|
|
|
|||||
|
Countryside Jobs Service |
||||||
|
CJS discussion Board - Fox Hunting |
||||||
|
You are here> Info > Main Board> Fox Hunting |
||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A reader in Scotland says: The only fox I ever shot with a rifle ran off with a bullet in is ribs. I have shot many with a shotgun and have never failed to make a clean kill. Hounds never fail to make a clean kill, foxes that are seized by a pack are dead in seconds. The prospective new law enquiry requires that hunting has to be proved to be LESS CRUEL than other methods of killing. No hunted fox ever ran away with a bullet in its ribs! The law is an ass, or rather, some politicians are asses! (Ref: FH)
Replies: Multiple threads, click on ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN EIGHT, NINE , TEN or ELEVEN (new thread 14/2/05) and after the implementation of the Hunting Ban more threads, TWELVE, THIRTEEN, FOURTEEN, FIFTEEN, SIXTEEN, SEVENTEEN, EIGHTEEN , NINETEEN and TWENTY to see the start of each. Or to see the Latest addition.
►1. 2/5/03: I read with some interest the gentleman’s comments on foxes in Scotland and having neither shot or hunted foxes cannot argue the validity of his argument regarding shot v hunt, in terms of which is more likely to result in a clean kill. However, let us be brutally honest here, people that hunt do not do it for reasons of conservation, control or any other motive that one may choose to dress it up in. The fact of the matter is that they enjoy the chase, man's basic primeval instincts and his need to satisfy blood lust are at the fore; they probably also enjoy the pomp, dress and circumstance of the occasion to. To many, the fact that anyone can derive satisfaction out of hounding an animal to it's death and get some morbid thrill out of seeing it ripped apart by a pack of other animals is deeply abhorrent. I count myself as one of those persons and I think what really riles me up most is the way few fox hunters ever really admit to the simple truths of why they do it, instead they try to dress it up with all manner of reasons which all in all, amount to sorry excuses for what is a basic barbaric practice; I say, BAN IT As to politicians, yes in general they do seem to have some strange ideas but I count trying to bring the country forward in terms of removing barbaric practices practised by the so called gentry as one of their more enlightened moves. S.P. East Sussex (Ref: FH-R1) ►Our original contributor replies: Er! My discussion piece was about the new bill that is being considered by the UK parliament regarding the law and hunting with dogs. The fact that the person replying (so far) states that he/she has not shot or hunted foxes is fairly obvious to someone who has done both (though not on horseback). To say that hunting (or any other field sport) has nothing to do with conservation or control is a revelation! I suggest that that person ought to get out with the local hunt and talk to a lot of hunting people. Some of them might just invite him/her along to help with some of the countryside conservation projects that they carry out to keep the countryside beautiful! You never know, you might even see a fox! If the hounds should happen to catch it, it will more than likely be Old/Ill/Injured/Wounded or (less likely) a healthy animal that made a mistake. Believe me, in over forty years of following hounds I have yet to actually see hounds catch a fox! Drat it! I may never get my morbid thrill! Mind you I've had my share of enjoyment, seeing a master of hounds come over a field gate without his horse! I don't know which of us got the biggest morbid thrill out of that event! I have also seen some Sabs (Sads?) not get their morbid thrill when they failed in their attempt to call a pack of hounds into the path of a speeding car by blowing on a hunting horn at their chosen moment. I wasn't out with the hunt, I was returning from a shopping trip. A few years ago our transport ministers were driving new roads through nature reserves. Why? because such land was of little monetary value. If hunting and shooting is banned it will happen again. Why? because fox covers and game coverts will have lost their monetary value. If anyone is seriously looking into why country sports are important to the countryside they could do worse than getting in touch with the Countryside Alliance and getting some real 'Brutal Honesty' about such matters. Remember, a little knowledge can be dangerous, it could harm the countryside's health! In the meantime, lets keep to the subject of the sense of the new bill. It has been proved in Scotland that more foxes are now being killed than ever before, and most of them are healthy ones! I heard last week that Scottish Natural Heritage are breaking the law by using pointers to find Hedgehogs and the new law states that they should be shot as soon as they are found, not 'put to sleep' (lovely phrase!) by lethal injection! (Refs: If you’re replying to the Fox Hunting bit the ref is: FH-R1A. If its about the Hedgehogs then the ref is: FH-H) ► JB of County Durham says: The initial correspondent here stated that hounds always make a clean kill - and that no hunted fox ever escaped with a bullet in its ribs. He/she also admitted that in 40 years of following hounds he/she had never seen a fox caught. Well I have - and on at least one occasion it went to ground with serious looking injuries. No bullet in its ribs, but a previously healthy looking dog fox with a large chunk of its rear leg hanging off. I never used to hold particularly strong views about hunting, but I am increasingly frustrated by the contradictory (and sometimes simply false) arguments put forward by many in the hunting lobby - if hunting with dogs is the most effective method of population control, why claim that only sick or elderly foxes are caught (and then only rarely)? If foxes are damaging enough to agriculture to really need controlling, why do hunts claim to spend so much time and effort providing cover and habitat for them? Lets be honest about this, it IS an animal rights issue - either you think it is acceptable to cause a wild animal to suffer for the sake of a bit of tradition and a good day out, or you don't - all this stuff (from both sides) about conservation, pest control, social class, and "Liberty and Livelihood" is just a distraction. (ref: FH-R1AA) ►Original Contributor replies: Sorry about my grammatical error in my reply! What I should have said is "I have never actually seen a fox SEIZED by hounds" I have seen many just after they were killed. My original question is about the Hunting With Dogs Bill - "how can anyone PROVE that killing with dogs is LESS CRUEL than other methods of killing"? I'm sure far fewer foxes go to ground injured by hounds as against those wounded/poisoned/broken free from snares/injured by cars etc. Also, there is little chance that the latter three categories will be located. Is 'out of sight, out of mind' OK? Or is this just a 'people out for a gallop' thing? (ref: FH-R1AB) ►S.P. of East Sussex says: I reply to the gentleman for a second time and have to say that his attitude is typical of many who support hunting, i. e. those that have not indulged are neither qualified or knowledgeable to have an opinion; what arrogance. I have worked as a ranger in countryside management for some years now and hold an upper second class honours degree in natural sciences so, though I do not claim to be an expert in everything, I feel I can claim at least a little more than just a little knowledge, also us people who are opposed to hunting do do such things as read newspapers etc, so may actually have some idea of what is going in the world around them! It does not follow that just because someone disagrees with your view that they are ignorant, as your tone seems to suggest. As to conservation, I am sure there is some accidental benefit and as far as shooting is concerned, though it pains me to admit it, much of the management practices do have very positive benefits for conservation. But on my original point, I hold my ground, fox hunting is a cruel, sadistic and primeval sport, best placed on a par with badger baiting and cock fighting and the actual fact of hunting has far more to do with satisfying blood lust than conservation, any benefits are a spin off. Lastly if you are implying that good habitat management (that effectively means good conservation), is dependant on maintaining the continuation of fox hunting, amongst other sports, you are talking utter twaddle; there are many areas of our countryside that never see a hound that have been given over to good management based on sound ecological principles which support nationally important flora and fauna; as well as being enjoyed by many people who are interested in watching, wildlife including the occasional sighting of animals not being chased by hounds. (ref: FH-R1AC) ►Dear fellow Conservationist, fellow Countryside Manager, fellow Qualified Person, and, above all, fellow passionate defender of the right to be heard. My question is about the Alun Michael fiasco currently waiting to be processed by our National Parliament. I wanted some comments about the degree of cruelty involved in killing a Fox, or any other Mammal roaming free in our countryside. You have stated that you are not qualified to comment, as you have never hunted or shot a fox. I have suggested how you might get some first hand experience in my chosen subject, some scientific information, some statistical information, some evidence of political expediency techniques, and possibly, some new friendships in our common human bond. If you don't want to get some further education in such matters, that is up to you. But please spare me the showers of blood and guts and the dismal views you hold of decent people from All Walks Of Life who happen to enjoy something that you do not. We ALL have an opinion on such matters. We All have a right to be heard. But when the highest judges on this matter (The Government) set a demand for proof that is impossible to quantify or to be produced and use that failure as an excuse for attempting to ban a legal act, then I, and many thousands of others, see ourselves as being treated as political chattels and our human rights discarded. As such, another nail in the coffin of democracy in our countryside. I do respect your right to hold an opinion, I only wish that you respected mine. Says our original contributor on 10/5 (ref: FH-R1AD) JB of County Durham returns and adds: OK - to try to address the initial discussion topic - I concede I do agree to some extent that "proving" that hunting with dogs is "more cruel" than other methods of killing them is a difficult task. Scientific studies can provide evidence on physiological signs of stress (e.g. the recent studies on fish feeling pain) which might inform debate, but science really can't prove that anything is cruel - that takes a degree of moral judgement. The legal definition of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", however, might be more useful - Britain led the world in introducing animal welfare legislation on the "common sense" grounds that if an animal looks like it is severely stressed/in pain, it probably is suffering, and that should be avoided if reasonably possible. I don't know how anyone who has lived or worked with animals and with any compassion can honestly suggest that an animal like a fox that is not adapted for running long distances or being hunted, can be pursued over long distances by a pack of dogs (and then quite possibly bitten to death) without suffering intensely, both psychologically and physically. Surely you can agree with this? I do also agree that many other ways of legally or illegally killing wild mammals can cause comparable suffering - snaring, gassing, shooting (if not done effectively), not to mention the many animals killed or maimed on the roads, as has been pointed out. (If I was a fox, a clean shot from the original contributors shotgun might well be my preferred way to go!) But my original point is that this is not an "either/or" issue -"traditional" hunting with dogs has nothing whatsoever to do with effective population control - there is no reason why stopping hunting should result in "all out war" against foxes at all. I am not against killing animals, but surely our attitude towards anything that causes animals suffering should be (a) is it necessary? and (b) are there less cruel alternatives? As far as hunting goes, (b) might be debatable, but I have heard nothing that convinces me that hunting with dogs is necessary. (ref: FH-R1AD1) ►EG of Northumberland says: To SP. Its attitudes such as yours that are killing our countryside. All animals are cute and cuddly and the countryside should be placed in formaldehyde and pickled so it can be a theme park for city dwellers. As the daughter of a hard working hill sheep farmer let me tell you that the countryside is not a pretend theme park its a living factory and those of us who live in it and work very hard to keep it not just "looking nice" for the visitors (like rangers of country parks) but as a viable living understand that one fox can wreck havoc in a hen house. You've obviously not seen the damage caused night after night and its nothing to do with poor husbandry - once a fox gets a taste for the easy life the only solution is to kill it. Shooting won’t and doesn’t work because you can wait for nights and it won’t return or you can kill every fox you see and still