Hunting ban to remain in place during 2011

23 Sep 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Well, actually, if its a feral cat yes you can.

well how would you or most peeple know whether a cat was feral or not? kill it and then find out after wards that it was in fact a family pet?

Quote by Bluefish2009
Also, Cats have less protection in law than dogs and if, for instance, you run one over you are not obliged to report the matter to police as you are with a dog.

actually that is not true. yes you should report a dog that has been run over, but cats are allowed to roam where ever they like.( free spirits the law describes it as ), a dog cannot. a cat can come into your garden and cause damage and they are not covered under law, where by a dog would be. so your statement is not correct. the cat is also covered under the same cruelty laws as a dog would be. in fact cats it seems has more protection in law than a dog.
check the animal act of 1971.

Quote by Bluefish2009
"wildlife Management" We live in an overpopulated island where those that look afrter the countryside have to balance the needs of wildlife with the needs of people.

ah right so the country side are allowed there own rules and laws? yes we are over populated as an island, but over populated with humans, not foxes.

Quote by Bluefish2009
Yes humans are destructive, and destroy many animals at will, many for your Sunday Roast, unless you are a vegan of coarse.

we would hope that the sunday roast slaughter is done humanely and properly unlike the slaughter of the fox. ripped to pieces by dogs and can take up to five minutes to die.

Quote by Bluefish2009
I also get great joy from foxes, we have more common ground than I thought

sorry bluefish i think we have very little in common.:notes:

23 Sep 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
If you believe more foxes are alive now then you believe it

i do believe it for this reeson.

Quote by the author
" Foxhunting is now illegal in Britain, in Scotland since 2002 and in England and Wales since 2005 "

Quote by the author
" Is it illegal to kill foxes in Britain?
No, it isn't.
Foxes can be killed within the methods permitted by the law. The Hunting Act 2004 only prohibits the use of dogs to kill wild mammals, including foxes ".

which i would take to meen that less foxes are being killed.

Quote by the author
"The Hunting Act 2004 was enacted to prevent some forms of cruelty to foxes, nothing else. Before the Act came into force in February 2005, foxhunts killed foxes in one of two ways: roughly half were chased until they went to ground, after which they were dug out with terriers. This was particularly cruel; the underground battles between terrier and fox could be protracted, with extreme digs lasting many hours or days, and severe injuries were often inflicted on both animals. The rest of the foxes were caught above ground by the hounds.

sounds very nice.

Quote by the author
There is a myth that, once caught, the hounds killed the fox by a quick nip to the back of the neck: this is not true. Dogs kill larger prey by repeatedly biting it until the animal is disembowelled or dies from its injuries. A pack of dogs normally tears smaller prey apart. Being torn apart by a pack of hounds was probably fairly quick, although if the fox was caught by just one or two hounds death was generally slower. Also, since the fox was often chased to the point of exhaustion, there was cruelty in the chase itself, particularly as the fox started to tire.

:thumbup:

Quote by the author
So the Hunting Act 2004 was an animal welfare measure designed to end these practices

and rightly so.
here is the full article.

23 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

Well, actually, if its a feral cat yes you can.

well how would you or most peeple know whether a cat was feral or not? kill it and then find out after wards that it was in fact a family pet?

Quote by Bluefish2009
Also, Cats have less protection in law than dogs and if, for instance, you run one over you are not obliged to report the matter to police as you are with a dog.

Quote by Bluefish2009
"wildlife Management" We live in an overpopulated island where those that look afrter the countryside have to balance the needs of wildlife with the needs of people.

ah right so the country side are allowed there own rules and laws? yes we are over populated as an island, but over populated with humans, not foxes.
Yes over populated with humains, that what I said, dont see yourpoint

Quote by Bluefish2009
Yes humans are destructive, and destroy many animals at will, many for your Sunday Roast, unless you are a vegan of coarse.

we would hope that the sunday roast slaughter is done humanely and properly unlike the slaughter of the fox. ripped to pieces by dogs and can take up to five minutes to die.
Then you know as little about the meat industry as you do about the countryside

Quote by Bluefish2009
I also get great joy from foxes, we have more common ground than I thought

sorry bluefish i think we have very little in common.:notes:
No need for sorry

23 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

If you believe more foxes are alive now then you believe it

i do believe it for this reeson.

