than repealing the hunting ban.



rona said:


> I'm not well up on shot logistics but just by it's sheer size a fox must be more difficult to kill cleanly


Not if its been trapped humanely it's not. It's a sitting duck - much more easier to kill cleanly than any of the other wildlife mentioned.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Although tongue in cheek, if you understand the difference between the two animals, that gives you your answer. Sometimes it's easy enough to set out to lamp a shoot a fox depending on the individual situation. Not always.


It's got nothing to do with the difference between the two animals - it's all about what's acceptable and not acceptable in this day and age. Deer used to be hunted on horseback with a pack of hounds, but now that is looked upon as barbaric. If the hunts started hunting deer, the few supporters they have left would be up on arms and that's why they don't do it.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So why not bring the same laws in for shooting foxes? Much better than repealing the hunting ban..


At least we stand on some common ground.

The answer will come down to money. But rest assured I doubt we will ever see a pack of hounds hunt a fox in the UK again.

And I have to say having hunted pre and post ban what scared me the most was when myself and three other pony clubbers got locked into a field by do gooders anti hunt people. Brilliant idea lock four kids on their ponys away from the rest of the field two ponys dumped riders and jumped out over barbed wire and myself and another girl my age (15 at the time) were left with some younger pony clubbers who were very scared along with our ponys who were not happy about being alone mid hunt.

I won't be hunting if the ban lifts because that day lives with me forever and much scarier than any ditch or 5 bar gate I have covered.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It's got nothing to do with the difference between the two animals - it's all about what's acceptable and not acceptable in this day and age. Deer used to be hunted on horseback with a pack of hounds, but now that is looked upon as barbaric. If the hunts started hunting deer, the few supporters they have left would be up on arms and that's why they don't do it.


I think you will find that hunt subscribers are higher than ever 

And as for hunting other animals it will always be acceptable to watch a herd of cows being taken to slaughter and then discarded, because of an extremely flawed TB test. Yet the culling of deer and badger will be frowned upon or illegal in the latter.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> I don't think farmers have a urge to shoot everything that moves. HOWEVER foxes can be a problem to those that farm livestock.
> 
> And see my comments regarding people shooting foxes.
> 
> ...


I believe in all the Mori polls, pre & post ban, the majority have been in support of a ban??....

so yes its is UK democracy at its best...i agree with you on that:thumbup:

& three quarters of voters now back the ban on fox hunting:thumbup:.

Fox hunting: Three quarters of voters back legal ban according to Ipsos-MORI poll - Mirror Online


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So why not bring the same laws in for shooting foxes? Much better than repealing the hunting ban.
> 
> Not if its been trapped humanely it's not. It's a sitting duck - much more easier to kill cleanly than any of the other wildlife mentioned.


Foxes are classed as Vermin. You going to tell the Farmer that the fox who visits every night to raid his sheds can only be shot by a licensed gun? 
Wouldn't work

 You want to trap wild Foxes??
That is just Cruel beyond belief :nonod:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

toffee44 said:


> So find me the marksman and the money to pay them to do it and a governing body to maintain they are infact good marksmen.


Yes, that is exactly what is needed - thank you for reinforcing what I have already posted. It would be much better to do this than to repeal the ban. Fox hunting is unnecessary.



toffee44 said:


> It is not the case of going oh look a fox, bang. You wait all night, stay very still, pray the fox doesnt scent you, and then make sure you get a shot, and if your a respectable human being make sure that fox is infact dead.


Or you could set humane traps and have an accurate marksman check them regularly.



toffee44 said:


> Deer you stalk,


I know - but only because that is the way humans like to do it. They used to be hunted by men on horseback with packs of hounds waaaay back when.



toffee44 said:


> It is a subject that will always go in circles. It is always a subject that will divide a room. It is a subject I know where I stand on and a subject that you know you stand on and I think all the time


It always will while ever there are people who find fun in hunting because must people are sickened by it. Look at the poll on this thread, and compare numbers who approve of the ban to the numbers who wnt it lifted. And why do you think the PM has decided not to put the repeal of the ban to a vote? Because he knows he would lose the vote, that's why.



toffee44 said:


> we have farming the way we farm then culling will always be there in what ever form.


I am not against humane culling. Fox hunting is neither humane nor an effective method of culling - it is an inhumane practice that uses the pretence of culling as justification for its inhumanity.



toffee44 said:


> Or go look out in our countryside to see spring lambs, freerange hens but unfortunately the sound of the hunting horn or gun to maintain our only real big predator on our island.


I repeat, fox-hunting is not an effective method of culling.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's got nothing to do with the difference between the two animals - it's all about what's acceptable and not acceptable in this day and age. Deer used to be hunted on horseback with a pack of hounds, but now that is looked upon as barbaric. If the hunts started hunting deer, the few supporters they have left would be up on arms and that's why they don't do it.


Ah yes, are we talking the report that started out by comparing wild deer to bambi? And referred to bambi's mother dying, except that actually bambi's mother was shot. And actually, bambi's mother didn't exist, she was a cartoon


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Or you could set humane traps and have an accurate marksman check them regularly.


Have you ever seen a trapped fox?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ah yes, are we talking the report that started out by comparing wild deer to bambi? And referred to bambi's mother dying, except that actually bambi's mother was shot. And actually, bambi's mother didn't exist, she was a cartoon


See, there you go agaiin. You have no viable argument and so once again you trot out the :Yawn: Disney/Bambi ploy.

I never mentioned Bambi or Bambi's mother or whatever report you are talking about.

I mentioned that in the past deer were hunted on horseback, with hounds, but they are no longer hunted that way now. Right-thinking people are up in arms about the possibility of the fox hunting ban being repealed - if hunters suddenly start hunting another animal - ANY ANIMAL - that is going to bring on the anti-hunters like you wouldn't believe.

Now go pack up your Disney characters - the rest of us are debating about real animals.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> See, there you go agaiin. You have no viable argument and so once again you trot out the :Yawn: Disney/Bambi ploy.
> 
> I never mentioned Bambi or Bambi's mother or whatever report you are talking about.
> 
> ...


I think if you actually look at the relevant report, the author quotes bambi in their opening paragraph.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> are classed as Vermin. You going to tell the Farmer that the fox who visits every night to raid his sheds can only be shot by a licensed gun?
> Wouldn't work


Yes it would - it would have to if it was made law.



rona said:


> You want to trap wild Foxes??
> That is just Cruel beyond belief :nonod:


No-where near as cruel as chasing them all day and then ripping them to shreds whilest still alive



rona said:


> Have you ever seen a trapped fox?


Have you ever seen a fox being ripped to shreds whilst still alive?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I dont know if anyone on this thread does hunt foxes if so can you tell what the pleasure is in it?rather than going for a lovely hack across fields.Rabbits I can understand shooting you can then eat them,deer being culled you can them eat them,with fox hunting its not done for food so what is it?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Now go pack up your Disney characters - the rest of us are debating about real animals.


Lmfaooooo :lol:


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, that is exactly what is needed - thank you for reinforcing what I have already posted. It would be much better to do this than to repeal the ban. Fox hunting is unnecessary.
> 
> Or you could set humane traps and have an accurate marksman check them regularly.
> 
> .


Then please one day come and watch this very practice because I tell you what it is not something I could do. Watching that fox who has spent 12hrs in cage, scared, and now your looking at it down the barrel of a gun. No sorry I still stand by that a 10 minute chase is fairer than than.

And as for hunting with dogs for deer its not effective there are too many deer and dogs just disperse them I would imagine. Have never seen the practice done with dogs so can only imagine deer flying in all directions.

And the poll on here is biased, as would a poll on a shooting forum, a horse forum or a farmers forum.

Its a bit like putting a dogs should only be fed raw debate on here.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think if you actually look at the relevant report, the author quotes bambi in their opening paragraph.


I don't even know what report you are talking about.

Whatever report it is - whatver it says in *any *of it - it has nothing to do with anything I've posted here.