loose your poultry. But call in the hounds and they’ll follow the scent and kill the rogue. I’ve followed and ridden to hounds for as long as I can remember and its nothing to do your phoney classes – I’m not a toff I’m from a farming family and often ride out in borrowed jackets, 2nd hand boots and patched jodhpurs. But hunting is part of our tradition and to ban a legal activity is the first step on a slippery slope to curtailing lots of other things. AND SP before you go querying MY qualifications I’ve just got my BSc in Ecology, have working (in the holidays) as a volunteer for BTCV and the National Park. So I know my science too. A fox population can take up to a 70% loss in any year and recover and still be viable. There is no way a hunt can reduce fox numbers that far - BUT all out warfare on foxes (which is what you get when a hunt is banned, just look north of the border) will do. So your best bet to protect your cute cuddly bright eyed killer is to back your local hunt and lobby against the ban. (ref: FH-R1AE) ► On 13/5/03: Well, again I come back to the discussion board. To EG of Northumberland, it may surprise you to know that I have always felt some empathy for farmers/ land owners who often work gut wrenching hours for financial reward that is rarely commensurate with hours put in; I have often liased with those persons when conducting biological survey work on their land and have usually found a level of mutual respect. It is thus a shame that you seem to have no understanding of my profession; we do not view animals as cuddly and cute, nor expect the countryside to be preserved in some preconceived image that we see through rosy tinted spectacles. Just because myself and many like me abhor fox hunting does not remove us from reality, we have a much better sense of reality than your almost vitreous [vitriolic?] comments give credit for. I fully accept for example that much that is living in the countryside is harvested as a resource and though a vegetarian myself, think no less of those who eat meat; I also appreciate that sometimes controls over animals have to be exercised and that often can be tied up with using the beast in question as a resource, that is not what I am arguing against and you know it. Our work is varied including such things as ecological survey work, educational work, liasing with land owners, estate/ habitat management work amongst many other duties so please do not belittle those professions that are environmentally related just because they may not support the hunt. You also mention our bright eyed killer, predators have to kill, their survival depends on it, they have no choice. Humans do, they do not have to use animals to tear other animals apart and call the jolly jaunt sport. As to straying from the original discussion point is that not the whole point of a discussion board that the opening gambit may lead to the raising of other issues, or is that only ok if those other sentiments raised agree with your own? I suspect that this difference of opinion is so wide that it will always evoke very strong feeling on both side, particularly while some individuals claim their is something decent about dismembering another living creature in the name of a good day out. Finally to say it is people like me that are killing the countryside is utter tosh; I have never yet met a qualified ecologist/ biologist or any person of the natural sciences who has claimed fox hunting to be essential for the maintenance of biodiversity and rural economies. SP, East Sussex (ref: FH-R1AF) ► WH of Southsea says: In reply to EG of Northumberland's insistence that foxes in hen houses are not a result of bad husbandry, she might want to consider what she would do were she living in Slovakia where wolves and bears are a problem. There, the old tradition of protecting livestock with dogs is being reintroduced to stop farmers shooting wolves and bears that visit sheep farms. There has been a dramatic decrease in livestock depredation in these areas, and the farmers are beginning to appreciate the role these predators play in the big scheme of things now they are no longer a direct threat. Instead of wishing to wipe out native species because they dare to do what comes naturally to any predator, i.e. seek out an easy meal, farmers, huntsmen and the like should appreciate where the fox fits in with nature and stop demonising it with human emotions. When wolves get amongst a flock, they also run amok and kill more than they eat. This is not because they are cruel and vindictive, but because that is what they do when faced with so much easy prey. Foxes, unfortunately do the same, but that doesn't mean they have to be wiped from the face of the planet. I really take exception to people who think that non-countryside folk see wildlife in terms of cuddly, furry, cute animals. It is just SO insulting. I have seen what a wolf is capable of, and it's not a pretty sight, but effective husbandry can put an end to such attacks. Believe me, if a wolf is faced with a big scary dog, it will go off and find a meal elsewhere. If a fox is faced with a greater challenge when trying to raid a chicken house, it will do the same. Okay, so I don't keep chickens personally, but I know what foxes are and I know what chickens are, and I also know which is the native species... (ref: FH-R1AG) ►Original contributor enquires: Can you let me know where I can get some of the dogs that I can leave out on the hill to keep the foxes from stealing the young lambs up here, in all weathers, day and night? I'll give you a cut of the profits! There should be a good demand from free range pig farmers with farrowing sows in the field as well! I don't keep pigs, but I do know they are an indigenous species. I've been watching those lovely foxes on TV this week. I do hope we see the Dog Fox bring back a LIVE pet rabbit so that we can see the cubs get some practice killing it. It takes them ages to kill their first one! When I was a child a fox ripped open my Grand Father's rabbit hutches and killed all eight of the prize rabbits that I used to help feed and groom. I found seven dead inside the shed that morning when I went to feed them. He had a collie bitch, she slept right through it! Those foreign dogs are just what we need! By the way, Isn't Slovakia one of the countries that still allows the use of leg-hold traps for catching foxes? I do know that packs of wolves are very good at controlling populations of foxes. Unfortunately we don't have any wolves left in the UK. But, we do have animals that perform a similar task, they are called FOX HOUNDS. (ref: FH-R1AH) ► As an earlier contributor to this emotive subject, I have been following further discussion pieces (on both sides) with interest. Despite my abhorrence to hunting that I have already made clear, there are some intelligent and reasoned comments coming from both sides of the camp. However, I really feel that I must respond to EG from Northumberland again regarding her latest comments [we’ve not had any further submission from EG but the ref quoted was the last piece FH-R1AH, so we assume this is in response to that – CJS]. You cite how foxes kill a surplus of prey yet, conveniently forget to offer an unemotive explanation for this as you also do for your observation of how long it may take a fox family to despatch a live rabbit. Please allow me to offer a scientific explanation for these two forms of behaviour so that other readers can make a reasoned assessment for themselves. Foxes like any predator have good times and bad; early in the season when rabbits are young and inexperienced kills may be frequent and plentiful. later in the year rabbit young become more instinctively alert, experienced and hard to catch; even later during colder weather a fox may have to make do with scavenging. As such, it is instinctive to sometimes kill an excess of food when times are good, if undisturbed the fox would come back to these earlier kills when really hungry; so it is not senseless slaughter but an instinctive long term survival strategy, a bag of bones may just keep the animal alive when all else fails. As regards the live rabbit comment how do you think that young predators learn the essential skills of capture and killing? they have to practice, yes this seems cruel to us but it is a case of an animal having to develop skills that it will need later on to survive, (both these forms of behaviour occur in many natural predators for the reasons I have stated). As an educated person I think you are probably well aware of these basic facts regarding animal behaviour but prefer to try to make a wild animal look cruel and hateful rather than state the true facts which might make it harder for you to demonise it, presumably to try to detract from the real cruelty of hunting, a quite deplorable effort at perception. at least some of the other pro hunting lobby are putting forward constructive arguments even if I don't agree with them. A wild animal has no choice, evolution has programmed it to behave in ways that may seem cruel to us but that are essential for it's survival. We do have a choice, we are capable of making a moral judgement. Finally, yes I have deep sympathy for a land owner who loses livestock or a family whose pets are killed but I believe we should be honest about why these incidents occur however distressing and if the only answer is to cull the animal then let someone skilled with a firearm do it humanely. From SP, East Sussex. (ref: FH-R1AI) ► Original contributor replies: Come off it SP! These are countryside professionals we are dealing with, not primary school 'cannon fodder' for the anti- movement! If they need to be taught about predator feeding habits or the duties of an environmental field worker they really shouldn't be looking for a job until they have finished their education! As for your misguided comments addressed to EG. I get the impression that she is not only educated, but knowledgeable on her subject as well? Not only that, but also that she really cares about what is happening to the countryside and what is best for the future of foxes? As for the little lecture on fox multi- kills? You are almost correct on the flow of things, you just forgot the taking away and burying, with defecating on top of the site to end the process. I only deal in facts (as I am sure all science based research should be). I don't use subterfuge or try to read between the lines of a statement in an attempt to find an excuse to vilify the person making that statement. I do not have to try to 'demonise' foxes to prove my point that fox hunting is no more cruel than any other method of killing them. You will, I am sure, be appalled at my statement - that I have the greatest respect for 'Charlie' Fox? As for wiping them off the face of the earth? I'm sure that they will still be around when every field and wood in the UK is buried under buildings and roads. I am VERY concerned that a ban on hunting with hounds will hasten that process. I have previously mentioned information available from the Countryside Alliance. I urge you all to look on their Web Site, this week a study into using firearms for killing foxes has been published. The week before - the effect the banning of hunting will have on countryside conservation. Independent, science based information. NOT Alliance Produced. - THEN SP, if you care to come back at me and say that I talk 'twaddle' or 'tosh' I might just reply with a few 'emotionally strong words' of my own! (But let's not get unscientific, What!). To DK (below), I do agree with you. To WH, my comment about the foxes and rabbits was to indicate that TV should not be used as a tool to get sympathy for foxes just before Parliament makes a decision on the hunting Bill. To JB, if foxes were adapted for long distance running? Probably Fox Covers would be fewer and fields much bigger, with more wire fences rather than hedges. I think (and this is only supposition) we would get hounds akin to Greyhound/Wolfhound crosses (Gaze Hounds), with a few Scent Hounds to flush the fox out of cover. Psychological and Physical suffering? See the CA Website for veterinary studies of the matter. Sorry to have rambled on folks, but this is an important matter. (ref: FH-R1-AJ) ► SP of East Sussex returns and says: Well I see the original contributor has taken exception to my recent piece; if any professional felt that some of my comments were to basic for their level of knowledge then I apologise, it was not my intent to belittle anyone's knowledge or experience. However I know for a fact that many read the CJS at varying levels of experience and understanding, all I did was to remind us all of some basic behavioural reasons why a predator behaves in ways that may to some us, seem cruel for that I make NO apologies and before you get your 'brush' up any more i fail to see why viewers should be denied the opportunity to see the more endearing aspect of some of our wildlife on TV screens just because an emotive issue/ bill may be about to be discussed in Parliament. Oh so sorry I forgot to mention the burying of food followed by defecation, perhaps I felt people may be to professional to be reminded of that last bit! As to shooting you yourself claim never to have failed to make a clean kill with a shotgun but to have had less success with a rifle, well perhaps there is a valid point when looking at how to despatch an animal. YOU come of it original contributor, are you honestly claiming that you believe an animal