# Blocking up fox holes



## KautoStar1 (21 February 2011)

Is it not illegal for hunt staff (or anyone for that matter) to block up foxes den holes ?

I only ask because our local hunt were out on Sunday doing just that and I thought this was not allowed, even pre ban.

Assuming it is illegal, is this not the sort of act that alientates hunting further still from the general public, those whose very support hunting needs, especially now with the push for repeal ?

I'm certainly not anti hunting, but I find this type of thing totally unacceptable.   Almost to the point that I feel like reporting it.  As this was taking place on private land (our livery yard) I can only assume our YO had given permission.  Not that it makes it any more appropriate.

Enlighten me please ??


----------



## mystiandsunny (21 February 2011)

I don't think it is illegal.  This advice is given by Derbyshire CC:
Moving foxes on 

If you can find the fox&#8217;s den you will often see more than one hole.  Fill these holes with brick 
and rubble, leaving one exit hole. Place leaves or twigs across this hole so you can see if this 
stays in use. If there is a strong smell of musk or more holes have been dug, again fill in, 
leaving one hole open. Leave for a few days and repeat this until the twigs are undisturbed 
then block up the last hole. You should find that the fox would then move on.   

http://www.derby.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/659FC4C8-047C-44FE-80D2-C2FB8D0965AB/0/FS8FOXES.pdf

Similar advice here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/InYourHome/PestAndWeedControl/DG_172742


----------



## Sandstone1 (21 February 2011)

I dont know much about it, but also thought it was not legal now?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			Is it not illegal for hunt staff (or anyone for that matter) to block up foxes den holes ?

I only ask because our local hunt were out on Sunday doing just that and I thought this was not allowed, even pre ban.

Assuming it is illegal, is this not the sort of act that alientates hunting further still from the general public, those whose very support hunting needs, especially now with the push for repeal ?

I'm certainly not anti hunting, but I find this type of thing totally unacceptable.   Almost to the point that I feel like reporting it.  As this was taking place on private land (our livery yard) I can only assume our YO had given permission.  Not that it makes it any more appropriate.

Enlighten me please ??
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely illegal and should be reported. The other advice you have been given is with regard to urban foxes solely for the purpose of moving them away from your land. 

 1.Using more than one 'soft terrier' (those that habitually stand off and bark at the wild mammal) to bolt a fox is illegal. Terriers that are hard (those that habitually fight) must not be used.

2.Using a terrier other than to bolt a fox for the purpose of reducing damage to game birds being kept for shooting, is now illegal. Fox example, you could not do it on a farm that just had sheep.

3.Written permission must be kept by the terrierman showing he has the permission of the landowner.

4.The aim must be to bolt a fox. Entering a terrier into a hole with its exit blocked is illegal, as is digging down and shooting the fox. Indeed anything that will prevent the fox bolting is illegal.


----------



## Amymay (21 February 2011)

It's not illegal.

However, in terms of hunting - it of course may fall under a different set of rules - as hunting with hounds is now outlawed..........


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

amymay said:



			It's not illegal.

However, in terms of hunting - it of course may fall under a different set of rules - as hunting with hounds is now outlawed.......... 

Click to expand...

It is 100% illegal for a hunt to block holes if hunting foxes.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

This, regarding the law is taken from the National Working Terrier Federation web page.

This Act (schedule 1 paragraph 2) permits the use of a single dog below ground to flush out wild mammals solely for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds being kept or preserved to be shot. The person must carry with them written permission and intend to shoot the wild mammal as soon as possible after it is flushed.

All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent risk or injury to the dog and the manner in which it is used must comply with the following code issued by the Secretary of State:

The terrier's role is to locate and flush the mammal, not to fight with it.
Only 'soft' terriers which stand back and bark are to be used.
Care must be taken to ensure the safety of those involved and to minimise the risk of injury to either the terrier or the wild mammal.
The terrier's time below ground must be kept as short as is possible.
The terrier must always be fitted with an electronic locator.
Once it is determined a terrier is trapped, assistance must be given to release it immediately.
Under the Act nothing other than nets may be placed over entrance/exit holes during the flushing.  It is not permitted to use a terrier to locate, dig down and dispatch the quarry.  But if the dog is removed, relocated, secured and not used again, then the quarry may be dug down to and dispatched.  The hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt from the above, but does require the landowner or occupiers permission in order to be exempt.


----------



## Lizzie66 (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			It is 100% illegal for a hunt to block holes if hunting foxes.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point. The hunting of foxes may now be illegal (using more than two hounds ....), the blocking of the holes isn't.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

If permanantly blocking holes isn't illegal it certainly should be! Putting nets over to catch after flushing isn't the same. Not that it's something I like but do accept.

The excerpt form the Working Terrier Federation seems clear enough to me. I take it this isn't an overall standard though.


----------



## KautoStar1 (21 February 2011)

um !!

3 chaps with spades, 4 terriers and all of a sudden a number of foxes seen dashing across our fields.  They would have to had permission to come onto our land, you can only reach it via a private roadway.

Is it too early for females with cubs ?  I was wondering if this practice was in some way to reduce the number of foxes by killing the young in their nests.  The hunt aren't due to meet over our way just yet, so any foxes flushed out now would presumably find another hole quite easily.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

Lizzie66 said:



			You seem to be missing the point. The hunting of foxes may now be illegal (using more than two hounds ....), the blocking of the holes isn't.
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I am to be fair Lizzie. If you block a fox hole with anything other than a net then put a terrier in an open hole it is illegal.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

amandap said:



			If permanantly blocking holes isn't illegal it certainly should be! Putting nets over to catch after flushing isn't the same. Not that it's something I like but do accept.

The excerpt form the Working Terrier Federation seems clear enough to me. I take it this isn't an overall standard though.
		
Click to expand...

The excerpt from the NWTF is the actual law and must be followed by all.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			Is it too early for females with cubs ?  I was wondering if this practice was in some way to reduce the number of foxes by killing the young in their nests.
		
Click to expand...

That was my thought tbh. Surely blocking holes to trap foxes in (or adults out away from young) to die/starve is not legal?


----------



## Maesfen (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			It is 100% illegal for a hunt to block holes if hunting foxes.
		
Click to expand...

I thought it was illegal to hunt foxes except to a gun or a bird, ho hum.

Of course, you could look at it another way.  They are blocking them in so they can't be hunted accidentally.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			um !!

3 chaps with spades, 4 terriers and all of a sudden a number of foxes seen dashing across our fields.  They would have to had permission to come onto our land, you can only reach it via a private roadway.

Is it too early for females with cubs ?  I was wondering if this practice was in some way to reduce the number of foxes by killing the young in their nests.  The hunt aren't due to meet over our way just yet, so any foxes flushed out now would presumably find another hole quite easily.
		
Click to expand...

Killing the young would be illegal I believe as they are not orphaned cubs and it is illegal just to flush foxes unless you intend to shoot them.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			The excerpt from the NWTF is the actual law and must be followed by all.
		
Click to expand...

Oh right thanks.


----------



## Luci07 (21 February 2011)

From your description it does sound as if the foxes were being forced to move - why don't you just ask the land owner and put your mind at rest?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

Maesfen said:



			I thought it was illegal to hunt foxes except to a gun or a bird, ho hum.

Of course, you could look at it another way.  They are blocking them in so they can't be hunted accidentally.
		
Click to expand...

It is Maesfen but as you say, at least they cannot if blocked in be 'accidentally', hunted


----------



## Amymay (21 February 2011)

Lizzie66 said:



			You seem to be missing the point. The hunting of foxes may now be illegal (using more than two hounds ....), the blocking of the holes isn't.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

How times have changed- years ago earth stopping was the norm the day before the hunt, noone gave it a second thought!!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			How times have changed- years ago earth stopping was the norm the day before the hunt, noone gave it a second thought!!
		
Click to expand...

 The good old dark ages


----------



## Maesfen (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			How times have changed- years ago earth stopping was the norm the day before the hunt, noone gave it a second thought!!
		
Click to expand...

I've spent more than a few hours doing it myself, Rosie.  Nothing's the same now worst luck.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



 The good old dark ages 

Click to expand...

Believe you me- dark or not they were good days!!!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Believe you me- dark or not they were good days!!!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you gained pleasure from killing not only the 'sick, and the 'old', but also the healthy


----------



## KautoStar1 (21 February 2011)

so it seems quite unclear depending on which side of the 'fence' you sit.   because people have made valid points on both sides.

But, if hunting is to regain its legal status, do you not think that some practices, such as stopping up earths, should become illegal ?

My personal view is that yes, these practices should be illegal.  AND if I was sure which hunt (I have a pretty good idea) AND I knew if was definately illegal, I would report it.    I would also ask the land owner, but doubt they'd know what was legal or not !!!

AND i do want hunting to survive and be accecptable.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Yes, I believe you gained pleasure from killing not only the 'sick, and the 'old', but also the healthy 

Click to expand...

HAHA-so its quite acceptable for foxes to kill lambs and chickens then?


----------



## Maesfen (21 February 2011)

If things get changed again - as I hope they will be, for the hunt staff alone if nothing else, then personally, I would rather they 'stopped' than allow terriers to be used if they get to ground but as I say, that is my own preference.  I believe if a fox gets in it should be given best unless that farmer particularly wants any fox killed.


----------



## combat_claire (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			But, if hunting is to regain its legal status, do you not think that some practices, such as stopping up earths, should become illegal ?
		
Click to expand...

The major justification for hunting is pest control and for me earth stopping and terrier work is a major management tool and should be retained if repeal is secured.


----------



## Sandstone1 (21 February 2011)

Sorry for being a bit thick, but has it been established if stopping holes is in fact illegal, I thought it was under the hunting act 2004 but im not 100% sure.
Would like to know.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			HAHA-so its quite acceptable for foxes to kill lambs and chickens then?
		
Click to expand...

Who are we to decide whether another species has the right to kill to survive? We do enough of it ourselves and waste so much of what we have killed. 
We only dislike foxes killing our domestic animals because we loose money and they're 'ours'. Chickens are only killed em masse by foxes because of the way we shut them in.

What was the point of earth stopping prior to hunting anyway?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			HAHA-so its quite acceptable for foxes to kill lambs and chickens then?
		
Click to expand...

Have foxes started blocking up the lambs and chickens now or are we jumping subject  Not sure what chickens and lambs have to do with this subject


----------



## EAST KENT (21 February 2011)

Sorry to be picky you antis x 2, but foxes have "earths" not "den holes" or "nests" either . It is legal to use terriers if in the protection of game birds,strangely though not for the protection of sheep.
   Earth stopping may well have been to bung Charlie IN so as not to offend you bunny huggers..might it not ?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

itsmylife said:



			Sorry for being a bit thick, but has it been established if stopping holes is in fact illegal, I thought it was under the hunting act 2004 but im not 100% sure.
Would like to know.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is illegal. You can only cover a hole with a net or flush to shoot.