But nice diversionary tactics!


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Have you ever seen a fox being ripped to shreds whilst still alive?


I have seen a fox ripped to shreds once dead normally by its throat being ripped out by a hound. Go watch the discovery channel often fotage of a lion doing so to a zebra.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

toffee44 said:


> I have seen a fox ripped to shreds once dead normally by its throat being ripped out by a hound. Go watch the discovery channel often fotage of a lion doing so to a zebra.


Difference there is the lion is hungry, the fox is killed for some bastards fun day out.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes it would - it would have to if it was made law.
> 
> No-where near as cruel as chasing them all day and then ripping them to shreds whilest still alive
> 
> Have you ever seen a fox being ripped to shreds whilst still alive?


I can no longer debate with you as you are not even close to knowing what goes on.
Have you read how anti fox I am from my previous posts about "my" wild vixen who I lived and worked side by side with for 6 years?

As you have pointed out yourself before, condoning one cruelty is not acceptable, and cage trapping a wild country fox is unimaginably cruel.


----------



## itsonlyme (Dec 22, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> They have their good day's riding in the countryside....They have their social gathering...They can marvel at the working of hounds....
> *They only thing missing is terrorizing a beautiful, defenceless animal and ripping it to shreds in the name of "sport"* - which is the bit they are pining for!!!
> 
> Cruel, sick and absolutely no place for such monstrous behaviour in a civilized society. Shame on Mr Cameron for even considering it.
> ...


have you seen what a fox does in a chicken run?


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Difference there is the lion is hungry, the fox is killed for some bastards fun day out.


And to manage the farmers/ estate owners land.
Yes it is a fun day out. Nothing like the thrill of a gallop yes its turned into a sport but the fundamental reason for the hunt was countryside management and I think unless you live by the countryside as in you farm or live that way etc you won't understand. As I will never understand why people are willing to sit in a office after spending 2hrs on the underground to work.

We all live differently. We all have different morals and have different ideals which is what makes us human. But some arguements such as this one will never end or win. Yes a ban was put in place but hunt subscribers are higher than other and many hunts thriving post ban. I see the ban as city folk interfering with rural life not really anything to do with the fox.

I see no one ever comments on reports when some speak of a days shooting/ beating??!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> I have seen a fox ripped to shreds once dead normally by its throat being ripped out by a hound. Go watch the discovery channel often fotage of a lion doing so to a zebra.


And the Countryside Alliance tell us they are killed with a quick nip to the back of the neck

i think you'll find lions have to throttle their prey to bring it down, i really dont believe for one second that fox hounds normally kill foxes by going for the throat lol

i think we've probably all seen plenty of footage of foxes killed by being ripped to pieces!!...i know i have!

.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

toffee44 said:


> Then please one day come and watch this very practice because I tell you what it is not something I could do. Watching that fox who has spent 12hrs in cage, scared, and now your looking at it down the barrel of a gun. No sorry I still stand by that a 10 minute chase is fairer than than.


Ah, so you are too much of a coward to do the deed yourself. You would prefer a pack of hounds to do it for you, even though that death is infinitely more horrendous?

If I had to kill a fox I would chose the humane trap and clean shot every time. I do not know how any animal lover can prefer to see an animal ripped to shreds than see it shot cleanly.



toffee44 said:


> And the poll on here is biased, as would a poll on a shooting forum, a horse forum or a farmers forum.


Hmmm. Yes, you are right, it will be biased. Most people on here are animal lovers ... oooh, could that be why they don't like animals being killed in a barbaric and unnecessary way just because some individuals see it as "sport"?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't even know what report you are talking about.
> 
> Whatever report it is - whatver it says in *any *of it - it has nothing to do with anything I've posted here.
> 
> But nice diversionary tactics!


So the report on the behavioural and physiological effects of culling red deer (1997) by Prof Bateson of Cambridge, who wrote 'if you wept as a child at the death of Bambi's mother, you know what it is like to be hunted', a supposedly scientific report that contributed towards the *anti hunting* movement, has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I mean, who would rely on those pesky scientific reports?! Unless they tell you what you want to hear


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> And to manage the farmers/ estate owners land.
> Yes it is a fun day out. Nothing like the thrill of a gallop yes its turned into a sport but the fundamental reason for the hunt was countryside management and I think unless you live by the countryside as in you farm or live that way etc you won't understand. As I will never understand why people are willing to sit in a office after spending 2hrs on the underground to work.
> 
> I see no one ever comments on reports when some speak of a days shooting/ beating??!!


I do :arf: lol


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> As you have pointed out yourself before, condoning one cruelty is not expectable, and cage trapping a wild country fox is unimaginably cruel.


It is still less cruel than having it hunted and ripped to shreds whilst still alive. If I had the choice I would do neither. But given that foxes have to be culled, this is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> And the Countryside Alliance tell us they are killed with a quick nip to the back of the neck
> 
> i think you'll find lions have to throttle their prey to bring it down, i really dont believe for one second that fox hounds normally kill foxes by going for the throat lol
> 
> ...


Lions don't hunt foxes, let's keep the debate slightly real. The smallest prey a lion would hunt is something like an impala, and that would be uncommon, it's more likely to be wildebeest or zebra. Foxes or coyotes wouldn't be a prey item, more like a *perceived* competitor, or nuisance. But wait, we don't have lions in the UK, unless you believe Sussexplumber that is


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> And the Countryside Alliance tell us they are killed with a quick nip to the back of the neck
> 
> i think you'll find lions have to throttle their prey to bring it down, i really dont believe for one second that fox hounds normally kill foxes by going for the throat lol
> 
> ...


My main and only problem with the alternatives given is the "suffering" caused to the animal, not the percieved suffering that some seem to imagine. The fox trapped in a cage, caught in a snare or shot by Joe Blogs down the road  All would suffer for hours and hours and then die.

To be honest, I can't get my head around why Foxes are demonised. Deal with the rogue foxes and let the majority live in peace :thumbup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It is still less cruel than having it hunted and ripped to shreds whilst still alive. If I had the choice I would do neither. But given that foxes have to be culled, this is the lesser of two evils.


In your opinion


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Lions don't hunt foxes, let's keep the debate slightly real. The smallest prey a lion would hunt is something like an impala, and that would be uncommon, it's more likely to be wildebeest or zebra. Foxes or coyotes wouldn't be a prey item, more like a *perceived* competitor, or nuisance. But wait, we don't have lions in the UK, unless you believe Sussexplumber that is


please keep up SL, i was responding to this.........



toffee44 said:


> I have seen a fox ripped to shreds once dead normally by its throat being ripped out by a hound.
> 
> Go watch the discovery channel often fotage of a lion doing so to a zebra.


.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> My main and only problem with the alternatives given is the "suffering" caused to the animal, not the percieved suffering that some seem to imagine. The fox trapped in a cage, caught in a snare or shot by Joe Blogs down the road  All would suffer for hours and hours and then die.
> 
> To be honest, I can't get my head around why Foxes are demonised. Deal with the rogue foxes and let the majority live in peace :thumbup:


well Amen to that Rona

,


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

toffee44 said:


> I see the ban as city folk interfering with rural life not really anything to do with the fox.


You are hiding your head in the sand if you think that only city dwellers are against fox-hunting. I don't live in a city. 

Tomorrow I'll take a pic out of my bedroom window and post it so that you can see the farm behind us


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

toffee44 said:


> Yes it is a fun day out. Nothing like the thrill of a gallop yes its turned into a sport


yeah.... hence the disgust.........grown adults, surely can find another social hobby to amuse their lil brains with, that doesnt involve blood shed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> In your opinion


which is just as valid as yours


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the report on the behavioural and physiological effects of culling red deer (1997) by Prof Bateson of Cambridge, who wrote 'if you wept as a child at the death of Bambi's mother, you know what it is like to be hunted', a supposedly scientific report that contributed towards the *anti hunting* movement, has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I mean, who would rely on those pesky scientific reports?! Unless they tell you what you want to hear


And your response to the valid report I quoted, but you don't seem to have seen, keep up SW.