that is literally running for it's life is not suffering a fairly high degree of stress or does not have some sense of blind terror seconds before the kill, yes I admit how much mental or physical anguish any animal actually feels compared to a human being is virtually impossible to quantify and thus up to some level of debate but I find it unlikely that as a mammal the animal does not have some sense of fear or pain, oh sorry you only deal in fact. You still cling on to this argument that hunting will save the countryside from development, well fox hunting is not the only way to save our countryside as you well know, there are a plethora of other issues and mechanisms that are vital to constraining over development and all the other problems man's infrastructure brings and as I have said before many areas are managed for both people and wildlife splendidly, never seeing a hunt. Finally as one other contributor said it does come down to a moral issue, you either believe the pleasure the hunt brings justifies any suffering or you don't; you do and are entitled to your view, I don't and am entitled to mine. (ref: FH-R1-AK) In reply to the above - On 30/1/04 AD of Herts says: What an interesting debate this has become. I have read with interest the many differing views so far and I am enthralled. I have hunted though not on a horse, and I have shot foxes with a firearm and a shotgun. It is my view that a fox that knows it is being pursued must feel anxiety and that this is quite natural and part of the system of self preservation that all living things have. I have seen foxes that have been hunted quietly melt away in some instances going to ground after misleading the hounds, which have been gathered together to draw again, I have wondered whether that fox was not the master of his game, confident that his natural instinct of self preservation is keener than the hounds ability to stick to the hunt. Perhaps this fox, at the peak of his abilities is the one that by surviving will help to keep his species flourishing? I have never seen a fox killed by a pack of hounds. It is my view that to hunt foxes should not be banned. I work in the countryside and have seen damage caused by the ability of foxes to skilfully take advantage of man and his farming and husbandry practices, if that fox is subsequently hunted he may be moved off, this may end the problem. As the hounds work to scent a fox specific to one particular area can be hunted, by contrast, most "skilled marksmen" to use the current vernacular will shoot the first fox they see. A previous correspondent has already highlighted that this method can be less than effective. I submit that when a fox is suddenly dispatched correctly with a high powered rifle bullet it will be dead before it has had time to register that it is in danger. Whether this fox is the culprit is academic. When I am involved in fox control I admit that I find it difficult to pick old and weak animals as is the case when deer stalking for instance. As for cruelty, I think that we must strive for a quick and instantaneous death by whatever means, but I would find it hard to quantify which is less cruel than another. These are only my views, and I do try to practice. (ref: FH-R1-AK1) ► From Original Contributor [I think we’ve going to have label these the blue & red corners! CJS] Dear SP, So! You didn't look at the C.A. website then? Ah well! you can lead a horse to water - etc. I think that you may have got it wrong about the defecation bit? I was hoping to draw on your animal behaviour expertise re the defecation on the burial site? I have often wondered if it is as an aid for relocation, a warning of possession to other foxes, a site indicator for other members of the group, or an attempt to disgust other carnivores and put them off digging up an easy meal? Perhaps someone else could give me an answer? A Short (but seemingly necessary?) lecture - My perception gained from seeing many different species being chased by predators is that they do not flee in 'blind terror'. Their natural escape mechanism is that they concentrate on route and opportunity (such ability is highly developed in foxes, hence their reputation for 'cunning'). The perception holds good, be they penguins, gazelles, sparrows or squirrels. Rabbits, chased by stoats, spring to mind as an animal that exhibits 'terror'. They 'freeze' at the end of the chase and allow the pursuer to literally chew into the back of the neck without much apparent resistance being shown. The natural reaction of a PREDATOR when seized by another is to turn and bite it's attacker (it also happens with some non-predators). The evidence that I have viewed (written and in camera) is that A hound seizes the fox and usually with a hard bite breaks it's upper spinal column, at the same moment shaking the animal vigorously and - IT IS DEAD! The effect of the shaking is threefold. 1. It helps sever the spinal cord. 2. The hound's teeth sink further in. 3. It prevents the fox turning to bite the hound. Foxes kill rats in the same way. Most dogs get bitten when they kill their first rat, they rarely get bitten again! Hence the term 'once bitten, twice shy'. Next - 'Torn limb from limb' Lowland hound packs are encouraged to break up the carcass of the ALREADY DEAD fox. Highland (Gun Pack) hounds are not, the hound that kills the fox leaves it lying and joins the others to find another. I have seen these seemingly unmarked bodies, on retrieval, at first hand. Now SP, to address your (wrongly construed) claim that I have stated that the survival of the countryside is dependent on the retention of hunting? The simple answer is : I HAVE NOT. If anyone should do so I think that they would be extremely foolish. I do agree with you that the maintenance of the biodiversity and beauty of our countryside depends on numerous issues and systems including specially designated areas. I do not 'cling' to the idea that the areas used for hunting will stop future 'development' in the countryside. But, I am 'firmly entrenched' in my belief that it will slow it down, to the benefit of all wildlife. Also I know some ecologists share my views regarding that particular issue (will a Professor do? Or the late Chairman of a County Wildlife Trust perhaps?). Finally - You are also wrong in your statement 'that I took exception to your recent piece', you are underselling your abilities! I have taken exception to SECTIONS of all of your efforts so far! But at least there is a sign of reasoning coming through as well! I could go on and explain about the Masters / Field / Huntsmen / Dress / Cubbing / National Economic Benefits / Remote Rural Community Benefits, etc, but it would be so much easier if you looked it up for yourself. I do enjoy a good chuckle! Keep digging! (Ref: FH-R1-AL) ► And in reply [from the blue corner perhaps!] Ah, the original contributor replies again and equally, I feel your comments worthy of a response. First things first, actually I did look at the CA website and as you well know, the article on shooting is not conclusive and as the pieces by both yourself and other contributors strongly suggest it seems likely to boil down to a case of the right choice of weapon in sufficiently experienced hands as really being the deciding factor in the original point of this discussion. As to your theories regarding defecation, I would say most of them have some credence if we are generalising in terms of animal behaviour except perhaps the one about trying to make it to disgusting for other foxes (a little bit of humanising there perhaps?) Thank you for the little section on an animals behaviour when attacked, again a lot of what you say is perfectly sensible; breaking the spinal column is a strategy used by many predators as is suffocation in big cats and I think most of us aware that evolution has allowed both prey and predator to develop various strategies to effect capture or escape. (it never hurts to remind ourselves of the basics though) However, I still believe that you cannot dismiss the fact that it is likely any mammal with a reasonably well developed brain and nervous system is likely to be capable of feeling physical pain and fear, as I said before, I admit that what level those sensations may reach is unquantifiable; my point remains, I do not believe that it is morally justifiable to carry out an action that is likely to cause fear or pain in the name of sport. You have already conceded that hunting is but one of many issues and as such is not automatically going to be the lone saviour of our countryside. As far as rural economies are concerned the foot and mouth crisis proved a point, those that are prepared to diversify will survive and I believe that fox hunting will eventually become a thing of the past so those that think ahead will stay ahead! As to you apocalyptic forecast of doom and gloom, you really have not done your self any favours there at all, an obviously dramatic attempt to gain support that carries little weight with anyone that knows the basics of ecology particularly in the absence of very extensive study., I won't even go any further with that one; you have been well and truly put in your place by another contributor! As to your kind invitation to look up information on hunting dress, etc, do you honestly think that someone so obviously opposed to hunting has any interest at all in the sport's garb, really, you will be inviting me to a hunt next. Oh well, I am glad you have enjoyed a chuckle, some of your comments have very nearly had me in stitches; until the next healthy exchange of views, what oh, old chap! SP, East Sussex (Ref: FH-R1-AM) ► GS from Sunderland says: If the original contributor has never seen a fox killed by the hounds just what part in the process of conservation is he playing? Isn't this rather like going hegelaying and never picking up a bill hook or bow saw? In reality a hunt with hounds requires a small number of people, the whippers in who "control" the hounds, most of the rest are merely along for the social aspect. Hunters often say that landowners will not allow drag hunting as it serves no purpose and damages their land, but how much damage is caused by hunters like the original contributor and their twenty to thirty fellow riders who need not be there and provide no service of any kind? (Ref: FH-R1AN) ► As the Original Contributor and as a competent hedge layer, I stand by what I say regarding the conservation aspects of organised hunting. If you care to read FH-R6 you will see that I follow hounds on foot. Your comment on bill- hooks is relevant. The finest hedges ever laid are to be seen in hunt country! All the benefits to wildlife are nurtured within those hedges. Hunts organise hedge laying championships which ensures that the tradition is kept up. Ban Hunting and see what will happen to those self-same hedges - scraggy hawthorn trees only fit for magpie nests, or flailed to bits and full of barbed wire! also a lot of country craftsmen with less work, all within twenty years! If Farmers find damage to their property they can claim compensation, but as many of those on the horses ARE FARMERS they rarely do so! I'm glad that I started this discussion, it has certainly shown up the misconceptions that many of our modern professional environmentalists have about country sports and conservation. Which begs the question - JUST WHAT ARE OUR COLLEGES TEACHING STUDENTS TODAY? [CJS – this is another thread on the board, click here to see the thoughts so far] (Ref: FH-R1-AO) ► GS from Sunderland replies: I've just read the reply from the original contributor to my post of some time ago. I have no doubt that many fine layed hedges exist in area covered by a hunt but I'd be willing to wager that there are just as many in areas without a hunt, many laid by urbanites with no interest in hunting. But you seem to have avoided answering my original point, if hunting with dogs is all about conservation why do so many people who take part in the activity provide no real service, that's what my reference to hedgelaying was about. Riding a horse across a field, never seeing a fox, never seeing a kill, having no part in controlling the pack means that they perform no useful function and cannot claim to be contributing to conservation of wildlife, livestock or anything else other than their own interest. As to your comments on what people are taught at college these days, well that's the sort of comment that comes from the mouths of people who have been doing the same thing for the past god knows how many years and refuses to change because THEY ARE RIGHT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG! (Ref: FH-R1-AP) ► Dear GS. If you cannot see what conservation contribution has been made by hunting, to the countryside AND its communities, over the last two hundred years, then you and the anti movement have my sympathy. Hunting supporters have accepted many changes in that time - motorways, airports, new towns, prairie farms, dumped urban foxes, yobs attacking them and their families, restrictions by councils, political dictatorship, 'greenwashed' political correctness, -- I could go on. WHO said it is "all about conservation"? Hurry back in another few months, when you have had time to read this answer. Sloths take a long time to digest their dinner, as well! When I see strong evidence, contrary to my convictions, I change my mind. What do you do? Kindest regards, Original Contributor. (Ref: FH-R1-AQ) ► GS of Sunderland returns with: It's good to