----------



## combat_claire (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Have foxes started blocking up the lambs and chickens now or are we jumping subject  Not sure what chickens and lambs have to do with this subject 

Click to expand...

It is relevant because you copied guidance relating to terrier work and rightly stated that it is legal to work terriers below ground to protect game birds, but if a farmer was to ask someone to work terriers below ground to protect his lambs that would be illegal as the Hunting Act currently stands.

Does this not cause you for one moment to question the logic of the Hunting Act???


----------



## combat_claire (21 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Who are we to decide whether another species has the right to kill to survive? We do enough of it ourselves and waste so much of what we have killed. 
We only dislike foxes killing our domestic animals because we loose money and they're 'ours'. Chickens are only killed em masse by foxes because of the way we shut them in.

What was the point of earth stopping prior to hunting anyway?
		
Click to expand...

The irony in your post is quite staggering. Why do you think that the lambs, chickens and piglets have less right to life than the fox that wishes to predate them? 

Some antis tell us we should shut the livestock up more securely to prevent fox predation, and now you are saying that being shut up together is what makes predation more likely. Will your side kindly make its mind up.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			It is relevant because you copied guidance relating to terrier work and rightly stated that it is legal to work terriers below ground to protect game birds, but if a farmer was to ask someone to work terriers below ground to protect his lambs that would be illegal as the Hunting Act currently stands.

Does this not cause you for one moment to question the logic of the Hunting Act???
		
Click to expand...

It shows me that the act is still in favour of killing for sport rather than 'pest' control. I believe a lot of the phesants shot are buried anyway!  So galling to me. Breed em to kill and don't even bother to eat them!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Sorry to be picky you antis x 2, but foxes have "earths" not "den holes" or "nests" either . It is legal to use terriers if in the protection of game birds,strangely though not for the protection of sheep.
   Earth stopping may well have been to bung Charlie IN so as not to offend you bunny huggers..might it not ?  

Click to expand...

Nooooooo, we were all doing so well, not one bit of name calling East Kent 

Not sure who you are addressing with the anti x 2, and bunny hugger comments so lets just agree that foxes have 'holes', and dont want them filled by us humans.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			The irony in your post is quite staggering. Why do you think that the lambs, chickens and piglets have less right to life than the fox that wishes to predate them?
		
Click to expand...

 I certainly do not believe that lambs or chicken have less right to live than foxes neither do I believe they have more right. My point was... what gives us the right to choose which should live or die when something is killing to eat and survive?

As for defense against fox kill... we have supposedly got the bigger brains so surely we can come up with something that stops foxes most of the time?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			It is relevant because you copied guidance relating to terrier work and rightly stated that it is legal to work terriers below ground to protect game birds, but if a farmer was to ask someone to work terriers below ground to protect his lambs that would be illegal as the Hunting Act currently stands.

Does this not cause you for one moment to question the logic of the Hunting Act???
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and perhaps you are right it does not seem logical although my solution to the unfairness may be different to your own.
On the thread topic it is illegal to block 'earth entrances', ( for East Kent), with anything other than nets is it not?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

In fairness to the writer of the opening post why are some intent on decending this thread into and anti or pro debate! The topic is simple is it at PRESENT legal or illegal to block fox earth openings and deploy terriers?


----------



## oakash (21 February 2011)

What an exraordinary thread, which perfectly demonstrates how confusing and non-sensicle the Hunting Act is. Surely no anti could think it is 'doing good' for wildlife? Foxes are being killed indiscrimately to protect lambs in hill areas, by methods far, far 'crueller' than hunting. By the way, I regularly fill in any holes I see on my land. They have nothing to do with foxes, of course. But when hunting is restored, foxes will not be able to get into them. Presumably the antis would like me to leave holes all over my fields?


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

Yes, I'll shut up now cos I'm leading the thread astray.


----------



## Amymay (21 February 2011)

itsmylife said:



			Sorry for being a bit thick, but has it been established if stopping holes is in fact illegal, I thought it was under the hunting act 2004 but im not 100% sure.
Would like to know.
		
Click to expand...

Blocking holes is not illegal.

HOWEVER, hunts may not block up holes in order to hunt a fox.  As the hunting of foxes is now against the law.


----------



## combat_claire (21 February 2011)

amandap said:



			It shows me that the act is still in favour of killing for sport rather than 'pest' control. I believe a lot of the phesants shot are buried anyway!  So galling to me. Breed em to kill and don't even bother to eat them! 

Click to expand...

It shows me that the Act is an illogical and cruel piece of legislation. Those making the law applied no clear thought process whatsoever. It is either wrong to use terriers below ground or it isn't. There can't be a halfway house where you can use them to protect game but not to protect domestic livestock. 

As far as I am aware the burying of shot game is an old myth - promotion of game today is a lot better and it is now available in the supermarkets, this combined with changes to the game dealing laws mean that excess shot game can always find an outlet and that frozen game can be sold and eaten out of season. I love game and can't get enough of it. Indeed I have a pheasant in the freezer waiting for me to decide what delicious recipe he is going to be used in! If you haven't eaten any form of game (not just pheasants) then I can truly recommend it. I have a great recipe for pigeon in a chilli and mushroom sauce if anyone wants it.  Yum yum.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

I grew up eating well hung phesant btw.  The last time I was told that burying of phesants still goes on was four years ago when I still lived in N. Yorks.
I really will shut up now.


----------



## KautoStar1 (21 February 2011)

[   Earth stopping may well have been to bung Charlie IN so as not to offend you bunny huggers..might it not ?  [/QUOTE]

Now you KNOW thats not true !!


----------



## Alec Swan (21 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			It shows me that the Act is an illogical and cruel piece of legislation. Those making the law applied no clear thought process whatsoever. It is either wrong to use terriers below ground or it isn't. There can't be a halfway house where you can use them to protect game but not to protect domestic livestock........
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the way to repeal the Hunting Act,  is not too attempt it in one fell swoop,  but to dismember it,  by working away at the separate sections,  and a start could be made on the ridiculous and completely illogical legislation,  which you've highlighted above.  It defies any logic,  whatsoever. 

A war is a series of individual battles,  generally!

Alec.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

Amandap, have you seen a lamb torn to shreds?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

Is anything not illegal anymore?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Yes, I'll shut up now cos I'm leading the thread astray. 

Click to expand...

Not you


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Amandap, have you seen a lamb torn to shreds?
		
Click to expand...

Only by humans. Oh I have seen one torn to shreds by dogs a few years ago. I take it you mean by foxes then no but I have seen birds, rabbits and numerous animals torn to shreds by my cats and lots of wildlife film of animals killing and eating prey. It's not pleasant to watch and see I know but does our indignation give us a right to make choices as to which animals are _allowed_ to kill to live and feed their young and which are not. If animals are to be persecuted purely for killing to live then we should be persecuted too surely? We kill to live on an epic scale.
Killing to live is part of life for all meat eating species we have to accept that and get some balance and perspective in our thinking imo that's all.

Btw... I didn't say this, I'm not here. lol


----------



## Orangehorse (21 February 2011)

So the idea is that you put a net over the exit, put a terrier in, which flushes the fox, it gets caught in the net and it is shot at close range with a shotgun.  To protect game birds but not sheep.  That is legal?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

oakash said:



			What an exraordinary thread, which perfectly demonstrates how confusing and non-sensicle the Hunting Act is. Surely no anti could think it is 'doing good' for wildlife? Foxes are being killed indiscrimately to protect lambs in hill areas, by methods far, far 'crueller' than hunting. By the way, I regularly fill in any holes I see on my land. They have nothing to do with foxes, of course. But when hunting is restored, foxes will not be able to get into them. Presumably the antis would like me to leave holes all over my fields?
		
Click to expand...

Actually a very clear thread asking for an honest response to a simple situation. The confusion has only been created by non-sensicle posts made to create a smokescreen


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Only by humans. Oh I have seen one torn to shreds by dogs a few years ago. I take it you mean by foxes then no but I have seen birds, rabbits and numerous animals torn to shreds by my cats and lots of wildlife film of animals killing and eating prey. It's not pleasant to watch and see I know but does our indignation give us a right to make choices as to which animals are _allowed_ to kill to live and feed their young and which are not. If animals are to be persecuted purely for killing to live then we should be persecuted too surely? We kill to live on an epic scale.
Killing to live is part of life for all meat eating species we have to accept that and get some balance and perspective in our thinking imo that's all.

Btw... I didn't say this, I'm not here. lol
		
Click to expand...

Im off too before i am driven insane by bunny/ fox huggers.


----------



## amandap (21 February 2011)

ORANGEHORSE said:



			So the idea is that you put a net over the exit, put a terrier in, which flushes the fox, it gets caught in the net and it is shot at close range with a shotgun.  To protect game birds but not sheep.  That is legal?
		
Click to expand...

It seems that way and even I can see that is totally ridiculous! 



rosiefronfelen said:



			Im off too before i am driven insane by bunny/ fox huggers.
		
Click to expand...

Hehe! I love to hug all animals even some humans. Er no, I take that back I don't think I could hug a spider.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

amymay said:



			Blocking holes is not illegal.

HOWEVER, hunts may not block up holes in order to hunt a fox.  As the hunting of foxes is now against the law.
		
Click to expand...

 It took a long time for you to address the point of the opening post but at least you made it in the end amymay


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			It shows me that the Act is an illogical and cruel piece of legislation. Those making the law applied no clear thought process whatsoever. It is either wrong to use terriers below ground or it isn't. There can't be a halfway house where you can use them to protect game but not to protect domestic livestock.
		
Click to expand...

Correct me please if I am wrong, but wasnt it originally proposed that all terrier work be stopped. The exemption being forced on the government at the time by the shooting lobby/Lords.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Is anything not illegal anymore?
		
Click to expand...

Hugging bunnies


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Perhaps the way to repeal the Hunting Act,  is not too attempt it in one fell swoop,  but to dismember it,  by working away at the separate sections,  and a start could be made on the ridiculous and completely illogical legislation,  which you've highlighted above.  It defies any logic,  whatsoever. 

A war is a series of individual battles,  generally!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Is there not a risk that it could lead to tightening of certain aspects of the act Alec? ie the exemption for game birds lost rather than for protection of sheep allowed.

Winning some battles doesnt always win the war.


----------



## Herne (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			The hunt aren't due to meet over our way just yet, so any foxes flushed out now would presumably find another hole quite easily.
		
Click to expand...

KS, this situation seems a bit confused.

First, if the Hunt arent due round in your area then the activities were probably unconnected with the Hunt. Even if you saw some people who may go hunting when the Hunt is out, that does not mean that they are always acting for or on behalf of the Hunt 24/7. People do have private lives, time off etc.  so dont assume that whatever you saw was connected with the Hunt unless you are absolutely certain. No hunt I know (in the UK) operates on a Sunday.