Quote by the author
" Foxhunting is now illegal in Britain, in Scotland since 2002 and in England and Wales since 2005 "

Quote by the author
" Is it illegal to kill foxes in Britain?
No, it isn't.
Foxes can be killed within the methods permitted by the law. The Hunting Act 2004 only prohibits the use of dogs to kill wild mammals, including foxes ".

which i would take to meen that less foxes are being killed.

Quote by the author
"The Hunting Act 2004 was enacted to prevent some forms of cruelty to foxes, nothing else. Before the Act came into force in February 2005, foxhunts killed foxes in one of two ways: roughly half were chased until they went to ground, after which they were dug out with terriers. This was particularly cruel; the underground battles between terrier and fox could be protracted, with extreme digs lasting many hours or days, and severe injuries were often inflicted on both animals. The rest of the foxes were caught above ground by the hounds.

sounds very nice.

Quote by the author
There is a myth that, once caught, the hounds killed the fox by a quick nip to the back of the neck: this is not true. Dogs kill larger prey by repeatedly biting it until the animal is disembowelled or dies from its injuries. A pack of dogs normally tears smaller prey apart. Being torn apart by a pack of hounds was probably fairly quick, although if the fox was caught by just one or two hounds death was generally slower. Also, since the fox was often chased to the point of exhaustion, there was cruelty in the chase itself, particularly as the fox started to tire.

:thumbup:

Quote by the author
So the Hunting Act 2004 was an animal welfare measure designed to end these practices

and rightly so.
here is the full article.

The hunting act has not stopped hunting, it has not saved a single fox, those that may have not been hunted will have been shot. Below are the facts for you for a second time.
It is legal to chase wild mammals out of cover using dogs as long as only two dogs are used and “reasonable steps” are taken to ensure the animal is shot.
It is illegal to use three hounds to flush out an animal and a second offence is committed if there is no intention to shoot it.
It legal to use a terrier underground to flush out a fox and kill it in order to protect birds to be shot for sport – e.g. pheasants.
It is illegal to use exactly the same method to protect farm livestock or a rare species.
It is legal to hunt a rabbit with dogs.
It is illegal to hunt a hare with dogs.
It is legal to hunt a hare that has already been shot and wounded.
It is illegal to hunt a fox that has already been shot and wounded.
It is legal to hunt a rat with dogs.
It is illegal to hunt a mouse with dog.
Many people other than I also dissagree with the cruelty issues you rase, including many vet's, the veterinary association and many scientist's

A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds
"Hunting with hounds is the natural and most humane way of controlling the population of all four quarry species, fox, deer, hare and mink, in the countryside"
Supported by over 520 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons - Endorsed by 63% of rural vets in NOP Survey of 1OOO RCVS members
Wild animals are used to hunting or being hunted. They are adapted to it by evolution. What might be a devastating experience for man or even a domestic animal is part of normal daily life in the wild
Wild (and domestic animals) are almost certainly without the relevant parts of the brain necessary to perceive the human concepts of death and fear
For the major part of any hunt the quarry is under no abnormal stress
Stress in the short final stage of a hunt is equivalent to no more than that of strenuous exercise
The kill is almost instantaneous and above all certain
Stress induced analgesia will mitigate or eliminate any pain
Hunting leaves no wounded or damaged survivors
Quarry that evade hounds rapidly return to normal behaviour
Hunting performs a vital search and dispatch function for the weak and sick

23 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i do believe it for this reeson.
" Foxhunting is now illegal in Britain, in Scotland since 2002 and in England and Wales since 2005 "

Quote by the author
" Is it illegal to kill foxes in Britain?
No, it isn't.
Foxes can be killed within the methods permitted by the law. The Hunting Act 2004 only prohibits the use of dogs to kill wild mammals, including foxes ".

which i would take to meen that less foxes are being killed.
I can see why you assume that there are more foxes alive but unfortunately you don't seem to grasp wildlife husbandry.
Not killing animals just means they over populate and eventually starve, a very long suffering death. Within Nottingham we have a country park with X amount of deer in it. X amount of deer divided into Y amount of land allows the herd to be healthy. So they cull the numbers down every year i.e. however many calfs then they knock off same number of the 1-2 year old stags.
Same applies to foxes and other wild animals. Animal/country/wildlife husbandry is a necessary evil that shapes our "natural" environment within the UK.
So the banning of hunting has not let the population of foxes increase, they are just disposed of by other means.
So next time you feed the cute little wildlife you could be encouraging a false environment for them to breed and overpopulate to eventually lead to starvation. In my mind your actions are worse than the hunters as their kill is quick where starvation is slow and lingering
Dave_Notts