know that I have the original contributor's sympathy but I can assure him that it is neither wanted or needed. One thing that has crept into "debate" in recent years the use of the term "political correctness when one finds oneself unable to articulate an argument of any merit". Such is the case with the OC! "Hunting supporters have accepted many changes in that time" you say, well so has the rest of the world, many to a much greater degree than it disrupting our hobbies. As for being "greenwashed" I have studied foxes on the urban fringe, even foxes living close to farms rearing sheep (yes we do have farms around Sunderland, its not all dereliction and decay) and have formed my ideas of how the fox needs to be controlled by asking questions not just accepting what I'm told. As for your comment "WHO said its "all about conservation"" well, we all know that for some hunt supporters its all about blood, a comment you appear to accept. But back to my original question, just what do all those people on horses charging across a field who never see a fox, or for that matter, as far as any of us know, know what a fox looks like, contribute to the conservation of the countryside or are they just in it for a fun day out, in which case that's what it should be called and pretend to be anything more noble. I'm off now for a few more months to do slothy things, who knows I might actually contribute something to the wildlife of these islands of ours, will you? And please don't waste your time replying unless you intend to answer, finally, my original point, I have better things to do than read another one of your puerile insults, to me or anyone else. (Ref: FH-R1-AR) ►Dear GS. Oh Dear! So you really need me to supply an answer to your original point do you? (I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. Why not have a go for a change, instead of trying every character blackening ruse in the book?). The VERY OBVIOUS answer to YOUR question is that the 'field' go to enjoy a day out on horseback. They observe, they pay for the privilege, they are allowed to ride and jump on land that they wouldn't get on to otherwise. They obey the orders of the 'master' and woe betide them if they don't (it's known as self-discipline, an admirable trait). Their membership fees, and other contributions, go to keeping the hunt viable. The huntsman and whips conduct the hunt as you rightly pointed out. 'The Hunt' in the full meaning of the words, is the contributing factor to the benefits that I have been pointing out to you. But! you seem to be the one wearing the blinkers (Please! don't ask me what they are, ask a horse owner). As for my contribution to wildlife, if I had a pound for every tree that I have ever planted (native, broad-leaved), shrub, flowering plant, water plant, pond saved, wall re-built, hedge laid, path cleared, etc, I would be very wealthy indeed! But I am rich in the knowledge that I have played my part in conserving the countryside, including working on many nature reserves AS A VOLUNTEER. NOW!- Is hunting MORE CRUEL than other forms of control? ALSO - Just what sound ideas have you formulated for fox control now that you have asked your questions? I am truly very interested in what you have to say. Kindest regards, Original Contributor. (Ref: FH-R1-AS) ►GS of Sunderland returns with: So there we have, the filed do indeed play no part in controlling foxes. So, a whole lot of debate could be avoided if hunting with hounds were carried out only by those people directly involved in the activity, the master of the hounds and the whippers in. The efficiency of hunting with hounds would then become the main issue, not whether the whole practice is a bunch of toffs ride rough shod over the countryside. That was the point I was trying to get you to address. As for the economics of the situation the packs would be smaller but each member who took part in the hunt would make a greater contribution than just having a pleasant day out in the countryside, which they could do using bridle paths or one of the many cross country riding courses that exist on farms nowadays, incidentally providing revenue to the farmer who probably needs it more than the hunt. You will also not that at no point have I said that hunting with hounds or dogs should be banned however you seem to assume that that was my position. As for my ideas of fox control, well you're not going to like them. Based on nearly 10 years of observations I can conclude that, in this part of the world, fox populations that go largely unmanaged (I've never found a shot fox carcass, although I'm sure some will have been shot) are stable. There has been no significant change in the number of foxes or sets. This agrees with a report in the latest British Wildlife and isn't really that surprising. As for shooting, every fox that is shot and not instantly killed doesn't slink a way to die in agony. Studies in Scandinavia where shooting is the main form of fox control have shown that a fox can recover from wounds inflicted by shooting. As to which is more cruel, I'll leave that to people who want to argue semantics and ethics. As for character blackening rouses, come on ! look at some of your contributions, you have resorted to insults of almost every one who has dared to disagree with you. Your last contribution referred to me as politically correct, a term which has now lost all meaning since some people have started using it as an insult for anything they disagree with, rather as liberal has become the ultimate insult in American politics, and greenwashed (a truly bizarre term if every I read one). As for your original question which I have not answered, which one would that be? If you want to know what I've done in terms of conservation I've worked for a variety of groups, both voluntary and occasionally paid and like you I've planted more trees than I care to count, many grown form locally collected seed, in fact what you wrote I've done and more, in fact I doubt if many visitors to any part of this website couldn't say the same. (Ref - FH-R1-AT)
CJS: this seems to be getting a little personal, could contributors
please try to restrain their more personal insults and inflammatory comments.
►GS, Sunderland returns with: Sorry, but he started it, WHA! (throws dummy from pram and exits stage left pursued by fox.) (Ref: FH-R1-AU)
►2.DK from Glasgow says: Both fox hunting and shooting have a place within our countryside as not all environments dictate the use of a rife or shotgun. A prime example being when a fox in a sub urban area takes fowl from a small holding or farmer, the owner cannot use a firearm depending on the conditions he is in. This is where a terrier would be ideal to dispatch the offending animal and reduce the loss of income to the farmer or small holder, and they would not be breaking any firearms laws either. (ref: FH-R2)
► 3. MH in Scottish Borders says: I have never hunted and until recently my attitude was ambivalent or leaning towards being anti hunting. However in my area (lowland Scotland and borders) the changes I have witnessed since hunting was banned have been most enlightening and not altogether what I expected. I am told that our local hunt used to flush and kill one fox from a woodland area and it was the thought of an animal being killed in this way that made me disagree with hunting with dogs. However since this was banned the hounds are being used to flush through the same woodlands and all the foxes that are flushed out are shot -so instead of just one animal being killed (albeit in what many of us still consider an horrific way) we are now seeing three or four animals being killed. It's not the 'all out war' that EG mentions but it is still many more foxes meeting an early end and many of those have been beautiful animals in the prime of life. I am involved in forestry and woodland management and this spring we have seen an increase in the numbers of rabbits and the resultant damage and I am firmly convinced that this is partly due to a reduction in fox numbers. I still hate the thought of a fox being torn apart (I am told it is very quick) but I think that perhaps it is the better management technique for this animal. If someone can find another way to control numbers in a similar fashion, ie the less fit, old, ill etc. but in a more humane way to traditional hunting I think they would be on to a winner. Does anyone have any suggestions? (ref: FH-R3) ► Original contributor replies: What a very interesting comment. I've been wondering what effect the Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act would have on the ecology of the Borders and Grampian, but I never imagined it would happen so soon (that is, if it is what you suspect). Can you say if you have noticed any increase in voles (including water voles) & hares? I'm anticipating much larger broods of birds of prey to survive over the coming years, until we get to the vole population 'crash' stage. We never hear of that event nowadays, it used to play havoc with the buzzard population. I suppose that when the young tree situation gets really dire the Scottish Executive will ban the killing of foxes completely. Then we can watch the hen-harriers, water voles, hares, black/red grouse, grey partridges, curlews, golden/green plover, moor hens, etc, vanish altogether. I expect by then the EC will be paying out farmers for the loss of lambs and piglets to foxes. Not to worry, "Public money? - Penny a bucketful!" as a farmer friend of mine often says when he sees taxpayer's funds go down the drain! (Ref: FH-R3A) ► JH of Hull says: Regarding FH-R3A. Is this person on the same planet as anyone else? This attempt to demonise the fox and drum up support for the countryside alliance is beyond belief. He is missing the point that MH is (perhaps) trying to make. Foxes are being slaughtered in greater numbers but for no apparent reason. MH states that Foxes are being shot instead of being killed by hounds and in greater numbers. Does this not discredit earlier opinions by the learned countryside folk that killing foxes by the use of Dogs is the most clean/humane/efficient.....? This continued slaughter of foxes is unnecessary and inhumane. The simple fact, which all decent ecologists subscribe to is that top predators numbers are self regulating. They cannot thrive if there is no food/energy. Through persecution of Britain's other top predators ie Wolves and Bears and their eradication form this island, Foxes are now our top predator. They do what top predators do.....survive. We should not attempt to humanize their behaviour and use it as an excuse to destroy them. We should accept them for what they are. This victorian attitude of destroying competition instead of learning to co-exist is an embarrassment to the British culture. In the end it comes down to the fear of the fox hunters to learn and evolve. I am not a 'townie', there is no great divide between town and rural dwellers. That myth is simply part of the flawed argument that the countryside alliance and its allies spouts to any that will listen and note. (normally its own members). I’m happy to say that fox hunting will fail (like bear baiting and dog fighting before it) and that this country will move on and embrace our bio-diversity and natural heritage without bloodshed. It is also worth pointing out that species recovery is down to improved relationships and cooperation between conservation and farming organisations rather then the slaughter of foxes which is, according to some sorry people, the source of all evil. (Ref: FH-R3AA) ► Original Contributor replies: I fully concur with the comments made by MH and congratulate him/her for the consideration shown in fully understanding the implications of banning traditional hunting practice in Scotland without some fail-safe replacement. I must say that I find the interpretation of those comments by JH rather puzzling? I can only put it down to JH not being fully aware of what is happening 'North of the Border'? But as that person comes from deep in the heart of hunting countryside (Hull) that is perhaps excusable? I would further say that I have not attempted to 'drum up support' for the Countryside Alliance, I have urged anyone with an interest in this subject to look at excellent information available on their web site. However, JH, if you really want to get some information on your theory of predator self regulation? Get in touch with the Game Conservancy Trust and look at their research results regarding the Langholm Moor study and the Loddington Farm study. But first of all look at their list of qualified staff and then let us know if they pass your 'decent ecologist' litmus test, please. I would also like to know just who is perpetrating this apparent offence of 'demonising'/'humanising'? I trust that it is not me? I stopped watching Walt Disney years ago! perhaps the accusers ought to look at what they have written so far and see if the 'cap fits' in some other context? 