Second, your original post asked whether blocking holes was illegal, but your next post says that foxes were running away  which rather implies that the holes were unblocked. If what you saw taking place was terrier-work, then that is very much within the Law  provided that it meets the conditions laid out therein and follows the necessary Code.

The requirement for terrier-work is that the fox is flushed out to be shot  however, the Code of Practice makes allowance for the obvious precaution that a shot should only be taken if it is safe for the terriers and human participants  so it is entirely possible that what you saw was completely within the law.




Binkle&Flip said:



			In fairness to the writer of the opening post why are some intent on decending this thread into and anti or pro debate! The topic is simple is it at PRESENT legal or illegal to block fox earth openings and deploy terriers?
		
Click to expand...

No it isnt. The question was is it illegal to block fox holes and the answer to that is an emphatic No. You can go out and block up as many fox holes as you wish, right in front of as many policemen as you wish, and you do not commit a crime under the hunting Act or any other Act.

Badger holes are a different matter, but that is covered under the Badgers Act, not the Hunting Act.

You, B&F are the one who is trying to obfuscate the topic by answering a question that was not actually asked. 

For the what its worth, however, your answer is not strictly accurate anyway. There is nothing within the act or the code that says that you may not block a hole  merely that you must flush and shoot the animal as quickly as possible. 

In most cases that would infer that the exits should not be blocked.

However, imagine a hypothetical scenario where there are two equally possible exits from a den from which you could flush the fox  one of which opened onto an area where a safe shot could be taken and one of which opened onto an area where the shot would be unsafe.

Providing that you could do it in such a way that there was no risk of the fox becoming trapped by the blockage, it could be argued that not only would it be legal to block the unsafe exit, but that it might even be _required_ to do so  to ensure that the flushed fox was indeed shot at and not just allowed to escape because the shot was unsafe.


----------



## KautoStar1 (21 February 2011)

I am aware that no-one actually hunts on a Sunday (except the Bloodhounds) and so I may be making a bit of an assumption that it was our local hunt.  but 2 reasons.  1.  they meet at about this time of year at our yard.  2.  they are not due in the immediate weeks, but it will be soon (sorry this wasn't clear in my original post).
I've not named the hunt because obviously I wasn't sure and of course, I don't know the legalities, hense I ask.


& to clarifty, I saw a fox running away, presumably disturbed by the terriers.  From what I could see the terriers were used to identify fox holes (a scent ?) and then these chaps were filling in the holes.  I do know this because I went and looked after they'd gone and you could see where holes had been packed.

I only saw one fox and there were no guns or nets.   If a fox was flushed out, I think this was purely coinsidental.  Perhaps I should have just gone over and asked them.  Although if there were doing something illegal they'd hardly have told me anyway.


I ask because I don't know the law and also because my personal view is that its not right.
However, many interesting points raised.  I'm not questioning the right to hunt, just some of the practices that (may)occur behind the scenes.  

Thanks for all your replies.  I'm not sure I'm any the wiser, other than it seems the law is a mess.


----------



## Herne (21 February 2011)

All sounds a bit odd. Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with hunting to me. The fox could easily have been scared out of the undergrowth rather than out from underground. If they were after foxes they'dhave bought guns or nets or something.

Any chance they could have been rabbit holes?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

No it isnt. The question was is it illegal to block fox holes and the answer to that is an emphatic No. You can go out and block up as many fox holes as you wish, right in front of as many policemen as you wish, and you do not commit a crime under the hunting Act or any other Act.

For the what its worth, however, your answer is not strictly accurate anyway. There is nothing within the act or the code that says that you may not block a hole  merely that you must flush and shoot the animal as quickly as possible. [/QUOTE]

I am sorry Herne but the NWTF clearly say that the ACT states that it is illegal to block fox holes if you intend flushing with anything other than a net.
Either they are right or yourself but not both.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (21 February 2011)

Herne said:



			All sounds a bit odd. Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with hunting to me. The fox could easily have been scared out of the undergrowth rather than out from underground. If they were after foxes they'dhave bought guns or nets or something.

Any chance they could have been rabbit holes?
		
Click to expand...

Three men, spades, terriers and hole blocking.........   Or perhaps they just intended to bait the fox/foxes and missed an exit? A possibility you missed out Herne


----------



## tootsietoo (21 February 2011)

The simplest thing might be to ask the person who has asked them/permitted them to be there what they were doing.  I guess they must have spoken to your YO at some point?


----------



## Fiagai (21 February 2011)

KautoStar1 said:



			Is it not illegal for hunt staff (or anyone for that matter) to block up foxes den holes ?...Enlighten me please ??
		
Click to expand...




Binkle&Flip said:



			Absolutely illegal and should be reported. The other advice you have been given is with regard to urban foxes solely for the purpose of moving them away from your land....
		
Click to expand...

There appears to be a huge anount of misinformation being posted here.  The question posted was a valid one.  Is the blocking up of fox's earths illegal?


Ok to set the record straight the actual facts are as follows:

FACTS:
*"fox den holes" are correctly known as "earths"
*The Hunting Act 2004 makes no mention of the stopping up of earths.  In itself this activity is not therefore illegal under the meaning of the Act.
* See LINK TO 2004 ACT
*The Hunting Act 2004 bans the hunting *with dogs *of all wild mammals, and all hare coursing.
*Wild animals can still be shot.
*There is no legal definition or difference between urban foxes and their country cousins.  With this logic we could then hunt foxes with hounds in urban areas!
*Foxes earths were traditionally blocked up to keep foxes *out*  from their subterranean lodgings by having the earths stopped up during the period of the hunt.  
*The purpose of this was not to trap the fox underground and were always opened directly after a hunt.

There would appear to be posters who set themselves up as dictators of the law.  The problem with this is that vigilantism then becomes harassment.

Everyone has the right to their opinions but posting misleading and disingenuous facts does nothing for either the Anti or Pro hunting lobby.

& btw the use of cute smilies at the end of baseless facts does not make them anymore believable!


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Correct me please if I am wrong, but wasnt it originally proposed that all terrier work be stopped. The exemption being forced on the government at the time by the shooting lobby/Lords.
		
Click to expand...

Right and wrong!  It was Labour MPs and the Government of the time who supported shooting (and didn't want to see a couple of hundred thousand shooters driven away from BASC and into the arms of the BFSS/Countryside Alliance ) who put in the exemption.


----------



## burge (21 February 2011)

Herne said:



			No hunt I know (in the UK) operates on a Sunday
		
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Pennine Foxhounds met on Sundays sometimes?  I have just checked my 2005-2006 Bailys and can confirm that the Wensleydale Foxhounds are listed as hunting on a Sunday.  Maybe it is just different for the foot packs?


----------



## Aesculus (21 February 2011)

I am sure it was just an unintentional slip of the keyboard but since NI is part of the UK  a quick trawl through the current on-line Baily's will reveal that there are a number of packs that state that they meet on a Sunday


----------



## Herne (22 February 2011)

That's fine - I said "no hunt that I know" , because I'm fully aware that I don't know the activities of every hunt.

I know a lot of Sunday hunting goes on in the Republic of Ireland, but I wasn't sure about Northern Ireland.


----------



## Herne (22 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:





			
				Herne said:
			
		


			For the what its worth, however, your answer is not strictly accurate anyway. There is nothing within the act or the code that says that you may not block a hole  merely that you must flush and shoot the animal as quickly as possible.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry Herne but the NWTF clearly say that the ACT states that it is illegal to block fox holes if you intend flushing with anything other than a net.
Either they are right or yourself but not both.
		
Click to expand...

I refer you to the words of mine that you quote:

_There is nothing *within the act or the code* that says that you may not block a hole_

The NTWF may be basing their advice on legal opinion or case law,  and it may well be the best advice that is most sensible to follow to avoid risk of being found to be breaking the Law, but I think you will find that my words above are still technically correct.

Fiagai has posted a link to the Act, the NTWF website has an indirect link to the Code, check it out for yourself.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (22 February 2011)

Herne said:



			I refer you to the words of mine that you quote:

_There is nothing *within the act or the code* that says that you may not block a hole_

The NTWF may be basing their advice on legal opinion or case law,  and it may well be the best advice that is most sensible to follow to avoid risk of being found to be breaking the Law, but I think you will find that my words above are still technically correct.

Fiagai has posted a link to the Act, the NTWF website has an indirect link to the Code, check it out for yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed Herne. My opinion regarding the blocking up of holes came from the NTWF site which at first claims it is in the Act by stating "Under the Act nothing other than nets may be placed over entrance/exit holes during the flushing".  Reading deeper through their site and Fiagi's link this isnt the case it is merely part of the NTWF's own code of conduct.


----------



## RunToEarth (22 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Who are we to decide whether another species has the right to kill to survive? We do enough of it ourselves and waste so much of what we have killed. 
We only dislike foxes killing our domestic animals because we loose money and they're 'ours'. Chickens are only killed em masse by foxes because of the way we shut them in.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes and badgers natural predators are Lynx, bear and wolves- none of which are native to the UK anymore. 
Badgers (for the time being, lets hope a badger cull is coming soon) are completely protected by fluffy bunnies, and foxes can be shot and snared- because that is so much better than hunting with hounds...
There needs to be some kind of population control among foxes (and hopefully soon badgers) because they have absolutely no natural predators in the UK.
Foxes don't kill livestock to survive, what a silly thing to say. 
People get most defensive about things they don't really understand, isn't that why the hunting act came in?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (22 February 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			Foxes and badgers natural predators are Lynx, bear and wolves- none of which are native to the UK anymore. 
Badgers (for the time being, lets hope a badger cull is coming soon) are completely protected by fluffy bunnies, and foxes can be shot and snared- because that is so much better than hunting with hounds...
There needs to be some kind of population control among foxes (and hopefully soon badgers) because they have absolutely no natural predators in the UK.
Foxes don't kill livestock to survive, what a silly thing to say. 
People get most defensive about things they don't really understand, isn't that why the hunting act came in? 

Click to expand...

you are soooo right, RTE, a sensible reply thank god


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			Foxes and badgers natural predators are Lynx, bear and wolves- none of which are native to the UK anymore. 
Badgers (for the time being, lets hope a badger cull is coming soon) are completely protected by fluffy bunnies, and foxes can be shot and snared- because that is so much better than hunting with hounds...
There needs to be some kind of population control among foxes (and hopefully soon badgers) because they have absolutely no natural predators in the UK.
Foxes don't kill livestock to survive, what a silly thing to say. 
People get most defensive about things they don't really understand, isn't that why the hunting act came in? 

Click to expand...

Possibly,  one of the most sensible responses,  of the year,  to date!!

It may well be,  that in part,  the conflict between those who would hunt,  and those who would be crudely referred to as "Bunny huggers",  is in place,  because the later,  perhaps understandably,  are irritated by demeaning comments.

Would it be possible for both sides of the argument to accept,  that there is a common goal?  The extremists on both sides,  will never reach any degree of accord.  That we will all accept,  I'm sure.