24 Sep 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
I can see why you assume that there are more foxes alive but unfortunately you don't seem to grasp wildlife husbandry.
Not killing animals just means they over populate and eventually starve, a very long suffering death. Within Nottingham we have a country park with X amount of deer in it. X amount of deer divided into Y amount of land allows the herd to be healthy. So they cull the numbers down every year i.e. however many calfs then they knock off same number of the 1-2 year old stags.
Same applies to foxes and other wild animals. Animal/country/wildlife husbandry is a necessary evil that shapes our "natural" environment within the UK.
So the banning of hunting has not let the population of foxes increase, they are just disposed of by other means.
So next time you feed the cute little wildlife you could be encouraging a false environment for them to breed and overpopulate to eventually lead to starvation. In my mind your actions are worse than the hunters as their kill is quick where starvation is slow and lingering
Dave_Notts

thanks very much for your opinions mr notts and am glad you wrote " in my mind ".
but for me that is all it is, your opinion . that does not make you right every time you give it.
i think you are wrong. i think bluefish is wrong but can understand his arguments as he has been surrounded with this kind of thinking all of his life, hence his strong feelings.
i supplied a very good link with very relevant answers from an established author on the subject, yet you still beleeve your argument.
that is fine but i have to say that some of your replies actualy have a large chunk of patronising attached to them.

Quote by Dave__Notts
So next time you feed the cute little wildlife you could be encouraging a false environment for them to breed and overpopulate to eventually lead to starvation. In my mind your actions are worse than the hunters as their kill is quick where starvation is slow and lingering

i will continue to feed the birds that come into my garden along with the fox and her cubs when that happens.
the local council around here do not seem to think there is a problem with the over population of foxes, in fact by your argument the not culling of the fox by my local council will surely leed to over population and then starvation??
somehow with foxes living amongst us i do not see a starving fox in the inner cities. can you prove that foxes in inner cities are starving and about to die through over population and starvation? or is it only the little poor foxes in the countryside that need to be hunted down by men in red on big horses with dogs, that are thge only ones that need culling through over population and possible starvation?
funny how i have never seen a pack of dogs or the men in red high on there horses chasing a fox through central london!
the hunting of foxes in the country side is just a way of blood sport and the giving of lame arguments about over population and possible starvation, is a ploy to try and satisfy the doubters that they are doing the fox a favour. sorry wrong person to try and justify that argument with i am afraid.

24 Sep 2011

another very good read.
"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" is how Oscar Wilde described the past time of fox hunting, and whilst Wilde's humour was ever based in rhetorical wit, his observation here is nothing less than accurate.
:thumbup:

24 Sep 2011

For me its quite simple;
I do not want to see people gaining fun out of inflicting pain and killing animals. I fully accept that we have to manage and control certain animals including foxes, deer and rabbits. I live on the edge of Cannock Chase and every year the Forestry Commission employ a team of professionals to cull the deer population. Its not a nice thought, but in the end, I do understand it, and I am happy that it is at least done by trained proffessionals. The idea that a fox is chased for a number of miles by a pack of dogs, and then ripped to pieces by the said same dogs, purely for the enjoyment of a few, is something I find does not fit into a modern progressive society. Manage the fox population, by all means, but do it in a humane and professional way.

24 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
somehow with foxes living amongst us i do not see a starving fox in the inner cities. can you prove that foxes in inner cities are starving and about to die through over population and starvation?

Firstly, I have no problem with people feeding urban foxes, that is up to them, however, I would not wish to live near to them. I think it would be difficult for us to provide evidence of staving foxes, but would suspect it happens. Foxes are very territorial and the old, injured and sick are moved on very quickly by the young and healthy. This may provide the answer as to why you do not see them. For every person who may say urban foxes are not starving there are those who say they are;