'Spin Doctoring' of considered statements should stay with the politicians. Also, a word of caution: Under the PRESENT circumstances - If hunting with dogs is banned on the 30th of June? Don't crow about it, sit back and watch the results of the action first. I fear that it will prove to be a 'Hollow Victory' and that the bio- diversity of our countryside will suffer greatly. Bear in mind that over-used statement - If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The Scottish Executive 'fixed it' and it's going to break! Lastly, there have been questions raised about morality? Just whose moral code do we apply. Yours? Mine? Adolf Hitlers? [I think there may have been more but the text seems to have been cut off mid-word – if there is more can we ask you to resubmit the missing bits – Thanks, CJS] DEAR EDITOR: There was more (at the end), which was cut off, but I think what has been printed will do (for now!). It might give me a bit more leeway for later! (Ref: FH-R3AB) ► JH from Hull returns and says: Without trying to offend the original contributors ideals I would just like to add to my previous comments. I find that your comments have a patronising tone. It seems obvious that you have not come to this site to discuss but rather to sell your point and disregard others ideas which do not concur with your own. This seems also to extend to the premise that if a person does not come from an active hunting area then said person does not have a valid opinion. Perhaps the Original Contributor could have misinterpreted MH comments? Or could this not happen?? Could MH comments not also be read as saying that there may not be a need for hunting with dogs/guns period? Should we not address the reasons why foxes are hunted? Why are foxes hunted? Is it because they are fearsome hunters and the bane of many a poor farmers life? Or is it down the traditional aspect? 'We've always hunted foxes, we'll always hunt foxes', the rallying cry for many huntspeople. Perhaps those that are associated closest with the tradition of fox hunting are also those that are most blinded to its ugliness and have not accepted that the fox is doing what it evolved to do. If this results in occasional damage to farming profits then perhaps farming methods could be changed . It seems that alternatives to killing foxes are being suggested (see WH of Southsea) but are being disregarded without first being tested. I cannot see how the bio-diversity of our countryside would suffer if hunting with dogs were to stop. Bio-diversity could suffer if persons persisted in hunting with guns in conjunction with using dogs to flush out foxes (or other animals). Could this not be viewed as a criminal offence or baiting? Perhaps we could one day bring about an active end to hunting with guns? I know this may cause an uproar and am fully braced! Finally, regarding the 'Disney Comment', earlier comments by the original contributor and EG of Northumberland have attempted or tended to humanise Foxes behaviour and shy away from the fact that they are wild animals. I felt I had to point that out and the moral code is mine, I cannot abide cruelty to animals. Simple as that. (Ref: FH-R3AC) In reply to the above - AH of Herts says: I to do not wish to be cruel to animals. If I have to kill them for whatever reason I do not want to be in any way cruel about it, but how do I define that element of cruelty? Perhaps it is not the method used, but that if there is any pleasure derived from the act. Would that be the definition of cruel? Then again I would derive some satisfaction from say planning the demise of the creature in question, from the stalk to the dispatch, so perhaps I am cruel. I wonder if I am as cruel as the protagonists for the view that top hunters will eventually control their own numbers by their own success in killing off their prey species, would it not be cruel to stand idly by seeing starving predators wandering around? I maintain that since we (man) wrecked the environment we should use all methods available to ensure that we maintain whatever is left in the best possible health. If that means that we have to become artificial predators of certain species then so be it. If by deriving a certain amount of pleasure by being (it is hoped) good at it means we are dubbed cruel to animals then again, so be it. (ref: FH-R3-AC1) ► Original Contributor adds: We seem to be getting bogged down in this human perception issue? If I state a fact, such as the foxes natural predatory survival skill of killing as much prey as possible, at any opportunity, I am demonising it? I would say that is some other humans perception, it certainly isn't mine. I don't think of it as anything more than a natural act. I understand that Alun Michael (who I now see in my human perception as the Minister for War on the Environment and Bio-diversity) has stated that 80,000 foxes will be saved per year by banning hunting. Well! that will improve the lot of our ground nesting birds! The following year, your theory of self regulation will start to kick in, it will be very obvious in some areas by the third year. By the fifth year I expect some animal charities will be appealing for funds to feed the starving foxes and using horrendous photographs to illustrate the need. Humans will flock to the cause because of their human feelings. Will you join them or leave the foxes to starve? Remember, before you answer, you hate cruelty to animals. But, if you choose to feed them, you are going to go against the balance of nature. I suppose that I will now be accused of 'demonising' those people who feed foxes in their gardens (and keep the population artificially high). So! I am taking SPs advice and planning ahead! Unfortunately, it is 'doom and gloom' but never mind, it's only my human perception so it doesn't really count! I suppose that only 'Time' will really tell! (ref: FH-R3AD)
► 4. I am a Gamekeeper in the UK. I have controlled foxes for many years. I feel that fox hunting with hounds is the most humane way of controlling this beautiful animal. I kill in the region of 100-150 foxes annually. Most of which are shot with a large calibre rifle at night. Of the foxes shot some are only clipped by the projectile due to one scenario or another. These animals will eventually die, hopefully not a long lingering death. Fox hounds very rarely fail to kill their fox when they catch it. I personally don't partake in hunting with hounds or approve of the large amount of people who use this pest control method as an excuse to have a "jolly" in the countryside, But everyone to his own. Fox hunting with hounds is humane, but not very efficient. I kill 95 out of 100 instantly whereas fox hounds hunt 100 to kill 5. Details supplied. (Ref: FH-R4) CM of Cambs says: When a hunt is taking place, foxes for miles around are disturbed by the sound, and farmers and keepers are well aware of this. More than once I've seen a fox far from the hunt bolting across open country in daylight, only to be shot. (Ref: FH-R4A)
► 5. I am a gamekeeper in the Scottish Borders, and I have never read such nonsense in my life!! I shoot an awful lot of foxes on a regular basis, both in the daytime, and at night. For those of you who do not appreciate the finer arts of fox-shooting, there are several rules that apply.1)only shoot a fox within killing range,2)only shoot when a clean kill is assured,3)if it's out of range, squeak it in until it is in range,4)if you ain't sure, don't shoot-it'll be there another night. If you follow some basic common sense ideas, you won't injure, maim or incapacitate, you will kill. If it's in an awkward spot, i.e. semi-suburban area, use a high seat and shoot down on the blighter at close range. Believe me, anyone who argues that sometimes a fox can't be shot is talking utter twaddle. And to finish, may I thank our local hunt, who go gallavanting round the place stirring up everyone else's fox problem and passing it over the boundary onto my patch. Great job you're doing, guys!! Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I kill all my foxes with 1 bullet apiece, and keep my ranges down to about 150 yards where possible. Having said that, it is still possible to kill a fox cleanly at 4-500 yards. For any ballistic boffins out there, I use a 220 Swift with a 50 grain ballistic tip bullet doing 3975 fps at the muzzle. In case you're interested!!! Details Supplied (ref: FH-R5) In reply to points 4 & 5 on 15/3/04:To back up our two keen rifle shots, scientific evidence (I examined this at University, I have a First and a Distinction - yes I have confidence in my opinion) supports the fact that shooting foxes is far more effective than hunting with hounds. Especially when several (good) shots make an effort over a wide area. However, hunting with hounds does support people's social and financial well being, and does get the odd fox too. Both Shooting and hunting are enormously social; this is the major positive, not the killing, which is usually not the driver of a good day out. Our countryside is controlled by us - no joke, it is - so we must keep controlling everything that is in it to keep it this way. In fact, we must get better at it to benefit a wider range of species - hence the changes to the CAP. Shooting and hunting have played a role in these changes, and will play a role in the way our countryside is managed into our future, whether to grow food, as a parkland estate, a nature reserve or a shooting estate. The balance is controlled by people, we must continue to do the necessary. We all have different opinions, let's be understanding, listen to each other and take it all on board. Details supplied (ref: FH-R4/5)
► 6. It's great hearing from some real countryfolk who know their stuff instead of psudo scientists who invent 'facts' to fit their case! (and throw out red herrings when they can't come up with proven facts). I used to follow hounds on foot in Quorn country. While I agree with you on most of the points you have made, I want to point out that we have to consider that countryside is variable in landscape features. So what is an efficient method in the Borders may not be safe in other parts of the country. To coin an old phrase - Horses for courses! I could not have obtained a certificate for a large calibre rifle where I used to shoot. In some parts of the country you would have a job to get a shot at one 500yards away without shooting over a road or footpath. I do know that hounds scatter fox populations, combined harvesters do the same! When the maize is cut they always make for the pheasant woods in the English Midlands. I have a few Keeper friends who don't like the Hunting Field or maize! I long ago came to the conclusion that if the job is done properly it is as efficient and as humane as it can be. If dogs OR guns (or any other legal methods) are used that should be the maxim. Incidentally, I know of a couple of hounds that can kill a fox when it's out of my sight on the other side of a mountain. How's that for efficient long range killing! Original Contributor (Ref: FH-R6)
► 7. DM, Lancs says: I work for a wildlife charity and have done so for 2 and half years and am quite familiar with the arguments they put forth against fox hunting and also on the other hand before getting in to conservation I worked as a gillie for a shooting estate in highlands of Scotland and I saw the other side of the argument they did stuff like grouse shooting and deer hunting in which I took part and also FOX HUNTING. My opinion from a middle ground perspective is that on the against side is that farmers and such have been tending this land of ours for thousands of years without interference and I think people would agree that we live in a lovely countryside, they feeling why should a bunch of complete strangers tell them what to do and that if that fox attacks their livestock then they should be allowed to kill it. On the other hand I saw a fox hunt in person when I was out walking with my dog and at the end of the day it was a shambles that's not conservation at all full stop , if you have to kill use a shot gun (BANG its dead period) lets face it its not even economical all those dogs and people. Well that's my piece thanx fur listening. (Ref: FH-R7) A query in reply to DM: In the last part of your comment? Can you estimate the value to the local economy of the jobs, equipment, feed, hotel & B&B income, fallen stock removal, veterinary fees, livestock protected, horse purchase (if they were involved), fuel and vehicle sales, land rental, staff house taxes, etc, involved? PS. Also, I wonder what the savings were regarding the local Health Service? The day out would have come as a great stress relief for those people who work on their own, for weeks on end, with only the tractor and dog, sheep or cattle for company. Also, to others who have highly charged jobs and little time to spend on relaxing. Don't forget, these people look forward to the Hunt Balls, Earth Stoppers Suppers, the evening in the local Pub after the hunt day, etc., all bringing in money to local businesses. Don't forget the money raised by Hunts for Local Charities as well. On a more morbid note, will the suicide rate amongst the farming community go up or down if Hunting is Banned? Or perhaps you think that it will just stay as high as it is now? From: Original Contributor (ref: FH-R7a) DM replies: In reply to the last comment, I do not deny that hunting brings money in I am fully aware that the estate I used to work for used to charge £10,000 pounds a party for the week! Obviously a lot of money is made doing it I never denied that but at the end the day landowners and gamekeepers etc. have got to realise the only way through debate is to reach a compromise. I'm not on either side as I already stated I have taken part in both conservation and hunting, my point is that the vegi heads and hunt sabs (oops pardon me not very pc!) they unfortunately have most of the townies on their side and we have to reach some middle ground here because if not it seems the government is willing get rid of our heritage to win the most votes. I don't want to see that happen but lets face it its quicker and less expensive just to shoot fox's you cant deny that and fox hunting with hounds is not conservation! It may be fun to some people but to others its cruel, so the middle ground is: you want f ox's dead the public are to squeamish to let u do it with dogs even though its been done that way for thousands of years so why not just kill it with a shotgun? You say thousands of jobs will be lost and I agree its a terrible thing and I wont deny its not fair but that's the way it is. I hope I haven't offended anybody but lets be honest with ourselves that a lot of the public especially from towns and cities are so far removed from nature and the countryside, everything's wrapped up in plastic and put in supermarkets that they don't care about this sort of thing. It isn't fair but the government seem to be on their side, I personally don't like fox hunting with hounds, I think its unnecessary and quite sad but I understand the necessity of keeping fox numbers down to not only protect livestock but also other smaller wildlife. In conclusion we have to reach middle ground otherwise all hunting could come under the hammer and that's reprehensible. Wow I have been blunt, well thanx for listening. (ref: FH-R7b)