I doubt if you would shoot a fox, I doubt if you could even bring yourself to approach a cage with a trapped fox in. I'm a fair judge of characters and I really don't think you could bring yourself to kill anything.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> which is just as valid as yours


But what about the poor fox? 

Suffer for 12 hour and die!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm a fair judge of characters and I really don't think you could bring yourself to kill anything.


Wow, amazing ability to see inside someones heart, mind and soul, and know their future as well, all on a pet forum.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> the fundamental reason for the hunt was countryside management and I think unless you live by the countryside as in you farm or live that way etc you won't understand.


It was.... but now it isn't... in the same way many things used to be OK. it's a bit like saying "but I have to send my 8 year down the pit. It's alright for you lot who can afford not to, to say it's bad but I have to." Those times have past. The majority of farmers don't see foxes as a pest and if they do they shoot them.

As for the "if you don't live in the country you wouldn't understand" bit. I used to, then they built a load of flaming houses round me, most of them occupied by the people who stand and watch the hunt go by and say "isn't it marvellous" in their mustard cords and Barber jackets.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> Wow, amazing ability to see inside someones heart, mind and soul, and know their future as well, all on a pet forum.


Actually I've met Val in person, and as much as I disagree with her, I do respect different opinions. Edited to add, that doesn't mean I can't debate with someone tongue in cheek


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Actually I've met Val in person, and as much as I disagree with her, I do respect different opinions. Edited to add, that doesn't mean I can't debate with someone tongue in cheek


Maybe so, but you dont truly know how someone else will act, in every circumstance.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> Maybe so, but you dont truly know how someone else will act, in every circumstance.


Maybe not, but from meeting Val, I can't see her pulling the trigger on a fox trapped in a cage. Maybe she will post different but I really don't think she would. I could be wrong but that's just my impression from meeting her.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> It was.... but now it isn't... in the same way many things used to be OK. it's a bit like saying "but I have to send my 8 year down the pit. It's alright for you lot who can afford not to, to say it's bad but I have to." Those times have past. The majority of farmers don't see foxes as a pest and if they do they shoot them.
> 
> As for the "if you don't live in the country you wouldn't understand" bit. I used to, then they built a load of flaming houses round me, most of them occupied by the people who stand and watch the hunt go by and say "isn't it marvellous" in their mustard cords and Barber jackets.


Well then the ban is there so no worrys.

However fox hunting and shooting is a very large income for estates, one that they wont turn down so it will never go.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Lions don't hunt foxes, let's keep the debate slightly real. The smallest prey a lion would hunt is something like an impala, and that would be uncommon, it's more likely to be wildebeest or zebra. Foxes or coyotes wouldn't be a prey item, more like a *perceived* competitor, or nuisance. But wait, we don't have lions in the UK, unless you believe Sussexplumber that is


I`m referring to mountain lions/cougar, yes. But I shall resist the temptation to take the thread so off topic! lol


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And your response to the valid report I quoted, but you don't seem to have seen, keep up SW.


You tried to make out I was responding to that report, when I wasn't. Do keep up SL!



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I doubt if you would shoot a fox, I doubt if you could even bring yourself to approach a cage with a trapped fox in. I'm a fair judge of characters and I really don't think you could bring yourself to kill anything.


You don't really know me all that well, do you?  I have killed animals in the past - I've rescued countless wounded little creatures from the cats and put them out of their misery.

I would not kill anything out of choice. I prefer my pigeons to be made of clay, so to speak (and I was actually quite a crack shot at the ol' clay pigeons but not done it for years!). But if I had to either be part of a hunt or shoot a fox in a cage, then I would choose the latter.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You tried to make out I was responding to that report, when I wasn't. Do keep up SL!
> 
> You don't really know me all that well, do you?  I have killed animals in the past - I've rescued countless wounded little creatures from the cats and put them out of their misery.
> 
> I would not kill anything out of choice. I prefer my pigeons to be made of clay, so to speak (and I was actually quite a crack shot at the ol' clay pigeons but not done it for years!). But if I had to either be part of a hunt or shoot a fox in a cage, then I would choose the latter.


No hen, keep up, you tried to make out that I was posting a ridiculous reference to bambi, when in actual reality, one of the reports that the hunting ban is based on, makes specific reference to bambi in it's opening statement. Maybe you need to read the reports 

So you could shoot a fox then? You would walk up to a trapped fox and shoot it?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

rona said:


> The decline in the fox might possibly be because of initial explosion in population, leading to disease and death for many due to the weak and mange ridden surviving or is more possible, the farmers in the area shooting far more due to the hunting ban.
> To them, there's no reason to allow an animal that could wipe out your chickens or take your young stock or attack your pheasants or spread disease to your working dogs, there are no benefits to having them co exist now there's no revenue from the hunt


That's far too simplistic. The fox population fluctuates naturally and you'd expect to see periods of slight population increase and decline. There may be all kinds of other factors such as roads getting busier (roads kill up to 50% of foxes) or our recent bizarre weather patterns impacting breeding. I've seen no evidence at all to suggest that the ban has had a significant impact on fox numbers, where are the stats to show the fox population is declining?

Studies done by the mammals society when hunting stopped during foot and mouth showed it had no impact on the fox population.



rona said:


> Never having been hunting but have been around when foxes were shot, I'm still not sure that the fox is any better off from the threat of a gun
> 
> Though I would defend the right of any farmer to protect his/her stock, very often it is not them that does the vermin control (they haven't the time normally) it's Joe Blogs from down the road.
> Now Joe Blogs may be very proficient but there are many many Joe Blogs that aren't
> ...


No I don't beleive it does and i'm not really sure that a significant number more are being shot post-ban.

For a start, as we've already established, hunting with hounds is not an effective form of pest control. A pre-ban study done in Wiltshire estimated that hunts were only responsible for around 5% of total fox mortality. That may vary depending on area but compared to cars, mange and guns - hunts didn't kill many foxes at all. It's not a choice between the hunt and the gun - foxes will be shot, hunt or no hunt.

Suffering in a fox hunt does not just happen during the 'short time' of the kill. The fox is not in any way designed to be a prey animal but they often find themselves having to run hard during a hunt. If then a fox goes to ground it has to spend a while surrounded, in confrontation with a terrier until it is flushed or dug out. Whilst on the subject, if using dogs IS better than a gun, why not just use terriers or lurchers? they are infinitely quicker at the job than scent hounds.

You're also forgetting that the fox is a genuine pest to only a minority of farmers, those with young lambs, outdoor poultry or game birds. Most farmers don't actually have any need to control fox at all, and many don't. That's why I doubt the numbers shot will have gone up significantly.

With regards to shooting, there is a risk of wounding but with a lamp and a half decent shot the chances are not that great. I once was night lambing on a farm (that was used by the local hunt in season) that had brought in a lamper to deal with the problem foxes taking the weak, hypothermic outdoor lambs. I never saw the lamper but he'd taken to dumping the dead foxes in the lambing shed and by the 3rd night I had 5 of them for company. Each was clearly dead before it had hit the ground, shot once and on target. Maybe the answer to poor shots and over culling isn't to bring back hunting with hounds, it's to increase regulation on shooting...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

toffee44 said:


> Well then the ban is there so no worrys.
> 
> However fox hunting and shooting is a very large income for estates, one that they wont turn down so it will never go.


Fox hunting is already banned  

Hunts are not


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> But what about the poor fox?
> 
> Suffer for 12 hour and die!


To begin with, the fox may not be in the cage for 12 hours. But even if it is, that is still better than being hunted for eight hours and then being ripped to shreds whilst still alive.

When an animal - any animal - is fleeing 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.

A fox in a cage may be stressed, but his sympathetic nervous system will not be working overtime as it would if he were being chased, or fighting, and so would be subject to less stress.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Well then the ban is there so no worrys.
> 
> However fox hunting and shooting is a very large income for estates, one that they wont turn down so it will never go.