It would seem that there is a person on here,  who whilst opposed to hunting,  sees the LACS,  for what they are.  I'm not sure of this,  but if just one person who fails to see the justice of hunting,  can accept that those who do hunt are certainly the better custodians of our country side,  then the effort will have been worthwhile.

The country side has evolved,  we all know that,  but what few seem able to grasp,  is that a rural existence,  and that includes rural pursuits,  has come about,  to a great extent,  by the existence of hunting.  The precious and preserved coverts, have supplied us with a reservoir of wild life.  Remove hunting,  and you remove the sanctuary,  or so it seems to me.

No government sponsored "Wildlife enhancement schemes",  how ever well intentioned,  will ever benefit our wildlife,  as hunting has.

Alec.


----------



## amandap (22 February 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			Foxes don't kill livestock to survive, what a silly thing to say. 
People get most defensive about things they don't really understand, isn't that why the hunting act came in? 

Click to expand...

Actually I didn't quite say that if you read carefully. I said they kill to survive, I didn't specify livestock. I may well be 'silly' but I'm not totally stupid. 

If foxes need controlling they should just be shot imo by experienced shooters. Same with badgers, quick and effective. 

Just because you don't agree with my views that doesn't make them any less valid. I hate the idea of celebrating chasing and killing an animal for sport, entertainment or even tradition. The same as I hate bullfighting. These traditions can be honoured (if they have to be) in many other ways. You can still dress up, meet and gallop around following hounds. What's so fantastic about chasing a fox and dogs mauling or shredding it before it can be killed quickly and effectively. Is this really something we should 'enjoy' in the 21st centuary when we can eat meat from supermarkets so cheaply.  Killing to eat by humans is ok by me so long as it's done quickly and effectively. 

So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event? What exactly is it that the chase and kill supporters are trying to protect and get back? I just don't get it except having something imposed on them... 
There wasn't this fuss when hitting children was banned. 

I'm not trying to be provcative (but no doubt am) I genuinely don't understand.


----------



## amandap (22 February 2011)

Missed Alec's post. Off to read as it seems he has answered some of my questions.


----------



## amandap (22 February 2011)

Just to pick up on the point about foxes not having any natural predators now. I do believe that resources and food supply have much more of an impact on population density than predation but perhaps someone can say for sure. This is echoed by the huge rise in the numbers of urban foxes with rich pickings from us feeding them and eating waste, surely not because there are no predators.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Absolutely illegal and should be reported. The other advice you have been given is with regard to urban foxes solely for the purpose of moving them away from your land. 

 1.Using more than one 'soft terrier' (those that habitually stand off and bark at the wild mammal) to bolt a fox is illegal. Terriers that are hard (those that habitually fight) must not be used.

2.Using a terrier other than to bolt a fox for the purpose of reducing damage to game birds being kept for shooting, is now illegal. Fox example, you could not do it on a farm that just had sheep.

3.Written permission must be kept by the terrierman showing he has the permission of the landowner.

4.The aim must be to bolt a fox. Entering a terrier into a hole with its exit blocked is illegal, as is digging down and shooting the fox. Indeed anything that will prevent the fox bolting is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

Also bear in mind that you have to kill the fox.  It's illegal to bolt it and then just disperse it.  This also applies to wild deer or any other wild mammal that is flushed out they have to be killed once flushed.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Just to pick up on the point about foxes not having any natural predators now. I do believe that resources and food supply have much more of an impact on population density than predation but perhaps someone can say for sure. This is echoed by the huge rise in the numbers of urban foxes with rich pickings from us feeding them and eating waste, surely not because there are no predators.
		
Click to expand...

Any wild animal's population will ultimately be limited by it's food supply.  However if food supply is the only limiting factor this will have a negative effect on it.  There's been a big study on the effect of the loss of apex predators (wolves lynx bears etc) in the US and the numbers of meso predators such as foxes went up by 18%.  This results in a considerable loss in bio diversity.  So taking out apex predators actually has a negative effect on the ecology as a whole.

The argument that fox populations are 'naturally' controlled by food/territory abundance alone is actually false. Fox populations are un naturally controlled by such factors when we have removed their predators and if we fail to control them.  The consequences of such a situation is bad both for the fox population who's numbers start being controlled by far more cruel methods such as disease and starvation and also for the rest of the ecosystem because an out of balance fox population damages it.

you might want to have  look at this

http://www.nctimes.com/news/science/article_3856b6c2-103d-5dc6-948d-7bc0a7fdb870.html


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

amandap said:



			So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event?
		
Click to expand...

Have a look on the internet for example facebook.  Look at the anti hunt sites.  The Hunting Act has been in force for 6 years and a handful of people have been done for formal fox or stag hunting.  However they use this to paint people that hunt as cruel law breakers.  They can get away with this because the Hunting Act is a very badly drafted law and no hunt going out into woods and fields with a pack of hounds can actually show that they are not breaking it.  LACS etc want to shut hunts down and they are using the Hunting Act to try and achieve this.  Have a look at the LACS blogs where they crow about the law making life financially impossible for hunts or about the 'true nature of the hunter'.

Moreover if the law remains in force there is pressure to 'stengthen' it by making it a criminal act even if a fox is accidentally chased.  Doing that would effectively make it impossible to hunt within the law which is what they ultimately want.

The situation atm is very unsatisfactory to both sides.


----------



## AengusOg (22 February 2011)

It may be that the people were gassing foxes below ground. That's more widespread now than it used to be, especially since the hunting act came into force. If you suspect a fox earth has been gassed, keep yourself and any dogs away from it, and mind your own business.

Banning foxhunting with hounds didn't miraculously stop livestock owners losing stock to foxes. In the abscence of hunting, the foxes still have to be controlled. Why should anyone have to put up with fox predation without bringing the culprit to book? Gassing, snaring, poisoning, and shooting are the only ways left for some people.


----------



## amandap (22 February 2011)

Thanks for that explanation and the link Xlthlx much appreciated. I personally, as I have said, don't have a problem with effective and quick population control if and when needed.
It also seems the act itself is a nonsense in part at least. I do think people will use methods such as gassing and snaring anyway, in my vague recollection from my youth, people had individual preferences for their own methods of control and tended to stick to them. I don't for one minute imagine huntsmen and women going out and gassing foxes instead of hunting for example. Don't know what point I'm making here though.


----------



## Daisychain (22 February 2011)

Funny old world.... Can someone tell me if it is legal to trap foxes, then transport them in a horsebox to another hunt????

Oh of course its all about pest control.....

Lets face it, bottom line with hunting its never really about pest control is it, but i totally understand why people want to do it, so its much easier to become brainwashed and believe its the kindest way.

I sit on the fence and listen to both sides, and have delt and seen both sides, and my descision still remains the same, its never about being humane.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

Daisychain said:



			its never about being humane.
		
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the stag hunts operate a 24 hour 7 day a week casualty call out service for injured deer just for fun?



Daisychain said:



			its never really about pest control is it
		
Click to expand...

How about lambing calls when a huntsman turns up with a few scent hounds to track a fox that has been killing lambs back to its earth?


----------



## Daisychain (22 February 2011)

I see you have failed to answer my first question???? suprise suprise


----------



## Binkle&Flip (22 February 2011)

Daisychain said:



			I see you have failed to answer my first question???? suprise suprise 

Click to expand...

 We are being told that the hunts want to repeal the Act so they can continue culling the old and sick and keep a healthy fox population 

Reading through this thread it is clear the idea that the fit and healthy foxes will escape is utter nonsense! A return to blocking is desired amongst posters leading to exhausted foxes with no hiding place being torn apart by hounds for the sport. If nothing else the Hunting Act banned a bloodsport and left in place exemptions for actual pest control.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

Daisychain said:



			I see you have failed to answer my first question???? suprise suprise 

Click to expand...

The answer to the question 

". Can someone tell me if it is legal to trap foxes, then transport them in a horsebox to another hunt????" 

is no and I don't think most people would think it ever should be.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



 We are being told that the hunts want to repeal the Act so they can continue culling the old and sick and keep a healthy fox population 

Reading through this thread it is clear the idea that the fit and healthy foxes will escape is utter nonsense! A return to blocking is desired amongst posters leading to exhausted foxes with no hiding place being torn apart by hounds for the sport. If nothing else the Hunting Act banned a bloodsport and left in place exemptions for actual pest control.
		
Click to expand...

I personally would like to see the Hunting Axt replaced with a wide ranging law against all cruelty to any wild mammal howsoever caused.  ie with or without dogs.

I'd be interested to know if you support or oppose that.

If you want to tow the party line don't forget LACS oppose it as do a lot of the anti hunting fraternity.


----------



## Fiagai (22 February 2011)

Herne said:



			...I know a lot of Sunday hunting goes on in the Republic of Ireland, but I wasn't sure about Northern Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware these are harrier packs only that hunt un Sundays in Ireland (Republic of)



Alec Swan said:



			...The country side has evolved,  we all know that,  but what few seem able to grasp,  is that a rural existence,  and that includes rural pursuits,  has come about,  to a great extent,  by the existence of hunting.  The precious and preserved coverts, have supplied us with a reservoir of wild life.  Remove hunting,  and you remove the sanctuary,  or so it seems to me.
		
Click to expand...

Traditionally Fox Hunting was never about earadicating all foxes but removing those who were predating livestock, sick etc. Where I live there was a healthy fox population when hunting was allowed. Now fox numbers would appear to be declining rapidly due to the promotion of shooting as the only permitted method of control.  Farmers no longer feel any requirement to maintain coverts.  I have found foxes that were  inexpertly shot - dying in ditches - slowly.   I personally prefer an animal to have a quick death and by my experience this is not by shooting.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 February 2011)

Fiagai said:



			As far as I am aware these are harrier packs only that hunt un Sundays in Ireland (Republic of)



Traditionally Fox Hunting was never about earadicating all foxes but removing those who were predating livestock, sick etc. Where I live there was a healthy fox population when hunting was allowed. Now fox numbers would appear to be declining rapidly due to the promotion of shooting as the only permitted method of control.  Farmers no longer feel any requirement to maintain coverts.  I have found foxes that were  inexpertly shot - dying in ditches - slowly.   I personally prefer an animal to have a quick death and by my experience this is not by shooting.
		
Click to expand...

Of course the best way to ascertain these things is through scientific studies which the Labour Government having promised to legislate on the basis of 'principle and evidence' steadfastly refused to undertake.  

Never mind LACS in their latest report rolled out a study to 'prove' that deer numbers had not suffered in the wake of the ban.  The only problem being that that study covered the period 1972 - april 2005

The most recent data suggests red deer numbers have halved in the quantocks ...


----------



## Herne (23 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



 We are being told that the hunts want to repeal the Act so they can continue culling the old and sick and keep a healthy fox population 

Reading through this thread it is clear the idea that the fit and healthy foxes will escape is utter nonsense! A return to blocking is desired amongst posters leading to exhausted foxes with no hiding place being torn apart by hounds for the sport. If nothing else the Hunting Act banned a bloodsport and left in place exemptions for actual pest control.
		