► 8. LH of Surrey says: Fox hunting is a necessary sport for the countryside. Where the city dwellers have their football we have our blood sports. The difference is that no humans are injured in our games, just foxes. And nobody wants an overgrown ginger rodent going through their wheelie bin do they? of course not! Foxes kill the sheep for sport so we kill them for sport. As far as I'm concerned we, as humans are top of the food chain and until we are replaced we can do whatever we want to whatever creature. (Ref: FH-R8) In reply on 24/3/04 - The difference between humans and other animals is that we have developed a civilised society and this enables us to live in comparative peace and prosperity. It is rather disturbing that anyone views themselves simply as "top of the food chain", to do so puts humans only at the same level as many other animals, or even below. Humans are distinct from other animals as we have consciousness, which enable us to think about the consequences of our actions. Hence we can understand that certain actions cause pain and distress to others, whether these be other humans or animals. As civilised humans we should seek to avoid causing pain and distress to others - to do otherwise, to "do whatever we want to whatever creature" is barbarism. So where does this leave us with foxhunting? Does it avoid pain and distress? Or does it seek human enjoyment at the expense of causing pain and distress to another creature? Details supplied (ref: FH-R8A) Dear Sir - I fully admit that we live in a free society and as such everyone, including yourself, is entitled to their opinion; well here is mine. In one sense I have to respect your honesty, you do not try to justify your so called sport with various ill founded arguments but state it for what it is, a blood sport. However, I think your attitude makes it very clear why many people are opposed to hunting; you display an arrogance that almost beggars belief. As to your reference to towns folk they to are entitled to an opinion and where they live makes theirs none less valid. With regard to wheelie bins it is hardly the animals fault that by our wasteful nature humans generate large amounts of rubbish that may smell appealing to wild animals; should that be punished by pain of death? As far as sheep are concerned, how do you know foxes kill for sport?, has it occurred to you they may have an inbuilt survival instinct to kill and store surplus for use when times are hard. As to your reference to football, sorry, your analogy is simply crass. As humans we have the reasoning to assess the risk in our chosen sport and make a choice, we play or not, we have that choice. Unlike the fox of course who has no say in whether it is victim to your barbaric activities. As to saying that we can do what we like at the top of the food chain that really does sum up an attitude that comes right out of the dark ages and thankfully, is not shared by everyone. It is precisely because we are at the top of the food chain as you choose to put it that we ought to also have some sense of responsibility, not just assume that everything is there for our amusement to chase, kill or whatever else may tickle our fancy. Finally, instead of making crass remarks about an animal you have probably less understanding of than the townies you choose to deride, perhaps you may like to consider actually finding out something about the ecology of foxes instead of making judgements based on ignorance and prejudice. Sincerely S. P. of East Sussex (Ref: FH-R8B) As the Original Contributor, I have considered your carefully phrased comment of 'support' for hunting with interest. Earlier this year some Antis set illegal leg-hold traps and self-locking snares on a sporting estate in Scotland. They then telephoned the police and told them where to look for the offending objects, stating that the estate Game-keepers had set them. The Police dismissed the accusation, the Antis have not been caught. As a hunting 'supporter' do you have any theories as to who could have done such a thing? It makes you think, does it not! (Ref: FH-R8C) Dear SH [sic] From Surrey. Did you know that the Fox belongs to the Family of Canidae which are dogs NOT Rodents. You do the hunting fraternity no favours by being ignorant. It does no one any favours by arguing as the government has only raised the anti hunting lobby as a distraction, to divert the public eye away from the larger mistakes it has recently made e.g. Iraq, lack of funding from NHS, Closing down of rural schools and communities. Details supplied (Ref: FH-R8D) SP East Sussex Replies: Dear contributor, How interesting to have another slant on this on- going debate. But come now, is it not you that are offering the distraction and using the government to do so? Whatever our individual opinion we all may have on the other issues you raise they have absolutely nothing to do with fox hunting. Moreover, I would say your comments are a cynical effort to use this discussion board as a platform from which to launch cheap political jibes, shame on you! As to the government raising the issue, they didn't have to try very hard, there are an awful lot of people in this country opposed to fox hunting and feelings run very strong on both sides. The government hardly has do much raising when this is clearly a very public issue. Actually I thought politicians were supposed to raise issues in the house that were of public interest. Or is that only valid when it suits certain individuals and the government argues in favour of those persons. No I do not think the government are wonderful, nor do I agree with everything they have done. I do however feel that a final outcome one way or another is much overdue as far as the fox hunting is concerned. Pity foxes cannot vote, still, they would doubtless be too young! (Ref: FH-R8D1) TC of Yorkshire says: Whether you are pro or anti hunting this forcing of a bill through parliament is a sad indictment of our so called democracy made worse when you consider that this is a bill which infringes human rights – ie the right to choose. And before anyone says the fox doesn't have a choice I agree that it can't choose whether it's chased or not but using it skill (yes a fox does have skill) it can evade capture by hounds but it won't stand a chance against guns. After this bill is made law a fox will have no choice – it will be dead if it's lucky it will be shot cleanly or if it's not so lucky it will be wounded / maimed and die a very long slow death. Just look north of the border if you don't believe me. (Ref: FH-R8D2) CF of Glasgow says: As far as I am concerned the attempted blocking of a bill passed by the democratic chamber by the unelected chamber is where any threat to democracy comes from. This is a sad indictment of people who regard democracy with contempt. The recent actions of pro-hunters will only serve to make MP's even more remote from their electorate, well done! If you live in a democracy you have to be willing to accept that sometimes you won't get your way (i.e. when the vast majority of the democracy disagree with you). Maybe, when this happens the answer is not to try and subvert the democratic system but accept that there is a possibility you may have to rethink your position. (Ref: FH-R8D3)
► 9.[CJS - This is bit longer than our usual submissions but we don't think it's possible to edit it and still retain the thread of the argument.] As the original contributor, I wish to put an end to this political point scoring and rubbish about democratic processes. There is no overwhelming demand by the public to end fox-hunting. See the Countryside Alliance web pages for proof of that. Below is a letter that I have received, completely unsolicited, from an old friend of mine who lives in England. He has voted labour in every election, during his voting life. He is one of the mildest, most reasonable, persons, that I have ever met. He worked in the coal mining industry from leaving school and became a fairly high ranking mechanical engineer in the industry. My father was the NUM rep that he speaks of. I was unaware of my father's comments until I received this letter. I was a member of the Labour Party. I also contributed £120 per annum to the party's Sponsor 2000 scheme. I hope that they miss it, now that I have left the party. John Prescott MP never bothered to answer my resignation letter, who are the arrogant in this debate? Let's get back to the original point - Is hunting MORE CRUEL than other methods of killing foxes? 20th September, 2004 HUNTING WITH DOGS Dear Sir, I am a semi-retired farrier who fishes , rough shoots and takes part in nature conservation. My main income is from a pension, earned whilst working in my previous occupation in coal mining. It is with some trepidation that I write this, my first ever letter on hunting. Since, like many more, I do not wish to inflict the wrath of the animal rights activists on my family, I ask you to exercise discretion on to whom you give my name and address. These organizations, together with some politicians, help from some sections of the media and loads of money have made their message the politically correct view to hold. I ask you to look and consider the following questions and comments with an open mind. 1)All living creatures must, in the end, die. 2) There is no National Health Service for wild animals, whose only relief from a prolonged death by disease or injury is predators' actions. 3) Predators also provide natural selection of the fittest, benefiting the prey species. 4) Hunting mimics this for about six months of the year, but provides a close season to protect dependant young. 5) Nature is a harsh mistress. She produces a surplus of young most years which will often die of starvation or disease in the first winter, unless predators perform the natural function of culling. This applies to fox cubs in the autumn, which, since we could not live side by side with wolves, are nowadays culled by foxhounds. Hunting preserves the fittest and enables the weak and sick to have a far less cruel death than would otherwise be the case in the absence of wolves. 6) The alternative of marksmen shooting using lamps at night kills indiscriminately and could wipe out rural fox populations. 7) Have you ever seen a rabbit in your car headlight? Does it freeze or does it run? Why do people think that foxes in a beam of light always freeze and let marksmen shoot them? 8) I have found two foxes shot by rifles in the last couple of years, both alive and conscious, one with it's bottom jaw shot off and the other dragging about six feet of it's own intestines behind it. They had been in that state for many hours at least. 9) Why do politicians think that drag hunting will replace fox hunting? Fox hunting has to take place over the winter months. This encourages horse use and the continuity of employment during what would be a slack period. Drag hunting, like most other horse sports will be favoured in good weather, not in the depths of winter. It does not require hounds to follow a predetermined line across country and there is no real thrill of the chase. If it is so great, why is it not more popular now? 10) Who says that human beings, who are natural predators should not hunt? Natural people, who have taken part in fishing, shooting or hunting will tell you about the thrill of the chase. What right have politicians to deny people the expression of these natural instincts? 11) Why do the politicians consider that human beings should not take their place in the environment and play a part in the balance of nature? 12) How come our law makers can recognise that gay people should be allowed the freedom to live their lives in the way that they choose, but hunting is to be banned? Both ways of life can offend other people. Minorities should have freedom of expression in a just society whether disabled, gay, hunters or whatever colour gender or creed. 13) In our increasingly sanitized and politically correct society, why do our children seek adventure and get into trouble with drugs, vandalism and theft? Kids who are given the opportunity to hunt and fish can get the excitement they so much need and grow up to know about respect for life and death rather than exist in a fantasy Disney world, where all animals are anthropomorphized out of reality. 