If the system of estates collapsed tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear, very few people would. The total employment on private estates if a few thousand nationally and in the grand scheme of things, those jobs are low paid and more historical than practical. This last bastion of "landed gentry" (as it's mostly chaps) does not employ many people, it does little for conservation and in many cases wastes a lot of good land that could be farmed. There are a few estates, most of them under National Trust control, that do good work and employe a few people (although more and more are sadly volunteers) but the private estates do little for the local economy and really are a throw back to a time occupied by The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Can i ask those against hunting with dogs, is it just foxs/UK you disagree with?

Having seen (online etc) hunts of wild boars etc it looks different to our kind of hunting, so just curious


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No hen, keep up, you tried to make out that I was posting a ridiculous reference to bambi, when in actual reality, one of the reports that the hunting ban is based on, makes specific reference to bambi in it's opening statement. Maybe you need to read the reports
> 
> So you could shoot a fox then? You would walk up to a trapped fox and shoot it?


If I had no choice I could. I would prefer to let it go .......... 

But I could never join a hunt.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> That's far too simplistic. The fox population fluctuates naturally and you'd expect to see periods of slight population increase and decline. There may be all kinds of other factors such as roads getting busier (roads kill up to 50% of foxes) or our recent bizarre weather patterns impacting breeding. I've seen no evidence at all to suggest that the ban has had a significant impact on fox numbers, where are the stats to show the fox population is declining?
> 
> Studies done by the mammals society when hunting stopped during foot and mouth showed it had no impact on the fox population.
> 
> ...


  

Don't know why you shifted through my posts and just chosen one that was made as a simplistic answer to a question about a humorous post I'd made, and why you don't seem to have read anything else I've written, therefore making fairly wrong assumptions about my stance on the whole issue


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> Fox hunting is already banned
> 
> Hunts are not


I think they should ban anyone who finds the term "hither and thither" an acceptable phrase.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Difference there is the lion is hungry, the fox is killed for some bastards fun day out.


There have been many opinions in this thread but no one has called each other names or aimed directly in malace.



Spellweaver said:


> You are hiding your head in the sand if you think that only city dwellers are against fox-hunting. I don't live in a city.
> 
> Tomorrow I'll take a pic out of my bedroom window and post it so that you can see the farm behind us


Well your very lucky to live where you do.

But like I have said before you have your standing I have mine and leaving it at that if a whole country cant sit and decide then you and myself will never finish the arguement .


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> There have been many opinions in this thread but no one has called each other names or aimed *directly in malace*.


I think she was referring to those who hunt foxes with dogs for pleasure as bastards


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> If the system of estates collapsed tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear, very few people would. The total employment on private estates if a few thousand nationally and in the grand scheme of things, those jobs are low paid and more historical than practical. This last bastion of "landed gentry" (as it's mostly chaps) does not employ many people, it does little for conservation and in many cases wastes a lot of good land that could be farmed. There are a few estates, most of them under National Trust control, that do good work and employe a few people (although more and more are sadly volunteers) but the private estates do little for the local economy and really are a throw back to a time occupied by The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists


The system of estates won't collapse. Most famers in the UK are tenants not owners. Who are they tenants of....estates.......therefore if they did collapse our food and country exports will go too I imagine.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> To begin with, the fox may not be in the cage for 12 hours. But even if it is, that is still better than being hunted for eight hours and then being ripped to shreds whilst still alive.
> 
> When an animal - any animal - is fleeing 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.
> 
> A fox in a cage may be stressed, but his sympathetic nervous system will not be working overtime as it would if he were being chased, or fighting, and so would be subject to less stress.


No it could be 24 hours which is the legal requirement for checking cage traps 
You don't think they get *as* stressed in a cage trap? !!!!!!!!

I think you are wrong.

I've seen animals chew their own feet off and do incredible damage to themselves (smashing their heads) to escape a trap


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think she was referring to those who hunt foxes with dogs for pleasure as bastards


Well as I openly stated I hunt ......


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

rona said:


> Fox hunting is already banned
> 
> Hunts are not


drag hunting


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> The system of estates won't collapse. Most famers in the UK are tenants not owners. Who are they tenants of....estates.......therefore if they did collapse our food and country exports will go too I imagine.


No you missed the point. The system of land "ownership" is a nonsense - the land (originally stolen remember) should go to the farmers not the gentry; the estates system has no useful purpose.

The farmers generate the produce not the estate "owner".


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Well as I openly stated I hunt ......


So you hunt foxes with dogs for pleasure?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Let's follow the example of Zimbabwe, after all, land reform worked there!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

toffee44 said:


> drag hunting


But but but you said Fox hunting..................

You gotta be careful what you say around this lot you know, their pretty sharp


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

rona said:


> Don't know why you shifted through my posts and just chosen one that was made as a simplistic answer to a question about a humorous post I'd made, and why you don't seem to have read anything else I've written, therefore making fairly wrong assumptions about my stance on the whole issue


I'll admit, i've not read the whole thread and apologies if i've got it wrong. However each post of yours i've read seems to suggest that your stance is that hunting with hounds is acceptable as it is less cruel than the alternative of shooting. I would argue that a) it isn't less cruel b) hunting isn't an alternative to shooting. Is that right?


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you hunt foxes with dogs for pleasure?


Not anymore this thing happened in 2004.

And don't try turning the pleasure thing around. I have said my piece about fox hunting and I partcipated in something I believe I understand. But if you read it got scary when anti-hunt people started appearing and not caring who they targetted. I followed on foot on the last days fox hunting, and that day the fox went free.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Not anymore this thing happened in 2004.


But you would?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> No it could be 24 hours which is the legal requirement for checking cage traps


But if you remember, I wasn't saying how things were, I was saying how things could be if the law were tightened up, if cages were checked more often and by trained marksmen.



rona said:


> You don't think they get *as* stressed in a cage trap? !!!!!!!!
> 
> I think you are wrong.
> 
> I've seen animals chew their own feet off and do incredible damage to themselves (smashing their heads) to escape a trap


I'm not saying it is not dreadful. But I think it is still less dreadful and less stressful than being chased all day and then ripped to shreds whilst still alive.

(I have seen the remains of a foot in a snare where an animal has chewed it off to get free, but never in a cage)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Starlite said:


> Can i ask those against hunting with dogs, is it just foxs/UK you disagree with?
> 
> Having seen (online etc) hunts of wild boars etc it looks different to our kind of hunting, so just curious


my personal opinion is i dont agree with any bloodsports, & i dont agree with hunting wild boar or any large game with dogs, theres far too much suffering involved.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> The system of estates won't collapse. Most famers in the UK are tenants not owners. Who are they tenants of....estates.......therefore if they did collapse our food and country exports will go too I imagine.


Great piece by George Monbiot...

George Monbiot - The Resurgent Aristocracy

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> I'll admit, i've not read the whole thread and apologies if i've got it wrong. However each post of yours i've read seems to suggest that your stance is that hunting with hounds is acceptable as it is less cruel than the alternative of shooting. I would argue that a) it isn't less cruel b) hunting isn't an alternative to shooting. Is that right?


I was actually posing a question. I don't have facts and figures on anything, just gut feelings and tonnes of experience of creatures both farmed and wild, healthy and suffering.

As far as I'm concerned, if death has to happen, the less suffering the better, no matter what the method and whether it's done by people out for "sport" or someone doing it to protect stock., makes not a jot of difference to the animal being killed and therefore not to me.

Suffering, whatever form that takes should be avoided as much as possible, death should not be a merciful release unless you happen upon an injured creature.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> (I have seen the remains of a foot in a snare where an animal has chewed it off to get free, but never in a cage)


How is that better? Is the fox getting free the be all and end all? If it dies slowly and painfully in freedom, that's better than being stressed for a lesser amount of time and being killed quickly by hounds?