Click to expand...

What an extraordinary piece of reversed logic.

If you want to select the fit and healthy foxes, (talking in pre-ban terms here) then obviously you have to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that they are fit and healthy.

If you leave the holes unblocked, then all the foxes, fit and unfit, will go straight down the nearest hole, completely untested, and you will end up using the terriers on all of them - which is no more selective than using a rifle at night.

By blocking up the holes, the fox has to run accross country to get away from the hounds - something that a young, fit fox can easily do. Foxes are faster than hounds. The old, sick and injured, however, get caught.

Lord Burns estimated that the average length of a hunt is 15 minutes. This is because young foxes can get enough of a lead in that time to be able to throw the hounds off the scent permanently and the infirm get caught up with - often because they are simply slow or lame rather than because they are exhausted.

The longer hunts are rare because the circumstances of scenting conditions and quarry only rarely combine to lengthen the the hunt in that way.


----------



## Daisychain (23 February 2011)

Xlthlx said:



			The answer to the question 

". Can someone tell me if it is legal to trap foxes, then transport them in a horsebox to another hunt????" 

is no and I don't think most people would think it ever should be.
		
Click to expand...


Well this is my problem.... So if you new your hunt were doing this, then releasing foxes in strange territory, not mentioning the fear and stress of a journey in a horsebox, would you still go??? Does that make it right then???

I got no problem with genuine pest control, and i have lost fair amounts of chickens etc to foxes, but i could never justify this.  Its so easy to turn a blind eye for a nice ride in the countryside.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (23 February 2011)

Daisychain said:



			Well this is my problem.... So if you new your hunt were doing this, then releasing foxes in strange territory, not mentioning the fear and stress of a journey in a horsebox, would you still go??? Does that make it right then???

I got no problem with genuine pest control, and i have lost fair amounts of chickens etc to foxes, but i could never justify this.  Its so easy to turn a blind eye for a nice ride in the countryside. 

Click to expand...

A few people on here seem to think hunters are all out to kill foxes as a passion which is just not so, we love to see a healthy fox,out of season around and about but to say that hunts release foxes to a new territory, this utter tosh and i'd like to know where this story has come about- we are plagued by van loads of foxes, mainly covered in mange dumped in the countryside, now how cruel is this, they cannot fend for themselves and ultimately starve. Watching either Countryfile or Countrytracks a few weeks back as stated there was a lovely fox at the back of some houses, noone mentioned it being covered in mange from top to tail--grrrr, the ignorance of some people !!!


----------



## combat_claire (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event? What exactly is it that the chase and kill supporters are trying to protect and get back? I just don't get it except having something imposed on them... 
There wasn't this fuss when hitting children was banned. 

I'm not trying to be provcative (but no doubt am) I genuinely don't understand. 

Click to expand...

I'm going to have a crack at answering this. I am not deliberately ignoring the other points you raised, but I think other posters have addressed them. 

To set the context I am an amateur whipper-in for our local minkhounds. Mink are a non-native and destructive species that cause massive damage to our native wildlife including the water vole. Some research also suggests that they have been partly linked to the decline of the otter, but this isn't conclusive. 

The Hunting Act states that we can hunt rats with hounds but not the mink. It further states that we can shoot a mink that has been put up a tree by the pack or that we can use terriers below ground in order to protect shooting interests. I fail to see how this can be considered logical or more humane. 

You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.


----------



## AengusOg (23 February 2011)

It's not legal to transport foxes to another area for the purposes of hunting them.

By the same token, it should be illegal to trap foxes in towns and transport them to the country. The bunny huggers don't seem to grasp the fact that these relocated cutesy little foxy woxies are doomed, as they are easily killed by anyone with an interest in doing so, owing to their not knowing the land on which they were dumped. They are easily recognised too, as they are generally mange-ridden and malnourished.


----------



## amandap (23 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I'm going to have a crack at answering this. I am not deliberately ignoring the other points you raised, but I think other posters have addressed them. 


You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou very much combat_claire. I do take on the points about the Act itself being a mess it seems and I am beginning to see the need for clarification. I probably am in favour of 'proper' wildlife protection rather than a state of total confusion and inconsistancy. However, I would find it hard to feel hunting the fox in the traditional way with dogs and horses is needed as a method of pest control. It seems the act has reeked more havoc and cruelty on foxes by people without knowledge and skill taking matters into their own hands which is highly unsatisfactory to me personally. 

For me paying honour and tribute to Tradition (by drag hunting etc.) along with our current awareness of need to protect habitat for wildlife and manage that habitat and wildlife is a situation that I personally would like to see.  However, I think this may not be possible if the 'sides' insist on their extremes. I have generally kept away from these debates because they often end bitterly. I feel posters on this thread have remained polite and tolerant (in the main) and I am glad of that I must say.


----------



## combat_claire (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			However, I would find it hard to feel hunting the fox in the traditional way with dogs and horses is needed as a method of pest control. It seems the act has reeked more havoc and cruelty on foxes by people without knowledge and skill taking matters into their own hands which is highly unsatisfactory to me personally.
		
Click to expand...

For me hunting with hounds will always be the best method of fox control - it is the only method grounded in the principles of natural selection, where the weakest, oldest and sickest are removed, leaving a healthy population at levels that can be tolerable. I have concerns that lamping at night is not as accurate as it could be and that snaring and trapping is too indiscriminate. Other methods used in the past such as poisoning and gassing are no more selective. The same arguments apply for deer, mink, hare or any other quarry formerly hunted by hounds. 




			For me paying honour and tribute to Tradition (by drag hunting etc.) along with our current awareness of need to protect habitat for wildlife and manage that habitat and wildlife is a situation that I personally would like to see.
		
Click to expand...

I am in a fairly unique position of also having been involved in drag hunting - not as a mounted follower but running the drag. I am not sure how dragging using a piece of dead fox that has been tied to a piece of baler twine can claim no impact on the welfare of foxes. Still at least the next time someone from the other side of the argument smugly asks 'how would you like to be chased for miles across country by a pack of hounds?' - I can tell them that I have been there, done that and got the cuts and bruises...

On your final point research from the Durrell Institute has found that those involved in country sports are far more likely to manage habitat, plant hedges, trees and pay for works on their land than those who have no sporting interests. The papers published in Nature can be read here:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/dice/research/england_hunting.html


----------



## Binkle&Flip (23 February 2011)

Xlthlx said:



			I personally would like to see the Hunting Axt replaced with a wide ranging law against all cruelty to any wild mammal howsoever caused.  ie with or without dogs.

I'd be interested to know if you support or oppose that.

If you want to tow the party line don't forget LACS oppose it as do a lot of the anti hunting fraternity.
		
Click to expand...

That is a double edged sword Xlthlx   You would like to know if I support or oppose a wide ranging cruelty law but should I oppose for any reason I am towing the LACS party line?!!! Okay, I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it.


----------



## amandap (23 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			For me hunting with hounds will always be the best method of fox control - it is the only method grounded in the principles of natural selection, where the weakest, oldest and sickest are removed, leaving a healthy population at levels that can be tolerable. I have concerns that lamping at night is not as accurate as it could be and that snaring and trapping is too indiscriminate. Other methods used in the past such as poisoning and gassing are no more selective. The same arguments apply for deer, mink, hare or any other quarry formerly hunted by hounds.
		
Click to expand...

I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth?  I don't understand how this works as you say it does.



combat_claire said:



			I am in a fairly unique position of also having been involved in drag hunting - not as a mounted follower but running the drag. I am not sure how dragging using a piece of dead fox that has been tied to a piece of baler twine can claim no impact on the welfare of foxes. Still at least the next time someone from the other side of the argument smugly asks 'how would you like to be chased for miles across country by a pack of hounds?' - I can tell them that I have been there, done that and got the cuts and bruises...
		
Click to expand...

A bit of fox doesn't have to be used though does it? I think hunting humans instead is a much better idea myself.  (joke)

I think it's time that the word sport was taken out of killing another animal and enjoying the thought and act of it. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport. I enjoyed a good gallop, jumping hedges etc. but that can still be done without hounding a fox.

Lamping is not my favourite thing either having had major problems with lampers scaring my horses at night. However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily. I hate gassing and snaring myself. 
It's a personal ethics difference for me. I see killing as a necessity not as something to 'enjoy' and be an excuse for a 'good day out'... I think this is why I don't like chase quarry hunting. 
There are of course ways of killing that are down right cruel that call themselves sport which are illegal, these also involve humans getting enjoyment from watching killing and even profit from it... It is the same principal for me I'm afraid.


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			That is a double edged sword Xlthlx   You would like to know if I support or oppose a wide ranging cruelty law but should I oppose for any reason I am towing the LACS party line?!!! Okay, I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it.
		
Click to expand...

"Cruelty Law" - I have never came across legislation that has enshrined "cruelty" as an objective.  Perhaps this should be "Anti- cruelty"? 

With reference to cruelty do you mean "cruelty" as defined as any hunting or culling even when it is required to control populations for pest control reasons or that have no natural predators and whose habitats can support only a set number?

Shooting isnt always the painless death for such animals that it has been made out to be.  So what is the solution?  Presuming that leaving all the bunnies and bambies running free is not a realistic option.

There is a double negative here as well as in " I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it".

Does that mean
a) You agree with the 2004 Hunting Act as is?
b) That you want another Act enabled?
C) You want to leglislate for animals not to prey on each other  (ie foxes hunting rabbits?)


----------



## combat_claire (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth?  I don't understand how this works as you say it does.
		
Click to expand...

An old or sick fox will be slower and thus less likely to escape than a healthy fox. That is how hunting works. A lamper with a rifle can turn up at a farm where there has been a predation problem, but there is no guarantee that the fox he shoots the following night, is the one guilty of the predation. 





			A bit of fox doesn't have to be used though does it? I think hunting humans instead is a much better idea myself.  (joke)
		
Click to expand...

The drag hounds in the main are retired fox hounds, following the dead fox scent is I guess a more certain thing for them than using a synthetic trail. 
Please let me know what the cap is for a day with the Amanda Chav Hounds, I think it sounds quite good fun ;-) 




			I think it's time that the word sport was taken out of killing another animal and enjoying the thought and act of it. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport. I enjoyed a good gallop, jumping hedges etc. but that can still be done without hounding a fox.
		
Click to expand...

It is hard to put into words but we don't take pleasure in the actual killing of an animal, but the knowledge that pre-ban we were assisting in ensuring a healthy population of animals in the fairest means possible. We also take pleasure from watching the hounds working and from the fast ride/cycle across country after the hunt staff. In my short experience there has always been an enormous respect for the quarry.


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			...Lamping is not my favourite thing either having had major problems with lampers scaring my horses at night. However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily. I hate gassing and snaring myself. 
It's a personal ethics difference for me...
		
Click to expand...