There is currently a problem of some well meaning but misguided activist,s that are trapping the urban fox, then taking them to the countryside for release. These foxes do not know how to hunt and are normally found starving and cowering in a barn.
there are many other reasons I would not personally like to feed foxes and here are a few;
He has survived rowing across the Atlantic, skiing across the Antarctic and countless other adventures relatively unscathed.
But TV presenter Ben Fogle has met his match in the shape of an urban fox.
He injured himself while trying to defend his pet dog Inca from the animal in London. this week.
Fogle revealed on Twitter that he injured his leg while trying to stop the fox getting to his dog.
He tweeted: 'Still limping from being chased by a London fox last night. It was after my old dog Inca. I should clarify that I quite like foxes, just not this one.'
Fears have been increasing over the danger posed by urban foxes, after a series of high profile attacks.
Last month ambulance driver Tammy Page of Worthing, Sussex, had the end of her finger bitten off by a ferocious for that crept into her house - through her cat flap.
In June last year nine-month-old twins Lola and Isabella Koupparis were savaged by a fox at their home in East London.
Their mother Pauline, 41, told how the animal crept in and mauled the babies in their cot leaving them with horrific injuries and scars for life.
The same month, Jake Jermy, 3, was bitten on the arm at a playgroup party in Brighton when he reached under a prefab school building where a fox family had been living for some time.
The following month, Natasha David, 33, from Fulham, West London, told how a fox entered her house and bit her while she lay in bed - twice in a week.
from here:
Less obvious than an actual attack is the equally real danger of disease, foxes can carry several unpleasant diseases that are transmissible to man and domestic animals. Like mange, leptospirosis, canine distemper, and certain tapeworms. Mange is a very real hazard and is on the increase through Southern England and the West Midlands. Foxes with mange are, despite your experience, quite common in London and is awful for the animal, often leading to a slow death.
Parasitic lungworms are a problem and one in particular, angiostrongylus vasorum, which is contracted by eating slugs and snails, can be passed on to dogs. If untreated, the condition can be fatal. Our local vet informed me that cases of infected dogs have doubled in the last 30 years.
A more worrying disease, Alveolar echinococcosis, has been moving towards the UK via the Red fox in Europe, the numbers of which have increased due to the successful rabies control programme. The disease can affect humans if the eggs of the tapeworm are ingested and is frequently fatal with massive liver failure after the lengthy incubation period.
Maybe the rioter in the back garden is a better prospect than the fox after all. My hope is your neighbours do not have children, or if they do they are made to wash there hands after playing in the garden!

24 Sep 2011

Quote by deancannock
For me its quite simple;
I do not want to see people gaining fun out of inflicting pain and killing animals. I fully accept that we have to manage and control certain animals including foxes, deer and rabbits. I live on the edge of Cannock Chase and every year the Forestry Commission employ a team of professionals to cull the deer population. Its not a nice thought, but in the end, I do understand it, and I am happy that it is at least done by trained proffessionals. The idea that a fox is chased for a number of miles by a pack of dogs, and then ripped to pieces by the said same dogs, purely for the enjoyment of a few, is something I find does not fit into a modern progressive society. Manage the fox population, by all means, but do it in a humane and professional way.

I do understand you emotive argument Dean, but i feel you miss-understand the way hunting works.
Firstly hunting with hounds is not primarily done for fun, the huntsman is there purely to do his job. Way behind him mounted on horse back is the Field, they are there for a days riding on horse back, that is where they get there fun, as following the hunt is a demanding ride. They then pay the hunt for that privilege which in turn pays the huntsman's wages and allows him to do his job for the farmer. A hunt can not just charge anywhere over farming land, they have to have the permission of the farmer and in most cases are invited by the farmer. The hunt and followers can cause damage to hedges and farm crops, so the farmer must believe that the job they provide is worth the trouble. The hunts man may well get job satisfaction from his job just as the professionals you talk of that cull animals near to you do also.
The fox is chased and many eminent people will argue just as strongly as you, that in the wild this is not a cruel act.

The Government enquiry into hunting with hounds produced a 'not guilty' verdict, its Chairman, Lord Burns, said in the House of Lords: "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty".
Also yes the fox is ultimately killed by the hounds, despite myths by animal right groups this is most often very quick indeed. It is at this point I would add that the one thing we can be sure of is it does result in one of two things, either death or freedom, no log lingering death which can happen even when professionals are involved with other methods.
In his television interview, Tony Blair, our priminister at the time said, "I'm not particularly in favour of foxhunting myself, but in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have gone down this path." He goes on to say, "I started to understand that this was more complicated than a bunch of toffs running around hunting foxes... It's not my finest hour in policy making." A startling revelation and one that should lead peopl to reveiw the facts. I have found that when many open minded people sit down and really study the facts they draw very different conclusions. This in my view was why Tony Bliar soften his opinion.