ETA: I may have misread your post.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> But if you remember, I wasn't saying how things were, I was saying how things could be if the law were tightened up, if cages were checked more often and by trained marksmen.


HaHaHa you don't think the Hunting ban is being policed, how on earth are they going to manage that as well?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> How is that better? Is the fox getting free the be all and end all? If it dies slowly and painfully in freedom, that's better than being stressed for a lesser amount of time and being killed quickly by hounds?
> 
> ETA: I may have misread your post.


I think you have misread it 

The foot in the snare bit was just me saying to Rona that I've seen it happen with a snare but not with a cage. I don't for one minute advocate snaring anything - if you get time to read through some earlier posts you will see that I think setting snares is as barbaric as fox hunting and needs fighting against as much as fox-hunting does


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Not anymore this thing happened in 2004.
> 
> And don't try turning the pleasure thing around. I have said my piece about fox hunting and I partcipated in something I believe I understand. But if you read it got scary when anti-hunt people started appearing and not caring who they targetted. I followed on foot on the last days fox hunting, and that day the fox went free.


Sorry... not sure whatever it was you said there was actually something. I asked if you hunted foxes, with dogs, for pleasure. It's been established that there is no "need" to hunt foxes with dogs because a)most farmers dog consider foxes a problem, b)the fox population was never controlled by hunting with dogs (less than 5% of foxes killed when hunting was legal, were done so by hunts) and c)the fox population has not grown or caused an increased "problem" since hunting was banned.

So it can only be for pleasure.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> HaHaHa you don't think the Hunting ban is being policed, how on earth are they going to manage that as well?


It was a reply to how things *could* be if people got off their @rses and stopped saying "this is how it is and it will never change". Just because things are _not _being policed properly does not mean they _cannot_ be policed properly. It just depends who is in power and how highly they value the welfare of animals against the miniscule percentage of the population who want to chase and kill animals for pleasure.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Just seen the time - no wonder I'm peckish! Where has this evening gone?

Thanks for the good debate - I'm off for me supper and I'll catch up tomorrow!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Just seen the time - no wonder I'm peckish! Where has this evening gone?
> 
> Thanks for the good debate - I'm off for me supper and I'll catch up tomorrow!


And perhaps respond to whether the report by Prof Bateman about hunting red deer is one you think is important, despite the Disney references he included


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It was a reply to how things *could* be if people got off their @rses and stopped saying "this is how it is and it will never change". Just because things are _not _being policed properly does not mean they _cannot_ be policed properly. It just depends who is in power and how highly they value the welfare of animals against the miniscule percentage of the population who want to chase and kill animals for pleasure.


Well that's it then...... the perfect imaginary world as seen by Spellweaver


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And perhaps respond to whether the report by Prof Bateman about hunting red deer is one you think is important, despite the Disney references he included


isnt that just typical of Countryside Alliance propagandists if things dont go their way then take it out of context to undermine!

In making judgments on the welfare of deer hunted with hounds, he(Professor Bateson) was castigated for using phrases such as "great suffering". The word "suffering" appears in at least two Acts of Parliament dealing with animal welfare and in the brief that Bateson was given by the National Trust. Its dictionary definition is perfectly plain, "suffering" is to have something painful, distressing or injurious inflicted or imposed on one. Bateson concluded that stag hunting creates in the deer a state that existing legislation already prohibits people from inflicting on animals in other contexts. "Ah," said his critics, who were determined to prove that he is anthropomorphic and has a closed mind, "What about the notorious reference to Bambi in the foreword of the report to the National Trust?" Either they did not look at what he wrote or they deliberately misrepresented him. He was merely describing the mindset of some of the protagonists in the stag hunting debate. He continued immediately afterwards to describe the other side as follows: "The hunt supporters, many of whom are excellent naturalists, have believed sincerely that very little suffering is involved in hunting with hounds. They regard this method of culling red deer not only as necessary for the protection of the environment but also as an entirely natural process."

*It is clear from that quote that he was setting the scene. he was not adopting a position himself*

House of Commons Standing Committee C (pt 8)


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Please no big words this earlie in the morning... Quick cuppa coffee


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Well that's it then...... the perfect imaginary world as seen by Spellweaver


But if people had never imagined how better things could be if only we did things differently, we'd still be doing things like sending kids down the mines, enslaving other races, bear-baiting, cock-fighting etc etc.

Just imagine it: if there had been internet forums in those days, I daresay there would have been posters on there trying to defend the practice of sending kids down the mines by saying things like:

"Stop sending kinds down mines? The mine owners would never stand for that."
and
"Stop sending kids down mines? But it's tradition; it's part of our heritage!"
and
"Stop sending kids down mines? But if we stopped doing that, the mine owners would have to pay full wages to adults and it would affect the economy and people woild lose their jobs"
and
"But it's better that we send kids down the mines so that they die young in terrible accidents rather than get old and die of old age"
and
"Hahhahha, the mineworkers aren't policed now, how on earth are they going to manage tpolicing them so that no kids are sent down there as well?"
and
"Stop sending kids down mines? That's it then, the perfect imaginary world as seen by ..."

Unfortunately for the human race, whilst there have always been people who hide their heads in the sand and stick to their old barbaric practices. There have always been people who have poured doom and gloom on new ideas and better ways of doing things.

Fortunately for the human race, there have also been people who have not listened to them and have envisaged better ways of doing things. And there have been people who have acted on those visions to make the world a better place for us all, human and animals alike.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Pretty much sums it up for me

Hunting Foxes With Hounds | Libertarian View


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Blimey haven't we done well on my thread especially the topic expected to come and see it closed,good debate as well:thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And perhaps respond to whether the report by Prof Bateman about hunting red deer is one you think is important, despite the Disney references he included


The references to Bambi were taken out of all context by pro-hunt supporters. He was describing the mindset of some of the protagonists, and if you can't see that you are either not as intelligent as I have given you credit for, or you are deliberately using this in order to divert attention from the scientific truth of the report, which clearly and scientifically shows the effect of the stress on the hunted deer.

Ths paragraph from Noushka's link clearly show his intentions as understood by everyone who is not trying to take his words out of context in order to belittle his report:

_What about the notorious reference to Bambi in the foreword of the report to the National Trust?" Either they did not look at what he wrote or they deliberately misrepresented him. He was merely describing the mindset of some of the protagonists in the stag hunting debate. He continued immediately afterwards to describe the other side as follows: "The hunt supporters, many of whom are excellent naturalists, have believed sincerely that very little suffering is involved in hunting with hounds. They regard this method of culling red deer not only as necessary for the protection of the environment but also as an entirely natural process."

It is clear from that quote that he was setting the scene. he was not adopting a position himself. _

So, putting Bambi to bed forever in this debate, what do you have to say about the scientific results of his study, which clearly show a very raised level of cortisol (the stress shormone) in hunted deer?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688740/pdf/9447728.pdf


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The references to Bambi were taken out of all context by pro-hunt supporters. He was describing the mindset of some of the protagonists, and if you can't see that you are either not as intelligent as I have given you credit for, or you are deliberately using this in order to divert attention from the scientific truth of the report, which clearly and scientifically shows the effect of the stress on the hunted deer.
> 
> Ths paragraph from Noushka's link clearly show his intentions as understood by everyone who is not trying to take his words out of context in order to belittle his report:
> 
> ...


Why thank you for questioning my intelligence, but you show straight away your inability to see that people are able to view things from two completely different perspectives.

'He was describing the minds of the protagonists', are you sure? I think if you read back the quote (not that I'm questioning your reading ability) it is describing the minds of anyone who views hunting with the disney like perspective, 'if you wept as a child at the death of Bambi's mother, you know what it is like to be hunted', ie direct empathy, if you saw the disney film and the fictional animal being killed, you can understand how a real animal feels, bearing in mind how Bambi's mother died. She was shot actually, which doesn't really give much credibility to a scientific report, where the introduction not only uses a fictional cartoon character, but can't even accurately make reference to a fictional cartoon character, and the report is about hunting with dogs.