An unfortuante result of the 2004 Hunting Act is that this is now the only legal method to hunt foxes for the purposes of controling overpopulation / culling etc. 

I do alot of field walking and have found foxes dead and dying from gunshot wounds - a lingering death, that I would prefer not be witness to.

An accurate head shot for an animal as small as a fox is not easy.  If the shooter does not make a head shot then the chance of the fox being killed outright is quite slim.

Where fit and healthy foxes could out run hounds, a fox that was caught was not at risk of having a lingering death.

Fox hunting did not seek to erradicate foxes but to maintain a healthy population that had a healthy scepticism of humans.  Coverts were maintained by landowners in conjunctions with hunts so that fox populations were known and maintained.

Non regulated shooting by disassociated individuals or groups means that there is no interest in maintaining a viable fox population.  Coverts are no longer been maintained in conjunction with the hunt packs.  Foxes are now vulnerable to total depopulation.  Something which never happened when Fox hunting was legal.

It reminds somewhat of a short story written by John Wyndham his book "Consider Her ways and Others" where a biochemist formulates a permanent solution to the problem of rats that kills all male rats.  Unfortuantley this mutates and wipes out male humans too.  

Through supporting legislating against organised / vested interest in the maintenance of a viable fox population, animal rights groups may ultimely precipitate the complete demise of the rural fox.


----------



## RunToEarth (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Actually I didn't quite say that if you read carefully. I said they kill to survive, I didn't specify livestock. I may well be 'silly' but I'm not totally stupid. 

If foxes need controlling they should just be shot imo by experienced shooters. Same with badgers, quick and effective. 

Just because you don't agree with my views that doesn't make them any less valid. I hate the idea of celebrating chasing and killing an animal for sport, entertainment or even tradition. The same as I hate bullfighting. These traditions can be honoured (if they have to be) in many other ways. You can still dress up, meet and gallop around following hounds. What's so fantastic about chasing a fox and dogs mauling or shredding it before it can be killed quickly and effectively. Is this really something we should 'enjoy' in the 21st centuary when we can eat meat from supermarkets so cheaply.  Killing to eat by humans is ok by me so long as it's done quickly and effectively. 

So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event? What exactly is it that the chase and kill supporters are trying to protect and get back? I just don't get it except having something imposed on them... 
There wasn't this fuss when hitting children was banned. 

I'm not trying to be provcative (but no doubt am) I genuinely don't understand. 

Click to expand...

Sorry I must have read it wrong- sometimes it is extremely frustrating when people pull out the "foxes only kill to survive", because it isn't true. 

Again, I'm sure no one would argue experienced guns controlling population of foxes is a bad idea, however, it is larely impractical. Control of the country fox post ban by shotgun is largely farmers, farm labourers, and farmers' sons, some of which are a lot less than an experienced gun, which is why population control becomes inhumane. 
I can't comment largely on the snaring of foxes as I have only ever seen it done a couple of times on the grouse moors. I *think* legally you only have to check a snare once every 24hours, again doesn't scream extremely humane to me. 
Hunting with hounds in contrast, to me seemed to have a place, and I believe it is more humane than the two above reasons, there are simply a lot of people who are opposed to the tradition and field sport element behind it all- personally I see snaring a lot more satanic. 
With regards to foxes (and badgers) being controlled by a food chain- yes, but you cannot control a whole species by a food chain, there has to be predation as well, otherwise we will see what we have done since the introduction of badger protection- an increase in number. For all there is human predation for fox control, the only other species that is willing to knock a fox off is a golden eagle, I think it's pretty rare and it's certainly a scottish thing. Humans are a different predator to a fox's natural predator, they don't have the same dedication, because it isn't predation for survival, and the numbers of foxes present in the UK is surely a reflection of that? 
Population control and protection of the species will always conflict- Botswana has a population of 200,000 elephants, the sustainable number for that country is 4-6000, which means there is a need to cull around 194,000 elephants. Slightly more controvertial than the country fox, however the principle remains the same- there needs to be an element of population control, but people who largely misunderstand the reason for population control oppose the idea.


----------



## competitiondiva (23 February 2011)

OK I never frequent this part of the forum i admit!!  But a couple of questions i'd appreciate answers to for educational reasons please anyone!!??

a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns?  If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

Thank you for any answers??!!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (23 February 2011)

Country folk can tell the difference between fox EARTHS and badger SETTS, in fact there is a vast difference between the two- anyway who is saying people are hunting illegally, i thought it was banned and hunts were drag hunting?


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

Answer: Earths may currently stopped  by anyone including landowners, individuals and for gassing (used by pest control companies) etc.  Fox hunting in the past did use earth stopping, though not always.  Currently stopping earths (blocking holes) in its own right is not illegal.  The hounds  were not used to help stop the earths.  This act also covers those hunting foxes directly with terriers (ie not mounted Fox Hunting)

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns?  If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

From the 2004 ACT there is no chase after flushing.  The Act states that a marksman can shoot the fox. 
Note:  Foxes hunted in the past were not necessarily killed  by hounds- they could outrun / evade hounds and often did so.  Now the only option for the fox is death by shooting or bird of prey (this is a great advancement for the fox obviously)

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

In the past stopping Earths (Blocking holes!) was a function of a dedicated number of individuals.  A foxes earth and a badgers den are very different in appearance.  A fox would have been unlikely to head into a badgers set unless he was daft.  The foxes earth (with holes!) were unblocked after hunting.

Hope this ansers your questions....


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

I ran out of time on my last post...here is the full reply. 

Competiondiva - I am presuming you are asking these questions in relation to mounted fox hunting only and not falconlry, research, rescue, recapture or pest control?  The Hunting Act 2004 has different controls for these activities

From the Hunting Act




			Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied..
(2)The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of&#8212;.
(a)preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause&#8212;.
(i)to livestock,.
(ii)to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)),.
(iii)to food for livestock,.
(iv)to crops (including vegetables and fruit),.
(v)to growing timber,.
(vi)to fisheries,.
(vii)to other property, or.
(viii)to the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992),.
(b)obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption, or.
(c)participation in a field trial..
		
Click to expand...

Note: the definition of flushing includes from out below ground

A dog (eg a terrier) may be used below ground to protect birds for shooting


Answers to your questions: in relation to current mounted hunting...


a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

Answer: Holes may currently stopped  by anyone including landowners, individuals and for gassing (used by pest control companies) etc.  Fox hunting in the past did use earth stopping, though not always.  Currently stopping earths (blocking holes) in its own right is not illegal.  The hounds  were not used to help stop the earths.  This act also covers those hunting foxes directly with terriers (ie not mounted Fox Hunting)

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns?  If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

From the 2004 ACT there is no chase after flushing.  The Act states that a marksman can shoot the fox. 
Note:  Foxes hunted in the past were not necessarily killed  by hounds- they could outrun / evade hounds and often did so.  Now the only option for the fox is death by shooting or bird of prey (this is a great advancement for the fox obviously)

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

In the past stopping Earths (Blocking holes!) was a function of a dedicated number of individuals.  A foxes earth and a badgers den are very different in appearance.  A fox would have been unlikely to head into a badgers set unless he was daft.  The foxes earth (with holes!) were unblocked after hunting.

Hope this answers your questions....

I would suggest you read the Hunting Act 2004 - it will answet any other questions you may have 

LINK to 2004 Hunting ACT


----------



## Binkle&Flip (23 February 2011)

Fiagai said:



			"Cruelty Law" - I have never came across legislation that has enshrined "cruelty" as an objective.  Perhaps this should be "Anti- cruelty"? 

With reference to cruelty do you mean "cruelty" as defined as any hunting or culling even when it is required to control populations for pest control reasons or that have no natural predators and whose habitats can support only a set number?

Shooting isnt always the painless death for such animals that it has been made out to be.  So what is the solution?  Presuming that leaving all the bunnies and bambies running free is not a realistic option.

There is a double negative here as well as in " I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it".

Does that mean
a) You agree with the 2004 Hunting Act as is?
b) That you want another Act enabled?
C) You want to leglislate for animals not to prey on each other  (ie foxes hunting rabbits?)
		
Click to expand...

Where to start???? .....................  A 'cruelty', law would no doubt deem what is or isnt cruel by law. So the term cruelty or anti cruelty law making would only sadly matter on a forum 
Do I want to legislate for animals not to prey on each other? You somehow gathered that from 'setting', one animal on another to fight or kill?? Unless the foxes are organising a World Wrestling Bunny Battle to the death, I am sure that is not my desire.
In principle I do agree with the 2004 Act and its attempt to prevent cruelty by making it illegal for one more animals/dogs being used to attack and killing wild animals.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (23 February 2011)

You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.[/QUOTE]

Training young hounds by Autumn hunting then using part of a dead fox for a trail in the countryside inhabited by live foxes......then taking a pack of hounds out and not expecting them to hunt foxes??? Who is creating the pressure and risk of prosecution if not the hunts in this situation themselves? If my only defence was 'it was an accident your honour', I wouldnt do everything I could in the first place to create the risk of such an 'accident'.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (23 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Country folk can tell the difference between fox EARTHS and badger SETTS, in fact there is a vast difference between the two- anyway who is saying people are hunting illegally, i thought it was banned and hunts were drag hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Very true, they can. Sadly, some hunt members choose to break off from laying trails for the hunt to have a dig at the badger setts as in a recent conviction. It appears that whatever the law some people choose to break it with no regard for animal welfare


----------



## amandap (23 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			An old or sick fox will be slower and thus less likely to escape than a healthy fox. That is how hunting works. A lamper with a rifle can turn up at a farm where there has been a predation problem, but there is no guarantee that the fox he shoots the following night, is the one guilty of the predation.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more?  
I would require evidence that it is only the sick and old foxes that hounds follow I'm afraid and I also would expect a hunt to be over very quickly if the chased fox was always sick or old. 




combat_claire said:



			The drag hounds in the main are retired fox hounds, following the dead fox scent is I guess a more certain thing for them than using a synthetic trail. 
Please let me know what the cap is for a day with the Amanda Chav Hounds, I think it sounds quite good fun ;-)
		
Click to expand...

All foxhounds are drag hounds at the moment though aren't they? Are you saying that foxes are shot and then dragged for the hounds to follow?
Surely hounds can be trained to follow any scent. Even mine lol Wouldn't give much of a day out as I'm too slow and wheezy these days, I'd be caught within five minutes. 




combat_claire said:



			It is hard to put into words but we don't take pleasure in the actual killing of an animal, but the knowledge that pre-ban we were assisting in ensuring a healthy population of animals in the fairest means possible. We also take pleasure from watching the hounds working and from the fast ride/cycle across country after the hunt staff. In my short experience there has always been an enormous respect for the quarry.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I can see this. I still don't see how these same pleasures cannot be got without chasing and killing a fox... I can understand it is so closely linked by association but I wonder if it may be time to try and enjoy the thrill of the gallop and seeing hounds working for their own sake. 