24 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
the hunting of foxes in the country side is just a way of blood sport and the giving of lame arguments about over population and possible starvation, is a ploy to try and satisfy the doubters that they are doing the fox a favour. sorry wrong person to try and justify that argument with i am afraid.

So perhaps if you were a fell farmer, loosing lambs to foxes, loosing what little profit you may get, taking the food from your family mouth, you would allow that to continue

24 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

another very good read.
"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" is how Oscar Wilde described the past time of fox hunting, and whilst Wilde's humour was ever based in rhetorical wit, his observation here is nothing less than accurate.
:thumbup:

From your link;
Foxes attack farmers chickens and sheep...Really, that's unfortunate for those chickens, and those sheep, but thats nature. I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for people who raise animals for the slaughter for profit.
Really, how would you suggest we feed the nation then?

24 Sep 2011

have a look at the Burns enquiry.
one part of it says.
Hunting "seriously compromises the welfare" of foxes .
many times the issue of banning fox hunting has arisen. the only reeson a total ban was not taken in 1997 when a massive Commons majority passed its second reeding but the government refused to give it any more parlimenatry time. four months later it was " talked out " leading mr foster to withdraw the bill.
what i think is that it will only be a matter of time before a government ban it completely. i beleeve that day will come.
it is only in force because of the governments inabilty to act on what parliament wanted when they voted for an outright ban with a huge majority.
the day will eventually come i am sure of that when hunting foxes for sport will be banned for ever, only this time it will be passed as law and not out talked by a few peeple from the countryside alliance who happened to be mp's at the time.
well there is democracy for you.

24 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
thanks very much for your opinions mr notts and am glad you wrote " in my mind ".
but for me that is all it is, your opinion . that does not make you right every time you give it.
i think you are wrong. i think bluefish is wrong but can understand his arguments as he has been surrounded with this kind of thinking all of his life, hence his strong feelings.
i supplied a very good link with very relevant answers from an established author on the subject, yet you still beleeve your argument.
that is fine but i have to say that some of your replies actualy have a large chunk of patronising attached to them.
i will continue to feed the birds that come into my garden along with the fox and her cubs when that happens.
the local council around here do not seem to think there is a problem with the over population of foxes, in fact by your argument the not culling of the fox by my local council will surely leed to over population and then starvation??
somehow with foxes living amongst us i do not see a starving fox in the inner cities. can you prove that foxes in inner cities are starving and about to die through over population and starvation? or is it only the little poor foxes in the countryside that need to be hunted down by men in red on big horses with dogs, that are thge only ones that need culling through over population and possible starvation?
funny how i have never seen a pack of dogs or the men in red high on there horses chasing a fox through central london!
the hunting of foxes in the country side is just a way of blood sport and the giving of lame arguments about over population and possible starvation, is a ploy to try and satisfy the doubters that they are doing the fox a favour. sorry wrong person to try and justify that argument with i am afraid.

You don't read my posts do you. Where in the post does it defend hunting per se? So throwing in a flipant remark about red coats in London, lame arguments, poor country foxes is just plain old waffle. You said the local council is not culling them so there can't be a problem. It is not the councils responsibility, so why should they care about it. They do not care if foxes live, die or starve. So you feed your foxes and give yourself a pat on the back, but messing with the animal leads to a false environment. These actions are for selfish reasons and not for the good of the animal, so they come under the same banner as hunters for fun for the death of animals as far as I am concerned.
You stated that "not culling the fox by my local council will surely leed to over population and then starvation??" I said no such thing Star. I said that your actions will lead to a false environment by having a plentiful food supply. This will lead to better health for the fox you feed. This will encourage breeding. The cubs will reach adulthood and try to find their own living areas, but there may not be an adequate food supply so they die of starvation. If you left them, then nature would find a way of keeping the numbers down for the environment they live in. So think next time you feed the cute little fox, that you are not causing pain and suffering for future generations of foxes
Dave_Notts