I've never argued animals have a higher cortisol level. I've never argued animals aren't frightened when chased, or that they won't suffer any pain or fear. But then all animals suffer pain, fear, stress, throughout their lives. Perhaps if you read the link I posted you will see my viewpoint, and accept that there are other valid viewpoints, other than your own


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Pretty much sums it up for me
> 
> Hunting Foxes With Hounds | Libertarian View


god lord ive never read such twaddle! who wrote it? because their opinion seems pretty bias to me lol

_In this case there are two relevant aspects of animal suffering which are not observed. The first is what happens to the fox that is not killed by the hunt. In the wild it seems unlikely that the fox will die a pain free death, warmly snuggled in its bed with its cubs around it! More likely the fox will die of some painful disease or bloody accident that would also cause significant suffering. It seems debatable that hunting would cause much of a net increase in suffering to the fox population_

yes this makes so much sense...kill them while theyre still healthy... However did foxes cope for thousands of years before mans interference

_The second aspect is the animal suffering inflicted on other animals by the living fox. According to the league against cruel sports the main diet of the wild fox is the rabbit.
The absence of the fox will certainly spare many rabbits the suffering caused by being chased and ripped to shreds_

... Wow this is almost to ridiculous to comment on!...this is clearly not the opinion of someone in touch with the natural world, they dont even understands how food chains work or predator prey relationships

_It seems to me that hunting decreases overall animal suffering, so if that is the moral criteria for opposing hunts, it is simply misguided.

If the criteria is that it diminishes humanity to cause animal suffering solely for the pleasure of the suffering produced, I would agree, but would argue that hunting foxes with hounds does not meet those criteria.

If the criteria is that it diminishes humanity to cause animal suffering, even as a by product of pleasure, then I would respect that view coming from vegans.

I would also expect the majority of anger to be directed against factory farming that causes suffering to hundreds of millions of animals every day, rather than fox hunting which causes suffering to a few hundred foxes a year.
_

Now this has a Very familiar ring to it..did you write it SL?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why thank you for questioning my intelligence, but you show straight away your inability to see that people are able to view things from two completely different perspectives.


Oh, I can see that alright  The difference between my persepective and and your perspective is that I am reading the bit about Bambi in context. You are reading it it and taking it out of context so that you can discredit the report; for if you can discredit the report you won't have to deal with the fact that it proves scientifically just how much more stressful being hunted is for an animall than the normal life stress of an animal.

And have you realised yet that the Bambi bit was not in the actual report, but was merely in a foreword to the National Trust about the report?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> He was describing the minds of the protagonists', are you sure?


Yes.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think if you read back the quote (not that I'm questioning your reading ability) it is describing the minds of anyone who views hunting with the disney like perspective,


Yes - in other words, he is describing the mindset of some of the protagonists.  Glad you agree.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've never argued animals have a higher cortisol level. I've never argued animals aren't frightened when chased, or that they won't suffer any pain or fear. But then all animals suffer pain, fear, stress, throughout their lives. Perhaps if you read the link I posted you will see my viewpoint, and accept that there are other valid viewpoints, other than your own


And perhaps if you get past the Bambi foreword to the National Trust and read the actual report, you will see that it proves scientifically that the stress caused by hunting is significantly greater than the stress of normal animal life.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, I can see that alright  The difference between my persepective and and your perspective is that I am reading the bit about Bambi in context. You are reading it it and taking it out of context so that you can discredit the report; for if you can discredit the report you won't have to deal with the fact that it proves scientifically just how much more stressful being hunted is for an animall than the normal life stress of an animal.
> 
> And have you realised yet that the Bambi bit was not in the actual report, but was merely in a foreword to the National Trust about the report?
> 
> ...


My word, I'm obviously hitting a nerve since you feel the need to split me up into paragraphs.

Let's make this easy for you to understand, you're obviously struggling 

'If you wept as a child at the death of Bambi's mother, you know what it is like to be hunted'

If you wept as a child, so if you were affected emotionally by the death of the fictional cartoon character, you understand what it is to be hunted, you can empathise with the animal that died. Not one bit of that is from the protagonists point of view, unless you are classing the anti hunt people as protagonists? Sorry but you are obviously failing to understand the sentence at all.

I think I mentioned a couple of times it's in the introduction, I think it's the third sentence, so no need to point that out to me


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> god lord ive never read such twaddle! who wrote it? because their opinion seems pretty bias to me lol


Please don't start taking "Libertarians" seriously... no one ever has done before and that's why they stay where they are... on planet Zob


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> god lord ive never read such twaddle! who wrote it? because their opinion seems pretty bias to me lol
> 
> _In this case there are two relevant aspects of animal suffering which are not observed. The first is what happens to the fox that is not killed by the hunt. In the wild it seems unlikely that the fox will die a pain free death, warmly snuggled in its bed with its cubs around it! More likely the fox will die of some painful disease or bloody accident that would also cause significant suffering. It seems debatable that hunting would cause much of a net increase in suffering to the fox population_
> 
> ...


Not a surprise from someone who would like to see all animals live out a full healthy and natural life. Except that's not the truth is it. Animals die, get injured, sick, starve, preyed on all of the time. Life isn't simply live and let live, sometimes it requires managing to help maintain a healthy and viable population of a species. But if we stick our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that all the fluffy animals lived happily ever after then that will make it all ok, as long as we don't have to see them die slowly and painfully. :thumbup:

PS thanks for the back handed compliment, I've got nothing to do with the blog, I don't agree with it 100% but as I said when I quoted it, it's a good summary of the sort of viewpoint I have.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Please don't start taking "Libertarians" seriously... no one ever has done before and that's why they stay where they are... on planet Zob


Dont worry Elmo i wont!:lol: i find it hard to believe Anyone would tbh lol


----------



## itsonlyme (Dec 22, 2012)

All But One Of My Chickens Killed By A Fox This Morning - Hot UK Deals



> my brother and i kept hens when we were children, we had 30 when i was about 9 or 10, we did work around the farm in return for the hut, space and feed. Imagine my horror at finding 15 hens slaughtered after the fox dug under the hut and through a broken floor board.
> despite the fox being on of the most butiful animals around that i would sit and watch if i was working and saw one, i would also shoot on sight if i have access to a gun.


http://poultrykeeperforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2286&start=10


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not a surprise from someone who would like to see all animals live out a full healthy and natural life. Except that's not the truth is it. Animals die, get injured, sick, starve, preyed on all of the time. Life isn't simply live and let live, sometimes it requires managing to help maintain a healthy and viable population of a species. But if we stick our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that all the fluffy animals lived happily ever after then that will make it all ok, as long as we don't have to see them die slowly and painfully. :thumbup:
> 
> PS thanks for the back handed compliment, I've got nothing to do with the blog, I don't agree with it 100% but as I said when I quoted it, it's a good summary of the sort of viewpoint I have.


SL survival of the fittest is what nature is all about, please dont expect me to believe that killing animals for fun, or in the name of some bloodsport, is somehow doing our wildlife a favour

ETA it All sounds Very much like your viewpoint to me haha...im still not convinced you didnt have a hand in it lol
.

.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

itsonlyme said:


> All But One Of My Chickens Killed By A Fox This Morning - Hot UK Deals
> 
> The Poultry Forum • View topic - don't kill the fox because it wants to eat your chickens


Chrysippus, a Greek stoic philosopher, is believed to have died of laughter after giving his donkey wine then seeing it attempt to eat figs.

On this basis I call for an immediate ban on laughing, donkeys and figs. (and wine)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

itsonlyme said:


> All But One Of My Chickens Killed By A Fox This Morning - Hot UK Deals
> 
> The Poultry Forum • View topic - don't kill the fox because it wants to eat your chickens


 i think we're all aware foxes will kill poulty given the chance....so would my dogs lol


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

toffee44 said:


> Well as I openly stated I hunt ......