I fully agree that inexpert shooting, gassing, snaring etc. are not quick or humane ways of killing foxes or any animal or bird. Most lampers I've had contact with lamp for rabbits, clearing fields for farmers...


----------



## Herne (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth?  I don't understand how this works as you say it does.
		
Click to expand...

It is the very basis of evolution istself. Natural selection. The hounds *can't* tell which are fit and which are unfit. They don't need to. They hunt all of them. The fit and the lucky survive and the unfit and the unlucky die.

In individual cases, there is always the chance for luck to intervene, but over a season, the law of averages will dictate that the (pre-ban) hunt kills many, many more sick, old and injured foxes than it does young and fit ones.

Just imagine if you decide to play tag in your local shopping centre with all of the people in it. You would find it a lot easier to catch the little old ladies and the people on crutches than you would the young, fit people in their prime. 

In hunting, it's *exactly* the same.  The antis try to confuse the issue, but it really is that simple. Hunting *is* selective because unfit foxes *are* easier to catch. There's no con, no trick - it really is that obvious.




			Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport  ... I see killing as a necessity not as something to 'enjoy' and be an excuse for a 'good day out'... I think this is why I don't like chase quarry hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the people who go lamping are not crying into their cocoa overcome with shame and remorse when they get home. 99.99999% of people who go lamping do so because they enjoy it. It is their idea of a good night out. They do it because they think it is fun. A lot of them find it to be so much fun, they do it way more than is necessary for the fox population in the area.




			However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily.
		
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. A fox walks into a spotlight beam a hundred yards away from you - it's just "a fox"; you aren't going to know anything whatsoever about it until *after* you have taken the shot.


----------



## Herne (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more?  
I would require evidence that it is only the sick and old foxes that hounds follow I'm afraid
		
Click to expand...

You're sort of missing the point. 

The selection isn't in which foxes the hounds follow - they follow all of them; it's in which  ones escape from the hounds.




			and I also would expect a hunt to be over very quickly if the chased fox was always sick or old.
		
Click to expand...

Lord Burns found that the average length of a hunt is 15 minutes.


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Where to start???? .....................  A 'cruelty', law would no doubt deem what is or isnt cruel by law. So the term cruelty or anti cruelty law making would only sadly matter on a forum 
Do I want to legislate for animals not to prey on each other? You somehow gathered that from 'setting', one animal on another to fight or kill?? Unless the foxes are organising a World Wrestling Bunny Battle to the death, I am sure that is not my desire.
In principle I do agree with the 2004 Act and its attempt to prevent cruelty by making it illegal for one more animals/dogs being used to attack and killing wild animals.
		
Click to expand...



Sorry B&F you have completly lost me again...I really didn't understand a word of that.  I would suggest rereading the 2004 Hunting Act...it actually enshrines where animals (including us humans!) can kill wild animals including pest control, reseach, recapture, controling predation of other species and falconlry....Its has simply shifted the methods how animals are now culled / killed to shooting or bird of prey.  This is of course a great improvement for the fox - obviously!


----------



## Fiagai (23 February 2011)

amandap said:



			Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more? . ...
		
Click to expand...

If there was a fox in an earth when they were closed then that fox would have been safe from the hunt!  Earths were always unblocked directly after the hunt.  Foxes tend to clearr out if humans are about so would be unlikely to hang about.


----------



## combat_claire (24 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Training young hounds by Autumn hunting then using part of a dead fox for a trail in the countryside inhabited by live foxes......then taking a pack of hounds out and not expecting them to hunt foxes??? Who is creating the pressure and risk of prosecution if not the hunts in this situation themselves? If my only defence was 'it was an accident your honour', I wouldnt do everything I could in the first place to create the risk of such an 'accident'.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read my post properly - the dead fox was used by the Drag Hound pack, nothing to do with the local foxhounds. Pre-ban they still hunted a drag line. I find it ironic as so many people who go drag hunting are anti-traditional forms of quarry hunting yet clearly have no idea what they are chasing. 

Returning to the quarry packs, you still seem to have little idea of how the exemptions of the hunting act work. This is not a black and white world where everyone has switched to laying an artificial trail. There are many packs who flush to guns or birds of prey; while other packs will hunt exempt quarry. 

You also forget that hounds are not machines. They are trained as well as they can on walk and on hound exercise before the season commences. Incidentally autumn hunting pre-ban was teaching hounds what not to chase, not teaching them to chase foxes. Hunting instinct is natural in a hound. However no matter how well they are trained and how much they adore their huntsman; if an interesting scent gets up in front of their noses they will chase it. I assume you have a horse or ride - to illustrate the point, the horse can be trained as well as it can be for a certain task; but that doesn't stop it from acting unpredictably in certain situations. To expect hounds to switch off their natural instincts in the blink of an eye following hundreds of years of pedigree breeding is completely unrealistic.


----------



## amandap (24 February 2011)

All food for thought for me so thanks for answering and countering my questions.

Is lamping the only way to shoot foxes then?
Oh and btw. I do know what sort of good night out lampers and some other shooters can have and revel in. The fact about lampers not crying into their cocoa is no surprize to me. 
I've seen men with arsenals of guns shooting anything that moves for 'fun' or target practice.
Like many aspects of the stuff we humans do there are types of people within types.


----------



## Maesfen (24 February 2011)

amandap said:



			All food for thought for me so thanks for answering and countering my questions.

Is lamping the only way to shoot foxes then?
Oh and btw. I do know what sort of good night out lampers and some other shooters can have and revel in. The fact about lampers not crying into their cocoa is no surprize to me. 
I've seen men with arsenals of guns shooting anything that moves for 'fun' or target practice.
Like many aspects of the stuff we humans do there are types of people within types.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know about where you live, but around here, I can categorically state that 
a)anyone lamping does not have the landowner's permission.  Lampers are not welcome here anywhere (I'm talking a five mile radius at least; that's a lot of land to cover). 
b) They are always out of town poaching types, from either Scouseland, Manchester, or Birmingham and a range in between, that come in vans with their night sight lights driving along the lanes and taking pot shots at any eyes they see including cattle who have been blinded by them in the past so don't give me that tosh that lamping is a good alternative, it damn well isn't and it isn't humane because they don't wait to see if they've killed it outright either, just move on to the next set of eyes.  
c) Their excuse when challenged is that there's nothing to shoot around them so they need to come further afield.  No wonder is it, they've already killed everything off in their own areas so, 'oh, come on, we'll go fifty miles away, might get something there' - and so their killing circle is extended and very soon there won't be much wildlife left because those stupid prats have seen to that.  
No bloody wonder, they shoot anything and everything, whether protected or not, breeding season or not.  They have no consideration for any species at all.
They put not one jot back into the countryside they are thieving from and are a blight on society to say the very least.  They are our nightmare and we're always on the alert from them, they are not welcome around here but that doesn't put them off trying to get their kicks on someone else's property.

I will be very surprised if you can find many lampers who are conservationists who abide by the proper seasons unlike the landowners and genuine quarry hunting people who are always trying to preserve and improve their habitat for all species and respect all breeding seasons too.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (24 February 2011)

I think its time this thread was put to bed, it is dealing with numpties who aren't interested in the truth but just to keep it going, just for the hell of it.


----------



## Herne (24 February 2011)

Maesfen said:



			I don't know about where you live, but around here, I can categorically state that 
a)anyone lamping does not have the landowner's permission.  Lampers are not welcome here anywhere (I'm talking a five mile radius at least; that's a lot of land to cover). 
b) They are always out of town poaching types, from either Scouseland, Manchester, or Birmingham and a range in between, that come in vans with their night sight lights driving along the lanes and taking pot shots at any eyes they see including cattle who have been blinded by them in the past so don't give me that tosh that lamping is a good alternative, it damn well isn't and it isn't humane because they don't wait to see if they've killed it outright either, just move on to the next set of eyes.  
c) Their excuse when challenged is that there's nothing to shoot around them so they need to come further afield.  No wonder is it, they've already killed everything off in their own areas so, 'oh, come on, we'll go fifty miles away, might get something there' - and so their killing circle is extended and very soon there won't be much wildlife left because those stupid prats have seen to that.  
No bloody wonder, they shoot anything and everything, whether protected or not, breeding season or not.  They have no consideration for any species at all.
They put not one jot back into the countryside they are thieving from and are a blight on society to say the very least.  They are our nightmare and we're always on the alert from them, they are not welcome around here but that doesn't put them off trying to get their kicks on someone else's property.

I will be very surprised if you can find many lampers who are conservationists who abide by the proper seasons unlike the landowners and genuine quarry hunting people who are always trying to preserve and improve their habitat for all species and respect all breeding seasons too.
		
Click to expand...


I would like to disassociate myself and any hunt I have ever been involved with from that statement.

Lamping, properly carried out, has its place within the countryside and whilst there are some people as described above, most lamping in my experience is carried out by people who have the right to be doing where they are doing it.

I do acknowledge that much lamping is not carried out as well as it could be and I beleive that it is definitely a less selective method of control than Hunting with Hounds - however the above statement is a ridiculous and inflammatory generalisation.


----------



## amandap (24 February 2011)

Lampers that I have challanged always say they have the permission of the land owner who generally confirms this but I know most of them came from towns.  



rosiefronfelen said:



			I think its time this thread was put to bed, it is dealing with numpties who aren't interested in the truth but just to keep it going, just for the hell of it.
		
Click to expand...

Time for a 'numpty' to bow out definitely then. I was just thinking this must be the first hunt discussion I've been involved in when I haven't been/felt insulted.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (24 February 2011)

Well, if things can't be understood after120 odd posts doesn't that say something?


----------



## Maesfen (24 February 2011)

Herne said:



			I would like to disassociate myself and any hunt I have ever been involved with from that statement.

Lamping, properly carried out, has its place within the countryside and whilst there are some people as described above, most lamping in my experience is carried out by people who have the right to be doing where they are doing it.

I do acknowledge that much lamping is not carried out as well as it could be and I beleive that it is definitely a less selective method of control than Hunting with Hounds - however the above statement is a ridiculous and inflammatory generalisation.
		
Click to expand...


Why?    I am only telling the truth as to what happens around here _as I said in my post_ 
Does the truth of how our wildlife and countryside is treated by the lampers that visit us without permission not sit easily on you?  We don't know any other sort, I'm sure there must be good and bad in other places too but we just get the bad.


----------



## EAST KENT (25 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I think its time this thread was put to bed, it is dealing with numpties who aren't interested in the truth but just to keep it going, just for the hell of it.
		
Click to expand...

Oh well, I`ve learnt something here, there are some very kind people who go around bunging up fox EARTHS before a hunting day ...so the older more tired foxes can "rest". Don`t you think that is rather sweet??   Puts a whole new aspect on earth stopping for me.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (25 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			You obviously didn't read my post properly - the dead fox was used by the Drag Hound pack, nothing to do with the local foxhounds. Pre-ban they still hunted a drag line. I find it ironic as so many people who go drag hunting are anti-traditional forms of quarry hunting yet clearly have no idea what they are chasing.
		