14) If it is logical to ban one form of hunting, then it would be logical to ban all forms, because from an animal welfare point of view, they are each indistinguishable from the others . 15) Could the Labour Party be getting a free ride on a bandwagon started by the animal rights organizations? Now that Animal Rights have thoroughly vilified hunters, having been careful to untruthfully say it is only an upper class activity, what better scapegoat for the labour party to rally the troops against, ready for the forthcoming election? Surely this type of tactic belongs to the B.N.P or other Fascist organizations, but actions speak louder than words. As a child, my hunting instinct was awakened by my father, who took me with him rabbiting. Later, it was further aroused by my mates down the pit and in particular by the colliery N.U.M. rep. who told me that hunting, shooting and fishing was good enough for the nobs and therefore was good enough for us. I realize that many people have never had this instinct awakened but instead have had it repressed by politically correct views. I believe that this repression is responsible for many unintended consequences and these consequences could get far worse as the result of a hunting ban. Yours faithfully Pp OC (Ref: FH-R9) ►On 14/10/04: Dear original contributor, How interesting my old sparing partner comes back with a new thread. I must admit it is a well written letter, I find it interesting that an old friend chooses to refer to you as 'Sir'. Still, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume the letter to be genuine. There are a couple of points I would like to take up though. I note that the gentleman refers to the thrill of the chase, I must commend this turn of phrase for its honesty. It is so nice to hear a pro hunt supporter that actually admits to enjoying chasing animals as opposed to the usual ill founded and ill conceived excuses we get. As to calling us predators, well in our cavemen days of hunter gatherer we would need to be. Indeed there are still places in the world where man's survival is encumbent on the killing of wild animals for clothing and sustenance. Though it may suprise you, I would not have a problem killing a wild animal if my survival depended on it. The difference is I would NOT enjoy it, the chase or the end. There is a big difference between needing to utilise wild animals as a resource and chasing for the thrill. If the discussion is based on thrill, why not bring back Badger baiting, no doubt those indulging in that particular sport found some sense of thrill. Perhaps a return to the hanging and quartering of wrong do-ers at Tyburn? What of cock fighting, no doubt there was the thrill of the bet to see if your bird won. As to drag hunting, of course it is not popular with those who prefer to hound a wild animal to its death; hardly a reasoned argument for fox hunting. Thankfully those barbarisms have been condemned to the annals of history and so should fox hunting be. As to what right do politicians have? They have the right to carry through popular vote. In a democratic society we all have to bite the bullet and accept things that we may not agree with. If not, then why pass any laws? As to the argument that modern day anti social behaviour can be put down to a hunting spirit repressed? Well sorry, that is, in my opinion bordering on the ridiculous. There are a number of issues there that would require a separate debate but to use it as an argument for hunting, laughable. The fact of the matter is that many decent human beings do not wish to chase or kill wild animals and call it a jolly good day out. As I have said before though, we are all entitled to our opinion and this is one issue where the divide between those for and against cannot possibly be crossed. As such I may well make this my last contribution to this subject and allow others to continue it if they wish. Regards S.P. East Sussex (Ref: FH-R9A) ► Well SP! Still being as pedantic and entrenched as ever Old Thing? The "Dear Sir" was to his MP, I got a copy of it. Easy when you know the answer! I thought that some pedant might pick it up. The funny thing about your letter, is that my pal got similar answers from his MP. Do you really think that I would have to concoct imaginary letters and LIE to protect my interests? I leave that sort of thing to antis. I feel that I have laid a strong enough case - Hunting is good for the countryside and wildlife, it does help the economy, create jobs, is not more cruel than other control measures, is socially enjoyable and a very healthy occupation. We do not threaten families and businesses to get our way, we are not dictators, we are law abiding citizens, unless we are obliged to carry out civil disobedience to correct unjust laws, imposed by injustice through parliamentary act. And we are willing to put ourselves up for punishment after defying unjust law. But I hope that it will never come to that. It seems to me that many antis get the 'thrill of the chase' from 'goading and baiting' decent people. What will they move on to next, if they get hunting abolished? I am sure that they will not stop there! Hitler banned hunting for political reasons, look what happened. I have no truck with badger-baiting and other town-orientated betting 'sports'. Cock fighting was banned because of gambling, and quite right too. I see that our government are to 'ease' gambling laws. Like my friend's MP, you have selected out choice sections to make your flawed case. There is no "popular" demand for a ban, most people could not care less. If there was a popular demand the antis would not have to spend (probably) hundreds of thousands of pounds on mounting campaigns, I'm sure that those at the top of that particular tree are doing quite nicely thank you. I'm sorry that you are not going to carry on with your arguments, I've enjoyed chopping them into little bits (metaphorically speaking of course). I suppose it's a substitute for the "thrill of the chase"! Has Prescott been to cast an eye over your patch of turf yet? Beware of 'building' if he does. But then again, he's probably scared of being met by a bunch of peaceful pro-hunting protestors, like the rest of the ministerial 'countryside managers' that we have in our so-called democracy. They are all very 'foxy' when confronted with the truth. They are probably aware of that old adage - "Beware the anger of a mild man"! Kindest regards, I'll miss you! Original Contributor. (Ref: FH-R9-AA)
► 10.CR in Wiltshire says: Fox hunting has always interested me, in that the arguments are usually insulting and offensive to both parties and yet there is no need. I count myself as knowledgeable in the areas of ecology and conservation, being in my final year for a Master of Environmental Sciences degree, though I am sure that certain contributors will have something to say about this! Yes, I live in the suburbs of a city but that should have no impact on my argument and views. The fact that many of the hunting lobby think that it does suggests that they need to live in the city and see this for themselves! They are always saying that the ‘townies’ don’t know how the countryside operates- perhaps they don’t know how the cities operate?! We are actually no different to them- in fact, in some incidences, we are more educated! This division distracts from the real argument- should hunting be banned? In my mind, yes (that should probably come as no surprise- I am a ‘townie’ after all), but all this talk of alternative methods of control is, I think, needless. Better protection methods for livestock are clearly needed, rather than the ‘simple’ targeting of a species. During the FMD crisis when foxhunting was prohibited throughout the countryside, studies of fox populations showed no significant increase- hunting controls the population does it? Many contributors have themselves said that they kill very few foxes- other methods are far more efficient. But this has already been covered several times. This is my the key question: do foxes actually need to be killed? Hunters say that it is to prevent attacks on livestock. There are several methods that can do this, without needless bloodshed, one being the use of protective (not destructive!) dogs (as previously mentioned). However, if dogs are ‘not to your liking’, how about llamas?! In one meadow 15 minutes walking distance (yes, us townies walk you know) from where I live (quite close to the country, don’t you think?!), the farmer has bought a llama to protect his flock of sheep from ‘marauding’ foxes. Many studies have shown that the extreme territoriality of this animal keep foxes away. As I always say: ‘Get a life, get a llama’!! One further thing that really annoys me about fox-hunting, is the argument that it ‘weeds out’ the sick, injured and elderly from the population- isn’t it such a wonderful job they are doing?! What right do we have to impose this on another species? We don’t ‘weed out’ OUR sick, elderly or injured do we? And all this nonsense about having nothing to control the fox population is rather silly- any ecologist knows that predation is but one factor of population control. What about parasites/ habitat/climate/competition from other foxes (rife among many populations)/disease? You say that wolves controlled the foxes- well what controlled the wolves in that case? Not predation! (sorry, it's a bit long!) (Ref: FH-R10) ► In reply to CR's comments. Llamas, dogs, electric-fences, etc., all play their part. Hunting, shooting, humane trapping, etc., likewise. Population control is beneficial in sustaining a healthy environment regarding all aspects of countryside conservation. It is better to have a healthy population of foxes than one ravaged by disease / parasite infestation / starvation / inbred genetic disorders / etc., surely? Examples of not controlling populations : The Western Isles of Scotland - rats, mink, hedgehogs, red deer. All have caused serious (and often dramatic) deterioration in habitat or indigenous species populations. Look on the UK mainland for other examples, there are plenty of them! For a human example : Easter Island - A taste of things to come? Regarding the benefits of controlling predators - see the web pages of the Game Conservancy Trust. A quick taste from their newsletter : 2004 - Otterburn, "higher breeding success on keepered plots than unkeepered plots particularly for curlew, golden plover and lapwing (between 50 -100% pairs fledged young on the keepered plot, compared to zero pairs fledging young on the unkeepered plots), meadow pipit and red grouse". (AND BEFORE SOME PEDANT JUMPS IN ! - I am talking about the benefits of controlling predators, not just hunting). I think that you will find that some keepers, hunts, and hill farmers reported killing increased numbers of foxes for some time after the F&M disaster. I suspect that the balance has been restored by now. Other methods are more efficient at killing large numbers of foxes, most are non-selective, some can seriously upset the balance of eco-systems. Towns-folk who have sound knowledge and proper understanding of conservation issues are equal to any countryside dweller with that same understanding. Town and countryside folk who do not have that knowledge and understanding are an equal menace to balanced conservation, particularly when they become politically involved. If I might make a personal aside? Thank you for not singling me out for a bath of blood, guts, baiting and barbaric practices. It is a refreshing change. Good luck in your career, our countryside needs people who are willing to enquire, listen, and consider, before acting. (but - that is only my opinion). Kindest regards, Original Contributor. (Ref: FH-R10A) ► CR in Wiltshire comes back with: You say that some populations need to be controlled- you cite hedgehogs, mink and red deer as some examples of what happens when they are not. Hedgehogs are not native to Scottish islands and have drastic effects on ground nesting birds, so I have no problem with some aspect of control. But, we do not go hedgehog hunting do we? Fox-hunting is just a way to have fun whilst ‘controlling’ foxes (something I dispute, but never mind)- they just happen to run quite fast across nice countryside. When you refer to mink, it is the alien American mink that has caused the problem- a slight pattern is emerging here. And red deer were controlled by wolves- I accept all these species need to be controlled and do more harm than good in most cases. They are all problematic because of our meddling- introducing species to where they are not wanted, and killing others. Foxes are only a problem because of the ‘domestication’ of the countryside. There are now few areas where agriculture has not affected it. Your comment that they harm indigenous habitats and species is well founded but not relevant to foxes. They are natives, and so have evolved to live with our environment. The most harm they do is to livestock that are kept in unnatural densities. Whilst they do take native wildlife such as fledgling birds, that is all part of the ecosystem- some losses are to be expected. You mention that a healthy population of foxes is better- why? Every day Nature controls the populations of millions of species through disease, parasitism etc. Why should we single out the fox for this ‘purification’? Why not weed out other ill animals in this way? I do not believe fox hunting is an efficient way to do this, and anyway, I’m sure this ‘honourable’ reason to hunt is not foremost in the minds of the hunters OR the dogs?! What is the benefit to the farmer of having a healthy population of foxes? Surely those that are left will kill even more livestock. Perhaps the effects on livestock losses of weeding out the sick animals is balanced out by the vigour of the remainder? Incidentally, is there any evidence that control of fox populations leads to increased health in the remainder? I would be interested to read it from a scientist’s point of view. (Ref: FH-R10AB)