I didnt call you a bastard, I was talking about those that hunt for a fun day out.. if thats you...... boot fits.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

itsonlyme said:


> All But One Of My Chickens Killed By A Fox This Morning - Hot UK Deals
> 
> The Poultry Forum • View topic - don't kill the fox because it wants to eat your chickens


*Perhaps more thought into the housing would have helped.*


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I have chickens they are at the bottom of my garden in a fox proof coupe and the other side of the fence in the field guess who lives there Mr and Mrs Fox last year if I sat quietly 6 cubs came out and they were just like a litter of puppies playing:thumbup:I am sure in many years to come kids will ask there parents if they ever saw foxes and badgers when they were young,the way we are going wildlife will be gone:frown:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My word, I'm obviously hitting a nerve since you feel the need to split me up into paragraphs.


No - just giving you less opportunity to take things out of context 



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry but you are obviously failing to understand the sentence at all.


Sorry, but you are obviously failing to understand the sentence in context at all.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think I mentioned a couple of times it's in the introduction, I think it's the third sentence, so no need to point that out to me


Yes, I know you have said it was in the introduction, but I was pointing out that it is_ not _in the *introduction* to the report, but in a *foreword* to the National Trust about the report.

Check out the introduction to the report here - well, well, well, no mention of Bambi!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688740/pdf/9447728.pdf

Perhaps it might be better if you read the actual report rather than relying on the interpretation of the report by pro-hunting websites 

(btw, do you realise what you're doing to me when you quote from websites like libertaians? If you continue to do that I'm going to have to start agreeing with Elmo - now just think how *that* is making my cortisol levels rise! :scared: )


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

suewhite said:


> I have chickens they are at the bottom of my garden in a fox proof coupe and the other side of the fence in the field guess who lives there Mr and Mrs Fox last year if I sat quietly 6 cubs came out and they were just like a litter of puppies playing:thumbup:I am sure in many years to come kids will ask there parents if they ever saw foxes and badgers when they were young,the way we are going wildlife will be gone:frown:


I very much doubt foxes will disappear, they are too adaptable.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

toffee44 said:


> But the prey is put there by us so therefore fox's increase.
> 
> Lambs, chickens, turkey. So basically your saying is lets stop the farmers farming????


|Well no, the prey isnt put there by us, but without doubt an opportunist tlike a fox will take its chances where it can. It may be starving or it may have a family to feed. Foxes will of course scavenge if allowed and don`t necessarily do the killing. If the farmer sees a fox dragging a dead lamb across a frozen field, it doesnt mean the fox killed it!

What did foxes eat before we started farming? Same as they do now! Rats, voles, earthworms, rabbits and carrion.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

This old chestnut again.

I voted "Yes" because it brings in money to rural areas and the general economy as a whole. Even the sabs spend money on fuel, food and drink for the day out not to mention the electricity to charge their phones so they film the results of their intrusion, vandalism and goading to get a reaction, they never seem to film to destruction and laws they break but hey ho, bygones be bygones and all that.

It only really brings in the hunts people associate with foxes anyway and then lets off anyone with more than two dogs out for a walk when they pick up the scent of a fox and tear off after it. To think fox hunting doesn't go on with this piece of ridiciluous legislation is in force is a tad naive as dogs are used for bushing foxes to guns a few days a week around the countryside - ever hear a few shotgun shells being fired off and thought it was a slow day for the pheasant shoot? It wasn't pheasants, could be corvids but most likely it was Mr Charlie.

I'd like to see it squashed with the provisor that if the fox goes to ground then it is illegal to dig it out or use dogs underground as the fox has simply outrun/whitted the dogs and deserves to be left as it is a strong and healthy fox. It should also still be illegal to caryout cubbing.

I was up in the lakes for Christmas and talking to one of my mates who lost all his poultry to a fox not long before so we got talking about them and he was speakign to another farmer who was returning home down one of the lanes when he saw some bloke getting a box out the back of van. He stopped and watched for a bit before getting out of his vehicle and having a chat with the guy to see what he was doing. Turns out the guy was releasing urban caught foxes into the woodland around this guy's farm and this farmer then realised why he was shooting so many foxes that were around his farm, livestock, feed stores and bins. He didn't tell the guy who he was or what he was doing to them as he said that the guy would just release them on someone elses land. He now gives a few guys permission to shoot on his land to save him the task of waiting up and these guys are out lamping two or three nights a week.
These things could be any age and they are taken completely out of the environment they know and placed in the opposite with the only thing familiar to them - a house and a house equals food - is a farmhouse but this time the residents have shotguns and rifles. 
Apparantly they were being relocated from all over the country so there was a constant supply of them being shipped in. Ridiculous.

ETA: Hunting foxes with dogs on horse back (which is the method a lot of folk think of when fox hunting is mentioned) is THE most ineffective way of controlling their population from the face of keeping the numbers down but think about it, if these hunts paid farmers properly for exclusive rights to use the land and not have anyone shoot on it you WOULD see more foxes and badgers etc because the fox stands a heck of a larger chance out runing and out whitting dogs than it does a bullet. Using a lamp and a rifle is 100% effective is controlling the population. Dogs and horses is about 25%.
A skewed shot can injure the fox meaning it runs off to die a painful and lingering death but anyone with a clean record and permission can pick up a rifle and licence to go plastign away with no real accuracy, but once the dogs get hold of it it takes seconds and it's over as they have been bred for it over centuries. Sure there is a full fox left when you shoot them but if you were ripped apart you would be dead almost instantly. I know which way I would rather go given the choice.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

hutch6 said:


> I'd like to see it squashed with the provisor that if the fox goes to ground then it is illegal to dig it out or use dogs underground as the fox has simply outrun/whitted the dogs and deserves to be left as it is a strong and healthy fox. It should also still be illegal to caryout cubbing.
> 
> I was up in the lakes for Christmas and talking to one of my mates who lost all his poultry to a fox not long before so we got talking about them and he was speakign to another farmer who was returning home down one of the lanes when he saw some bloke getting a box out the back of van. He stopped and watched for a bit before getting out of his vehicle and having a chat with the guy to see what he was doing. Turns out the guy was releasing urban caught foxes into the woodland around this guy's farm and this farmer then realised why he was shooting so many foxes that were around his farm, livestock, feed stores and bins. He didn't tell the guy who he was or what he was doing to them as he said that the guy would just release them on someone elses land. He now gives a few guys permission to shoot on his land to save him the task of waiting up and these guys are out lamping two or three nights a week.
> These things could be any age and they are taken completely out of the environment they know and placed in the opposite with the only thing familiar to them - a house and a house equals food - is a farmhouse but this time the residents have shotguns and rifles.
> Apparantly they were being relocated from all over the country so there was a constant supply of them being shipped in. Ridiculous.


I'd agree with the first paragraph. And where on earth is the sense in the second?! Is it an organisation or charity or something doing it?


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Megan345 said:


> I'd agree with the first paragraph. And where on earth is the sense in the second?! Is it an organisation or charity or something doing it?


It's wildlife rescues, companies that do vermin controll and local councils.

People don't want firearms knocking about in urban areas, snares and poisons that are indiscriminate to pets and other wildlife; and yet they don't want them causing a nuisance so they are live trapped and taken away to the countryside to be released thinking they will survive ok in an environment they are just equipped to deal with so they revert back to how they survived in the towns etc by scavanging from people. It's ridiculous. It is just not the idealistic solution they think it is.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Perhaps more thought into the housing would have helped.*


what came first, the chicken, the egg, the house or the fox?

out here it was the fox, back when rabbits, rats, mice, etc were the only thing on the menu

then came farms - with chickens...yummy

our local fox isnt a cuddly podgy cute red little feller, hes a grey mean lean killing machine, he lives (and dies) by his own guile


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

hutch6 said:


> It's wildlife rescues, companies that do vermin controll and local councils.
> 
> People don't want firearms knocking about in urban areas, snares and poisons that are indiscriminate to pets and other wildlife; and yet they don't want them causing a nuisance so they are live trapped and taken away to the countryside to be released thinking they will survive ok in an environment they are just equipped to deal with so they revert back to how they survived in the towns etc by scavanging from people. It's ridiculous. It is just not the idealistic solution they think it is.