24 Sep 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
You stated that "not culling the fox by my local council will surely leed to over population and then starvation??" I said no such thing Star. I said that your actions will lead to a false environment by having a plentiful food supply. This will lead to better health for the fox you feed. This will encourage breeding. The cubs will reach adulthood and try to find their own living areas, but there may not be an adequate food supply so they die of starvation. If you left them, then nature would find a way of keeping the numbers down for the environment they live in. So think next time you feed the cute little fox, that you are not causing pain and suffering for future generations of foxes
Dave_Notts

once again just your opinion mr notts.
as i have said alredy show me a starving fox in inner cities.
nature has its own way of deeling with the sick and old animal. feeding a fox in my back garden will have no affect at all on the fox population in my area. it just meens a few foxes will have to hunt a bit less for some food. hardly changing the enviroment of the fox population mr notts is it?
as i have alredy said mr notts, because you have an opinion does not make you right every time. i challenge you to find starving foxes in say london or even in your home city.
but that is not reely the point now is it? the point is that fox hunting with a pack of dogs is now not allowed. many peeple beleeve that the hunting of the fox for fun should be banned full stop. it was not banned for the reeson i have alredy given in that two country side mp's talked it out of the commons and so did not become law even though the house voted to ban it with a huge majority. but the day will come when it is banned.
as for the fox coming into my back garden every yeer, she will continue to be fed as her cubs will be. with a few bits of bacon and a couple of sausages.
it in my opinion will make no differance at all to the well being of the fox population or its ability to hunt and to find food. they are very adaptable animals. unfortunatly not clever enough to out fox a pack of dogs.
there is nothing else to say on this matter. i know in my own mind who is morally right.
so on that basis i bid you farewell.

24 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
they are very adaptable animals. unfortunatly not clever enough to out fox a pack of dogs.

As with most of your statements this one is also incorrect, almost every time a healthy fox will escape the fox pack.

26 Sep 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I cant see the hunting with dogs act being repealed......too many politically correct tree huggers in politics.

I fear you are correct, however I do hope that some day it could happen.
The first thing to remeber is that fox hunting has not actually been banned at all, fox hunting has been changed by the Hunting Act, but it can still carry on legally!

Quote by goodporking
I, for my part, will continue to despatch in excess of 150 foxes and several hundred rabbits per year as well as numerous deer.

From what you say here I would guess that you are more involved in what I would call pest control which can be a vital role, and I fully support you right to do so.
However, I see the role that hunting with hounds performs more as, "wildlife management" the former can mean, killing as many as possible; the latter seeks to maintain a population in a healthy state in numbers that are acceptable to human and other conservation interests.
Very much wildlife management vs pest control.
Deer management groups discuss deer populations across large areas, not just individual plots of land, and develop a cull plan to keep deer both plentiful yet not over populated within that area.
Foxes are shot on sight and I have NEVER seen a reduction in their numbers each year. the worst ones to shoot are the poor stupid city foxes live captured then released near one of the pheasant woods close by, they just stand there bewildered and starving because they have no idea how to hunt for themselves.
Rabbits likewise are shot in large numbers yet every year they bounce back with this year being an exceptional one in terms of their numbers (high numbers that is)
everything I shoot, except foxes/corvids goes into the food chain.

27 Sep 2011

Quote by goodporking
Foxes are shot on sight and I have NEVER seen a reduction in their numbers each year.

That does beg the question Goodporking what's the point of shooting them then, if you're having no impact on population year on year? Seems an exercise in futility given that fox populations are self-regulating, and are determined by food supply and available territory. If farmers want to earn a living by raising animals in unnaturally large numbers ((( pheasants for instance aren't a native species, and wouldn't be there at all unless they were farmed. ))) on their land that form part of a food chain with foxes somewhere near the top, then surely they have to accept that an increased fox population will be an inevitable and natural consequence of their choices. i.e. those who choose to manage land devoted to rearing game birds are directly responsible for the number of foxes on their land, and to some extent, the number of foxes on their neighbours land.
They can't then turn round and whinge about all these bloody foxes, or complain when they lose a small part of their stock to them. With game birds in particular they can't even convincingly put forward the argument that they have to manage fox numbers so as to effectively manage our food supply because game birds aren't even primarily reared for food - they are reared to be shot by those who can afford to pay a grand a day for the 'privelege'.
N x x x ;)

27 Sep 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Foxes are shot on sight and I have NEVER seen a reduction in their numbers each year.

That does beg the question Goodporking what's the point of shooting them then, if you're having no impact on population year on year? Seems an exercise in futility given that fox populations are self-regulating, and are determined by food supply and available territory.
This is why, for me I prefer hunting with hounds to control fox numbers. If a farmer has stock killed by a fox it is almost always an old, sick or injured fox which has been pushed out of his prime hunting areas by younger fitter foxes, he is often then forced to look for an easy fenced or penned in meal. Often they will not just take what they need and get into a killing frenzy.
These foxes can often be tracked from the kill by the hounds, also hunting this way is selective, as the hound catch mainly the old sick and injured, leaving the young and fit to escape. Hounds either catch their quarry or they escape.
To do the same job with a gun, every fox seen has to be shot and hope you get the trouble some fox!