► When I first started out in the countryside field I worked for a wildlife trust site well known for rare ground breeding birds, studies showed that from the year fox control started (with all other factors remaining the same), fledging success also increased dramatically. Incidentally control in this case was carried out by shooting with a rifle. Details supplied (FH-R10B)
► 11 SW in North Devon says: The answer is simple – don't ban hunting! it is a major part of countryside life and has been around for hundreds of years so part of British heritage. if the government decides to pull over this absurd ban then they have only started more problems. I know for a fact that the hunts group will NOT quit our sport, even with the ridiculous ban. I can only feel anger for the farmers who will have their livestock either attacked or diseased by the pests that roam our countryside. (Ref: FH-R11)
► In reply on 22/2/05 SP East Sussex returns with: I see that despite hunting now being actually illegal, the arrogant gentry of our land still continue to show complete disrespect for passed legislation and democracy. Let us face it, this really is a case of follow the law when it suits. Yes we have heard all their impassioned pleas, their ill founded and often illogical arguments and their pitiful attempts to create a so called division between country and towns folk. Well let me put it to you plainly, you hooray henry's; a law has been passed, we all have to abide by it. It was passed by our elected politicians in a majority vote. That IS democracy, just because you do not like the outcome does not give you the right to ignore it. What if we all start ignoring the legal rights of some of these land owners, walk across their land and completely ignore their request that we stick to public footpaths? Shall we use the argument that it is unfair, so gives us the right to act illegally? I think not, grow up all of you, this has been fairly debated for a lot longer than it ought to have been and you have lost your argument. Take it on the chin and grow up. Fine, if you still want to appeal within the law, that is your right in a democratic society but do not assume it is alright to break the law in the meantime. Compliments to the Countryside Alliance though, they are, at least in public, urging all to stay within the law. They have argued their case in a democratic manner and accept a law has been passed. As to calling a fox a diseased pest that just shows how really ignorant you are sir. Quite frankly, the disease is to be found amongst a minority group trying to hang on to a practice that is barbaric. I am not even going to waste time on that comment. All I would suggest is that you buy a couple of books. One on the basic principles of ecology, the other on foxes. You never know, you might find them actually informative! Finally I still say that it is utter rubbish to say this cruel, now illegal sport is needed to control foxes, there are other ways to cull, when it is necessary. The fact of the matter is that a small element of society still clings to the opportunity to satisfy mankind's most basic instinct. That of satisfying blood lust. As to using the fact that it has been around a long time to justify its continued existence, is equally ridiculous. Many crimes against humans have been around for hundreds of years to; they are illegal because they are wrong. So is fox hunting. (ref: FH-R11-A)
► 12 FS in Lancashire asks: Who on earth has the God given right to chase a fox/rabbit or whatever animal by a pack of dogs???????? If a farmer is having problems with keeping predators away from his stock of animals, then let him set traps for Gods sake!!! I do not agree with riders dressed up to the nines, on horseback with dogs, scaring the life out of an animal. The Countryside Alliance DO NOT I repeat - DO NOT any any right whatsoever to do this!! What is the world coming to? Please all you hunters out there...get a life!! (Ref: FH-R12)
► 13 Why don't these arrogant toffs understand that murdering animals for fun is considered unacceptable by the majority. It is the majority that decide what is acceptable. The majority has spoken. This is called democracy. If they don't want to live in a democracy then they can sod off to China or Korea and see what fun life is in a non-democracy. Frankly murdering animals for fun is what makes these people such vile pigs. If they persist then perhaps the majority could consider hunting them for sport. That would be justice! Details Supplied. (Ref: FH-R13)
► 14 The hunting mammals with dogs legislation is more a social engineering issue than animal welfare, specifically for the benefit of Labour Party back benchers. How else would you explain the many contradictions in both the Bill and government approach to specific animal issues. Under the Bill you can hunt a rat, but not a mouse; a rabbit, but not a hare. Why does the fox deserve protection but the rat and rabbit must take their chance? Government agencies also seem to be confused when it comes to considering the welfare issues which Labour MP's used to justify the legislation. The Bateson Committee reported on levels of stress in hunted Exmoor deer measured through blood samples. Blood profiles were used to indicate levels of stress which were unacceptable to MP's, and The National Trust. During a recent deer reduction exercise by The Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS) in Glenfeshie, Highland, helicopters were used before the deer where shot. Blood profiles (stress levels) from the use of helicopters would have produced an interesting comparison with hunted deer. Government monies are used for the purpose of habitat protection, which includes a reduction in deer numbers. Stress levels considered unacceptable when hunting cannot be acceptable for environmental purposes if the issue is animal welfare. Details supplied (Ref: FH-R14) ► In reply on 2/3/05 - Comparing the 'rights' and welfare of different animals is total hypocrisy. Animals bred for slaughter or produce suffer no less discomfort or stress than a hunted fox or deer. I am not a vegetarian. I do not speak for the welfare of the fox. Why do people go fox hunting? pest control? sustaining a piece of heritage?. Young boys are known to pull the legs off crane flys to see what happens. Are they conducting valuable scientific research? of course not and so we discourage that sort of behaviour. People hunt foxes because it is fun. Its looks damn good fun charging around on horseback dressed up all smart, all the noise, smart dogs all your mates! But in good conscience should we killing for fun? No. Details Supplied. (Ref: FH-R14A)
► 15 CP in North Yorkshire says: Toffs, Hooray Henries, dressed up to the nines perfect examples of the real reason behind the ban. Nothing to do with animal welfare more to do with class warfare – as admitted by certain Labour backbenchers. Although the ban was forced through Parliament by a majority of MPs, can those same MPs really say they were representing their constituents? I know mine didn't despite a large amount of correspondence. During the first weekend of the ban it was proved that this is unenforceable and despite massive police presence not a single arrest was made. During that same weekend countless arrests of rioting football 'fans' were made outside football grounds, so I suggest that on public order grounds and for the general safety of the public at large we move to ban football. Returning to the original article I live in a rural area which had a healthy population of foxes (if you ignore the dumped urban specimens but that's another story entirely) kept under control by the local hunt. For various reasons the hunt moved to different grounds and the main method of control was switched to lamping. Now our fox population is virtually zero. Good news for farmers, gamekeepers, ground nesting birds, small mammals etc but disastrous for foxes. I will watch with interest the reports of fox population sizes in the future. (ref: FH-R15) ►SP, East Sussex returns to the board with: In response to C.P. from Yorkshire, here is a typical example of sour grapes at it's most ridiculous. The comment on football is utterly irrelevant; of course the behaviour of some football fans is inexcusable. But let us face it this is not analogous in any way whatsoever. Persons opposed to hunting are not saying that it is the behaviour of the few that are at fault and so should we therefore ban hunting. But are instead, arguing that it is hunting itself that is wrong and so should be banned. If you are going to try and come up with analogies to support your argument, at least try and think of something half sensible and not half baked! As to no arrests last weekend proving the ban un-enforceable, what utter tosh! The reason no arrests were made was that no law was seen to be broken, you know perfectly well that the hunting ban does not prevent hounds being exercised. At least quote facts and not nonsense that is purely designed to deceive. As to this being a class issue and not an animal welfare one, equal tosh. Ask most people why they are opposed to hunting and one of the fist words they will come with is cruelty. Is this not pertinent to animal welfare? As to democracy, you admit yourself that there was a majority. That is democracy at work. If more persons were in favour of hunting then they should have lobbied their M.P more to vote against the ban when the opportunity was there. The fact that this did not happen seems to suggest your argument to be flawed. I look forward to more from the glutos maximus of the hunting lobby. As to someone elses comment about animals being reared for food, I agree completely. That is why I do not eat meat. (Ref: FH-R15A) ► In reply CP returns with: Mere smoke screen SP, my comment about football was aimed at those people denigrating this sport with names like toffs etc a case of the biter bit perhaps. What about an answer to my main and very serious point – that of the loss of foxes now that my area no longer had an active hunt and that foxes are being managed by lamping. The reason the ban is unenforceable is precisely because you cannot stop hound exercise and drag hunting which cannot be distinguished from real hunting until the fox is dead and then it's still allowed if it was killed by accident and not intentionally. In other words if the hounds deviate from the laid drag trail or find a fox on exercise and then do what comes naturally the huntsman cannot be blamed unless intent can be proved – which most courts (in all cases not just with regard to fox hunting) find very difficult if not impossible to do. I'm not sure where in the world you hail from but I'm willing to bet it's not deep in the countryside. I know from reading your previous pieces that you feel you have an understanding of the countryside and you might know the theory with some 'day release' experience but until you've lived among and listened to 'real' country folk - those that can count four or more generations of working of the land (this doesn't include me I'm still counted as an incomer here!) – you can't possibly understand their reaction to your idea of land and wildlife management and conservation. Like it or not the fox (and to some the badger too) is regarded as a pest to be destroyed wherever possible. The hunt actually allowed the fox to survive. It was a visible means of control, for the country people the more visible the better. Now that means of control is no longer there it's all out war, no closed season and any fox is fair game for rifle, shotgun or trap at any time. You must admit that a healthy fox is likely to outrun or outwit the hounds and live to see another day, it doesn't matter how healthy or fit the fox is against a rifle – it's dead. I refuse to believe hunting is any more cruel than mother nature. From birth all wild animals are watching out for their skins and are chased / hunted by other animals on a regular basis. When foxes are hunted, they are killed quickly after the chase, which most foxes win the less able, the ailing, the old individuals are the ones that don't. To the casual observer it looks brutal seeing a fox torn apart by the hounds but this is a dead carcass, the lead hound has the privilege of killing the fox (that's why they run to be first) which is done immediately the fox is caught. A shot and wounded fox suffers far more (no shot can claim to be 100% accurate every time and if they do then they are not to be trusted). 'Humane' traps are no such thing, any animal caught in a trap has a long terrified wait to find out it's fate – how many mice are tipped out dead from humane traps having died of fright? In response to your comments about democracy, this was not a true majority, a majority in one House does not and should not out weigh the Majority in the other. Total votes from BOTH Houses di |