Click to expand...

I am confused, sorry. You have stated that you have 'run the drag', but no recognised Drag Hunting involves or allows the use of real fox scent of any kind yet you now claim a dead fox was used?


----------



## EAST KENT (25 February 2011)

Now that IS nonsense.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (25 February 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Now that IS nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

According to the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association it is true.


----------



## Fiagai (25 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I think its time this thread was put to bed, it is dealing with numpties who aren't interested in the truth but just to keep it going, just for the hell of it.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.  It seems to be the season for Numpties, maybe we could make it open season for them as well....


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Oh well, I`ve learnt something here, there are some very kind people who go around bunging up fox EARTHS before a hunting day ...so the older more tired foxes can "rest". Don`t you think that is rather sweet??   Puts a whole new aspect on earth stopping for me.  

Click to expand...

Fortunately others know exactly why you used to do it


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Agreed.  It seems to be the season for Numpties, maybe we could make it open season for them as well....
		
Click to expand...

Would those be the same people who make silly little posts when combat_claire is asked a very reasonable question?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 February 2011)

Just wondering how long this tired old thread is going to drag on- what is your point BF?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 February 2011)

133 and rising- dear oh dear-


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Just wondering how long this tired old thread is going to drag on- what is your point BF?
		
Click to expand...

Since asking combat_claire a genuine question regarding drag hunts three of you with no interest whatsoever in my question have added four posts. Four completely pointless posts. What is the point of that 

If you have no further interest in this thread why on earth are you posting on it!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			133 and rising- dear oh dear-
		
Click to expand...

Just how many of those 133 posts have been by yourself and others to do nothing more than disrupt the discussion my dear?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 February 2011)

I dont think i am alone with my opinions here, and i am not your dear-n on this glorious sunny day do you not have  a horse to ride or something else to do bar  wind up folk on here?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 February 2011)

I have no interest in drag hunts so could not answer your queries any way.


----------



## Fiagai (26 February 2011)

Agreed with rosiefronfelen.  oh dear(!) I think we are finally getting through to someone. Before this thread was hijacked for other purposes I believe the question posted by Kautostar1 was relative to "blocking up fox holes".
Despite unsourced and false information been posted the legal position of this activity has now been correctly established.  Definitly time to put the thread to sleep and for numpties to go and to bother someone else...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I dont think i am alone with my opinions here, and i am not your dear-n on this glorious sunny day do you not have  a horse to ride or something else to do bar  wind up folk on here?
		
Click to expand...

Pot/Kettle.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I have no interest in drag hunts so could not answer your queries any way.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps then out of courtesy you could wait for combat_claires response rather than trolling.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (26 February 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Agreed with rosiefronfelen.  oh dear(!) I think we are finally getting through to someone. Before this thread was hijacked for other purposes I believe the question posted by Kautostar1 was relative to "blocking up fox holes".
Despite unsourced and false information been posted the legal position of this activity has now been correctly established.  Definitly time to put the thread to sleep and for numpties to go and to bother someone else...
		
Click to expand...

How could I not have guessed you would agree with rosiefronfelen 
I do believe that on page 4 of this thread I reminded everybody the issue was the opening post and we should return to it. However your 'friends', as you say continued to hijack the thread for the purposes of yet another anti/pro debate! It is time for the numpties to go and bother someone else and leave those who still wish to post within the relatively safe confines of this thread alone. The big question is can you and your comrades do so


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 February 2011)

Do you not have anything better to do than bicker? Having said that i am bored with thisnumpty nonsense and return to the rugby and leave BandF to vent their feelings o some other poor soul- toodleoo.


----------



## Fiagai (26 February 2011)

Oh dear...One of the above is not like the others and I believe that someone is having a little tantrum!

BTW From the Urban Dictionary
*Trolling*



			Trolling is ATTEMPTING to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness.
		
Click to expand...

   All I hear is the strange rumblings of the wind among the bushes. So nighty night and dont let the nasty little trolls bite....


----------



## oakash (26 February 2011)

As an only occasional visitor, it is interesting that Binkle & Flip et al seem to have totally lost the plot. Most of us who have first hand experience know that hunting with hounds is the most humane way to control, and not eradicate , the fox population. Why do not Binkle and Flip applaud that? Or have they a hidden agenda? (Never mind the foxes, we want to get at the PEOPLE?, which we HATE?)


----------



## Binkle&Flip (27 February 2011)

oakash said:



			As an only occasional visitor, it is interesting that Binkle & Flip et al seem to have totally lost the plot. Most of us who have first hand experience know that hunting with hounds is the most humane way to control, and not eradicate , the fox population. Why do not Binkle and Flip applaud that? Or have they a hidden agenda? (Never mind the foxes, we want to get at the PEOPLE?, which we HATE?)
		
Click to expand...

Lost the plot?? Since the Hunting Act came in to force I like many, many  others now support the hunts and the new form of legal hunting. It is becoming very clear at least on this forum that hunt supporters are more than happy to crow to the press and others about their increased support yet despise the new intake of supporters! Ask a genuine question and watch the bullies decend.
It is not I who hates other people or has an agenda oakash. I suggest some of you take a long look in the mirror!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 February 2011)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh


----------



## Fiagai (27 February 2011)

When someone thinks everyone else is wrong and only they are right!....jeez I'm loosing count of the number of "wrong" people here...

*brings myself outside to give myself a good talking to*


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 February 2011)

There are only 2 experienced hunters on here now-what to do?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (27 February 2011)

Fiagai said:



			When someone thinks everyone else is wrong and only they are right!....jeez I'm loosing count of the number of "wrong" people here...

*brings myself outside to give myself a good talking to*

Click to expand...

I suspect those reading this thread will clearly see who those are who believe they are right whilst everybody else is wrong. You know, those who attempt to stifle discussion, name call and offer only snide comments toward people with a different opinion to their own.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (27 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			There are only 2 experienced hunters on here now-what to do?
		
Click to expand...

Gosh, this thread has had getting close to four thousand views. Can you not, even at this late stage, post something of some interest on topic?!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 February 2011)

To whom? sorry, i am twp-


----------



## Fiagai (27 February 2011)

The question / topic has been been answered correctly and validated with references for all interested parties to verify, ingnoring the unsubstantiated / reactionary posts.

Time now to go home (that is inclusive of those non hunting trolls....)


----------



## Alec Swan (27 February 2011)

Fiagai,

by all accounts,  you and I are one and the same, which will be news to both of us!  

I'd wonder if you'd agree with me,  when I say,  that the difference between stupidity and reason,  is that the former knows no bounds. 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (27 February 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,

by all accounts,  you and I are one and the same, which will be news to both of us!  

I'd wonder if you'd agree with me,  when I say,  that the difference between stupidity and reason,  is that the former knows no bounds. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

To Alec

Indeed it feels strange to be talking to myself.  That said I dont think we are allowed to agree on anything even if we are one and the same (well that is according to other sources anyway)  but yes your / mine own statement is veritable.  Maybe you / I would like to add to this logic that the problem with common sense is that it is sadly not very common....


----------



## Fiagai (27 February 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			There are only 2 experienced hunters on here now-what to do?
		
Click to expand...

Fancy going hunting?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 February 2011)

I remember when pastie2 and i were the same person- how weird- dopplegangers---


----------



## Fiagai (28 February 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			I suspect those reading this thread will clearly see who those are who believe they are right whilst everybody else is wrong. You know, those who attempt to stifle discussion, name call and offer only snide comments toward people with a different opinion to their own.
		
Click to expand...

I would like to quote from the Jacket cover of the book The Adventures of Binkle and Flip by Enid Blyton




			Binkle and Flip are two very bad and bold rabbits who are always playing jokes on the people of Oak Tree Town, either to get out of doing any honest work, or just to be plain rascally. Each time they get caught and promise never to do anything bad again. But it doesn't last long.
		
Click to expand...

ok so change "rabbits" for Trolls and H&H for "Oak Tree Town".....


----------



## EAST KENT (28 February 2011)

fiagai said:



			i would like to quote from the jacket cover of the book the adventures of binkle and flip by enid blyton



ok so change "rabbits" for trolls and h&h for "oak tree town".....
		
Click to expand...

:d:d:d:d


----------



## Fiagai (28 February 2011)

Ooopps sorry...


----------



## Fiagai (28 February 2011)

EK

did you mean

   ...?


----------



## EAST KENT (2 March 2011)

Well, being a hunter born and bred ,anything wil do ..even bad rabbits/hunt monitors. It`s all good clean fun.


----------



## Fiagai (2 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Well, being a hunter born and bred ,anything wil do ..even bad rabbits/hunt monitors. It`s all good clean fun.
		
Click to expand...


Open season then....


----------



## Binkle&Flip (2 March 2011)

I do not know what you people ( you know who you are), think that I have done to harm or upset you but it is bloody horrible arriving at this forum to find constant digs directed at me!


----------



## Fiagai (2 March 2011)

....ok ok its only a little bit of humour to lighten what has become a very heavy debate


----------



## EAST KENT (3 March 2011)

Don`t think rabbits do humour...get the ferret


----------



## VoR (3 March 2011)

Seems to me that this thread has answered the original question and has now been hijacked by pro v. anti in-fighting.
Folks, the facts are that the Hunting Act was most probably an anti-class act, it certainly wasn't a well thought out piece of legislation, the whole pro v. anti thing just gets taken over by the polarised stand-points of either side, when, in reality, for those who hunt and are employed through the act of hunting and those who don't or are not, the police, the government and not least the foxes, there should be some agreement on a middle-ground, perhaps some managed and controlled hunting activity, which is still more humane than the possible alternatives of shooting, trapping or poisoning all of which can lead to more suffering and more indiscriminate killing of wildlife. 
Unfortunately, these things never happen because those who shout loudest, usually the most extreme supporters or opposition are the only ones that get heard, when in fact, those who have the most reasoned arguments are ignored. Everyone has the right to an opinion, EVERYONE, but everyone should also have a large dose of empathy to go along with it!
I hunt, I also understand why people may feel it is cruel and why people see foxes as beautiful creatures, which healthy ones are, but the old, mangy and diseased ones that were normally despatched by the hunt (pre.ban) were not and these, like any old or infirm wild creature (see any documentary about big cats) are the ones who kill livestock, etc as they can no longer hunt effectively so look for an easy meal!
We can all shout and name call, it does no good, we all, both sides, need to understand each other, the needs of the countryside and the needs to humanely control the fox population in a way which will ensure it's survival.


----------



## EAST KENT (3 March 2011)

Ferrets stowed in bow backed box......


----------



## Fiagai (3 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Ferrets stowed in bow backed box......

Click to expand...


----------



## EAST KENT (4 March 2011)

Fiagai said:








Click to expand...

Whoowhoop...forrard on.....


----------