Quote by neilinleeds
If farmers want to earn a living by raising animals in unnaturally large numbers ((( pheasants for instance aren't a native species, and wouldn't be there at all unless they were farmed. ))) on their land that form part of a food chain with foxes somewhere near the top, then surely they have to accept that an increased fox population will be an inevitable and natural consequence of their choices. i

It is not always about having unnaturally large numbers of animal in an area (although this is of coarse a problem, but that is more about the way we as shopper do our shopping, rather than the farmers fault, the more we buy cheaper and cheaper foods from the supermarket, the more the farmer is forced into factory type farming to make his living) It could be equally about the fell/hill, sheep farmer who will find it very difficult to protect his stock.
Anyone who has a pheasant shoot will only expect to shoot 50% of the birds put down in the first place. The rest are lost to predation, fly away,walk away or just escape being shot at all.

Quote by neilinleeds
They can't then turn round and whinge about all these bloody foxes, or complain when they lose a small part of their stock to them. With game birds in particular they can't even convincingly put forward the argument that they have to manage fox numbers so as to effectively manage our food supply because game birds aren't even primarily reared for food - they are reared to be shot by those who can afford to pay a grand a day for the 'privelege'.

Not all shoots are run by large estates, there are many small shoot and ones like I attend which has been run by the same family for the past 100 or so years, they are a syndicate of local people all from working backgrounds. There shooting only cost's them the price of the polts, food, land rent, plus there time ect.
But just like the big shoots, all the pheasants do enter the food chain. I have not heard them moaning, but if they come accross a fox while out they would not leave him to have his fill.
You may find this video of interst regarding fell farming and hounds;

27 Sep 2011

i will let others here decide whether fox hunting is cruel or not. watch the video and listen to the noises the hounds make.
i care nothing for the fact it is to keep the fox population down. poppycock and tally ho to that argument.
cruel cruel and unnecessary.
i struggled to watch the video of this " sport " so beware.

27 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i will let others here decide whether fox hunting is cruel or not. watch the video and listen to the noises the hounds make.
i care nothing for the fact it is to keep the fox population down. poppycock and tally ho to that argument.
cruel cruel and unnecessary.
i struggled to watch the video of this " sport " so beware.

Looks to me like some hounds eating there food, just like you eat your beef on Sunday. there dinner is dead, just like your was, they killed it, you got some one else to kill yours. Not sure the noise they make is really relevant.
Very little to see here really!
cruel cruel and unnecessary, in your view, very necessary in my view

27 Sep 2011

1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots

27 Sep 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots

:thumbup::thumbup:
well said mr staggers.

28 Sep 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots

Welcome back to the debate Stags, having debated this one with you before, when we really got down to the nitty gritty of things, it was less about animal welfare and more about a bit of Toff bashing, below is a little reminder for you.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I freely admit that I see this as a class thing ,I'm happy to admit that a major part in my opposition to fox hunting is a desire to fuck with the gentry.

Even so, you raise some good point's that are worth debating.
1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
I see it more as a partner ship between man and beast, some thing we have done for millennia. If we must call them a weapon, as a weapon they either catch their quarry, or it escapes, they never injure, they are a perfet weapon. I can not imagine any other way that might mimic nature more closely.
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
I am surprised at you Stags with this one, you must have listening to your best friends the press who have been lead astray by animal right groups. This is almost certainly propaganda trotted out by animal rights groups. What they are talking of is, “artificial earths”, they are used for many reasons, rather than me cut and paste lots of stuff, here is a link to explain there use;
The only persons to do such things to my knowledge are animal welfare groups, and charity’s, take a look at this video to see what I talk of;
Lastly on this one, there are strict rules in place on these earths, if hunts are found to be miss-using them, then they should face the music, simple. I suspect, just like every other walk of life there are the good and the bad.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots
First, hunts are professional hunters!
Any damage caused by the hunt, is repaired by the hunt. In fact, they do far more work to maintain ancient hedges than you imagine, in many case’s the hedges would simply not be there any more if it were not for them, they like to jump them, so would not see them go un-maintained. In fact they provide a great deal of services for our farmers. One very vital one is the free collection of fallen stock. In fact it is quite the opposite, many hedges and ancient woodlands are still here because of country pursuits, without the income they provide they would have been cut down and used in modern farming years ago. A stark warning for future generations.
Now we get to the crux it your argument Stags, your distaste for the upper class, to my mind, this has little or no bearing on fox welfare what so ever.
Tony Blair said, “I’m not particularly in favour of foxhunting myself, but in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have gone down this path.” He goes on to say, “I started to understand that this was more complicated than a bunch of toffs running around hunting foxes… It’s not my finest hour in policy making.” :thumbup:

28 Sep 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Tony Blair said, “I’m not particularly in favour of foxhunting myself, but in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have gone down this path.” He goes on to say, “I started to understand that this was more complicated than a bunch of toffs running around hunting foxes… It’s not my finest hour in policy making.” :thumbup:

you cannot be seriusly bringing up this mans comments as evidence of something that is right?
fuck he could not even tell the truth about weapons of mass destruction and forced us into war. the man could not spot the worst financial disaster in living memory, and allowed uncontrolled imigration into the uk for years, to prove a point.
yet you want us to take on board this mans comments?
i would have thought you could have given a better example than this lying conniving scum bag.
tony blair?

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

28 Sep 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

Tony Blair said, “I’m not particularly in favour of foxhunting myself, but in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have gone down this path.” He goes on to say, “I started to understand that this was more complicated than a bunch of toffs running around hunting foxes… It’s not my finest hour in policy making.” :thumbup:

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Do you have selective eye sight? banghead

28 Sep 2011

1:Blue you may well view the use of dogs to kill foxes as a partnership... I don't, if it is a partnership then so is the relationship of a bomber and his bomb.
In my experience many Hunters who use dogs view their dogs as tools...I would refer you to the many specialist breed rescues, who deal with poorly socialised and almost unhomeable ex hunting dogs of all breeds, who either wont or can't hunt...not to mention those who don't make it into rescue but are either discarded or destroyed .... it does look a pretty one sided partnership
2:"A source of mindless conflict in the confrontational politics between the organisations defending and attacking hunting methods, is the use by foxes of artificial earths, many of which date back to the enclosure of common land. These structures provide similar facilities inassisting breeding success, and territorial dispersal, as the important and widespread use of bird boxes, from small gardens to large forests. In non-fox hunting areas they may also be used as traps to control fox numbers, or sometimes to monitor their health"
Why if foxes are vermin would this be the case ?? surely eradication by either hunting or natural wastage would be preferable
I made this point not btw because of anything I read in the press but because of a dim memory of a documentary (or part thereof) that followed a fox hunter as he went about the business of ensuring that his paymasters had foxes to hunt.
3:

Quote by Bluefish2009
hunts are professional hunters!

I think we both know that this isn't strictly true .... the hunts may well employ professional hunters but tell me how many are professional hunters if for example 50 ride out ?? 2? 3?
It would seem not all farmers are so keen on the generous support of the local hunt ....

28 Sep 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots

you don't have to be a tweed clad idiot to join this club i do believe burberry clad chavs up and down the country have the art of using dogs as uncontrolled weapons well and truly honed

28 Sep 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
1: I have a problem with dogs used as weapons
2:I have a problem with hunts claiming that they are 'controlling' the fox population ,and then transferring foxes from one area to another or even having breeding programmes for foxes.
3:I have a problem with the dozens of pink clad idiots chasing across the countryside following the hounds tearing up ancient hedges fields and causing untold ecological damage in the name of 'sport'
If there is a problem with foxes in an area then let the landowner/farmer pay a professional hunter to remove the fox ... there is no meed for the hoards of tweed clad idiots to chase after the hunt, other than to gain some kind of kudos from the other tweed clad idiots

you don't have to be a tweed clad idiot to join this club i do believe burberry clad chavs up and down the country have the art of using dogs as uncontrolled weapons well and truly honed
I don't recall mentioning that this was not the case Rob .... and btw they are by no means all chavs ..(I do have a smattering of knowledge of dog rescue )

28 Sep 2011

To be fair to Starlight Blue, I very nearly put up something very similar. Then the phone lines went down at work and I suddenly had better things to do. But yes, you've quoted that particular Blairism before. Never had you down as someone that would credit him with much in the way of good judgement on most things? Who's being the more selective? confused

See what you've done? Starlight's thumbing Staggers up, I'm agreeing with Starlight. You've sent the forum mad so you have. lol

;)
N x x x ;)