I'd like to say I'm surprised that they haven't figured out what the end result of this would be. Sadly, I'm not.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Megan345 said:


> I'd like to say I'm surprised that they haven't figured out what the end result of this would be. Sadly, I'm not.


It's out of sight out of mind. Especially to the folk that want the foxes removed I am assuming who when ask what will happen to the fox in their garden that is causing their hottub deck to collapse or shed to lean a bit or cause them to have to put everything back intheir bins every morning are told "Oh we take them to a centralised unit who then take them into the countryside and release them". 
"Awww, that must be lovely for them to have all of that open space and be out in the landscape that foxes should be". Yeah right. We'll take your pet dog out and see how it gets on then shall we? Dumb butts


----------



## itsonlyme (Dec 22, 2012)

what wpuld you think?



> If the farmer sees a fox dragging a dead lamb across a frozen field, it doesnt mean the fox killed it!


of course it killed it, unless Tescos deliver to a Fox earth?

"Morning Mrs Fox, we have two substitutions today, the lamb chops instead of Lamb joint and a whole lamb instead of the chicken"


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

itsonlyme said:


> what wpuld you think?
> 
> of course it killed it, unless Tescos deliver to a Fox earth?
> 
> "Morning Mrs Fox, we have two substitutions today, the lamb chops instead of Lamb joint and a whole lamb instead of the chicken"


Im not a sheep farmer but I believe that some lambs are stillborn esp in multiple births and also a healthy sheep and lamb should be able to hold off a hungry fox.


----------



## itsonlyme (Dec 22, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im not a sheep farmer but I believe that some lambs are stillborn esp in multiple births and also a healthy sheep and lamb should be able to hold off a hungry fox.


Most lambing now goes on under shelter, dont you watch Countryfile?......lol

Foxes kill for fun, much more than they can eat, a chicken run with 100 chucks can be devastated in minutes but only 1 may be actually taken


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

itsonlyme said:


> Most lambing now goes on under shelter, dont you watch Countryfile?......lol
> 
> Foxes kill for fun, much more than they can eat, a chicken run with 100 chucks can be devastated in minutes but only 1 may be actually taken


*Foxes do not kill for fun.That would imply they have a sense of humour.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

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.
The fox website | Attitudes to foxes | Common myths

Do foxes kill for pleasure?
Reports of foxes breaking into chicken coops and slaughtering fowl, has helped propagate the idea that foxes kill for fun. But, this is actually false. Foxes kill for survival.

Food is not always consistently available to a fox, so when it does find more food than it actually needs it will continue to hunt and store the excess. This is called caching. The fox buries his food to be consumed at a later date. Although this is an excellent survival strategy, it can sometimes go wrong.

For example, when a fox uncovers a nest of birds or a hen house, it will immediately kick into survival mode and use the opportunity to kill and cache food. In the commotion of the moment the fox may panic and bite whatevers in sight, without actually retrieving many of the dead hens.

The result? Wasteful overkill. Although it may look like the fox has killed for pleasure, it is actually down to their innate survival strategies.

Do Foxes Kill for Pleasure? | Foxes Live


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

Whats wrong with football or tennis? They are real sports! Not scaring the crap out of a poor animal and watching it die for fun... that's just evil! :incazzato:

Turn the tables I say! Put the pompous tweed wearing toffs in a field with a few aggressive dogs chasing them, then see how much they enjoy the "sport"


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Foxes do not kill for fun.That would imply they have a sense of humour.*


ok, for pleasure, or to hone their killing skills

but they rarely kill just one out of 100 in a chicken run

do you have chucks janice?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

if only some kind of fox proof chicken housing was invented...

Chicken Coop/ Fox Anti Dig Skirt - framebow.co.uk

Or even better, imagine if there was a web page where you could research many many many ways to protect your chickens without murdering wildlife....

Let me google that for you

oh well, i suppose we can only live in hope that one day technology like this is available.

:thumbdown:


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

Fox hunting is a disgusting barbaric " passtime", anyone who finds it fun to watch a pack of hounds tear an animal apart after chasing it to exhaustion needs mental help.

As for "over population", bullish!t. Only one thing on this earth there is too much of and needs a serious cull - humans.

Anyone who likes and thinks hunting is "fun" should be dropped in a lion enclosure with nothing but a slightly sharpened stick. Then it can be seen just how big and tough these people really are. Because really their cowards like bullies in a playground, only picking on things that can't fight back, to make themselves look good.

Even better, instead of killing harmless animals, for those that really want to hunt, why not let out some of the murders and rapists from the prisons, and let the hounds chase and kill them. Everyone wins, the hunters get to hunt, the dogs get their fun, it frees up some space and rids the world of a _real_ pest and danger to people. Win win.


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> Fox hunting is a disgusting barbaric " passtime", anyone who finds it fun to watch a pack of hounds tear an animal apart after chasing it to exhaustion needs mental help.
> 
> As for "over population", bullish!t. Only one thing on this earth there is too much of and needs a serious cull - humans.
> 
> ...


here here :thumbup1:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> ok, for pleasure, or to hone their killing skills
> 
> but they rarely kill just one out of 100 in a chicken run
> 
> do you have chucks janice?


*No i don't have chucks, but my friend who had foxes in here garden, has a neighbour who does have "chucks", and no problems.
As i've said on here many a time, don't blame the fox, blame the owners of the " chucks" for not using fox proof housing.*


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

itsonlyme said:


> Most lambing now goes on under shelter, dont you watch Countryfile?......lol
> 
> Foxes kill for fun, much more than they can eat, a chicken run with 100 chucks can be devastated in minutes but only 1 may be actually taken


Foxes do not kill for fun.

They may indeed create carnage in the hen run but I`m guessing a lot of hens die of shock/heart attacks, stress. Mr Fox will then make off with his prize and depending on his situation, he may eat it straight away or he may stash it (as many animals do). Given the chance, Mr Fox will come back and make repeated visits to retrieve the dead hens. He doesn`t have the option of using a supermarket.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

itsonlyme said:


> Most lambing now goes on under shelter, dont you watch Countryfile?......lol
> 
> Foxes kill for fun, much more than they can eat, a chicken run with 100 chucks can be devastated in minutes but only 1 may be actually taken


Yes Ive seen the lambs in barns fenced in my straw bales. Its a delightful picture. But this isnt always the case. Sometimes lambs do succumb, not all lambs are born indoors and sometimes they do get separated from their mums, grow weak and are quite possibly then picked off.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

Had a drag hunt going on just down from where i work yesterday...had to drive past it a couple of times. Horseboxes, 4x4's and their trailers abandoned everywhere for about a mile and a half and various 'sport loving' folk prancing about on horsies in the middle of the road for a chat...great...
:thumbdown:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

itsonlyme said:


> Most lambing now goes on under shelter, dont you watch Countryfile?......lol
> 
> Foxes kill for fun, much more than they can eat, a chicken run with 100 chucks can be devastated in minutes but only 1 may be actually taken


Countryfile :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Are you serious?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

itsonlyme said:


> what wpuld you think?
> 
> of course it killed it, unless Tescos deliver to a Fox earth?
> 
> "Morning Mrs Fox, we have two substitutions today, the lamb chops instead of Lamb joint and a whole lamb instead of the chicken"


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.

The fox website | Foxes & agriculture | Foxes & sheep



porps said:


> if only some kind of fox proof chicken housing was invented...
> 
> Chicken Coop/ Fox Anti Dig Skirt - framebow.co.uk
> 
> ...


hillarious


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SammyJo said:


> Whats wrong with football or tennis? They are real sports!


As a lifelong Portsmouth supporter I'm not convinced what I witness on Saturdays is a real sport


----------

