# On death and dying.



## Festive_Felicitations (29 April 2009)

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. 
If any one can provide a rational arguement proving me wrong I would be glad to hear it.

OK, I don't read this forum religously, but the basic concensus among the Antis appears to be an objection to the killing of the fox at the end of the day.

If Hunts don't go out foxes still get killed, just not by hounds.

General alternatives are shooting, poisoning and snaring.
Shooting: unless you are at close range, or are a very good shot, the chances are that the fox will only be injured, not killed out right and will die at some later period.
Poisioning: I have had the misfortune of having to watch two of my dogs die from Strychnine poisioning. Poisioning is a SLOW &amp; HORRIBLE way to go, no one (animal or human) should ever have to die that way. The only truly fast acting poisions are banned on H&amp;S reasons becasue they are too leathal.
Snaring: if not killed out right the animal is caught till it starves to death, a slow and I think nasty way to go. Also snares are not selective in that you may get non-targeted animals.

Dogs are predators and fairly good at killing there prey, compared to some of the above options, I would have thought it would be a prettty quick way to go and at least they stand a chance of escaping. It may not be pretty but at least it is fast. 

I would be interested (please keep your arguments rational) for both parties to post their opinions.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

From a welfare point of view hunting can be  compared with other control methods in terms of it's net effect on animal suffering.

Three factors weigh in hunting's favour.

Firstly it does not wound.

Secondly death is often much quicker

Thirdly it tends to select weaker diseased animals because they have less ability to escape.


----------



## stencilface (29 April 2009)

From a welfare point of view hunting can be  compared with other control methods in terms of it's net effect on animal suffering.

Three factors weigh in hunting's favour.

Firstly it does not wound.

Secondly death is often much quicker

Thirdly it tends to select weaker diseased animals because they have less ability to escape.
		
Click to expand...

Well, the last point is only valid if all the foxes holes have not been filled in really. 

I tell people that although they might not like fox hunting, its actually better than other methods - mainly cos most of the time they don't actually get anything!!!  

I worked on an estate where the gamekeeper had snared and shot 80 foxes in one summer season.  That is excessive imo


----------



## rafferty (29 April 2009)

All you say is very true, however snares, poisoning and shooting went on along side hunting not as alternative.
Regardless of a ban these methods will still be used and are still used. The frequency of use maybe debatable.
I may be wrong but I think its because hunting is not a Particularly efficient method of control.
Yes I would prefer the fox to have a fighting chance but I don't think this romantic view of hunting is a true one.
Blocking, stopping, releasing, digging may be as bad as the things you mentioned.


----------



## Scratchline (29 April 2009)

I tell people that although they might not like fox hunting, its actually better than other methods - mainly cos most of the time they don't actually get anything!!!  

I worked on an estate where the gamekeeper had snared and shot 80 foxes in one summer season.  That is excessive imo 

Click to expand...

So it shouldnt really matter that hunting with hounds is banned then, true? Compared to other hunting methods they do not catch that many and those that they do are killed by a pack of dogs which is unacceptable to most people.


----------



## stencilface (29 April 2009)

Yes, I am a fence sitter on this one, as can see it from the animal welfare pov and from a countryside management one, can never make my mind up, and am likely to argue both sides on different days - depending on who I am speaking to!!  :grin:

There is no black and white answer to it really.


----------



## Scratchline (29 April 2009)

IMHO only lamping of a night time by licensed people with rifles should be legal. Nothing else is as humane.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

That all depends how you measure efficiency and how you measure efficiency depends on your aims.

My interest is in the maintenance of a strong and healthy fox population at sustainable levels.

Fox hunting is more efficient at producing this because it tends to select weaker animals.  Shooting less efficient because it produces wounded animals.

I would measure efficiency by having the desired effect while killing the fewest animals.

It seems a strange argument against fox hunting that it does not kill enough animals.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

IMHO only lamping of a night time by licensed people with rifles should be legal. Nothing else is as humane.
		
Click to expand...

Surely flushing out and chasing deer without killing them is more humane than shooting them?

Shouldn't non lethal means of controlling damage done by animals be legal?


----------



## rafferty (29 April 2009)

I wasn't looking at it from an Anti POV just trying to be realistic.
I'm just trying to see it from the sheep farmers Perspective.
would a fortnightly visit from a hunt keep the fox population to an exceptable level. 
If the answer is yes and there was no need for additional methods then I dont think you can argue with it.
Not as a control method anyway.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

Indeed the best method depends on the circumstances and the desired effect.


----------



## Scratchline (29 April 2009)

The "others', will stop talking to you if you also dont put all the nasty anti's on ignore! lol lol lol


----------



## Scratchline (29 April 2009)

Surely flushing out and chasing deer without killing them is more humane than shooting them?

Shouldn't non lethal means of controlling damage done by animals be legal?
		
Click to expand...

  Yes Yes Yes ) I do absolutelty agree with you on this.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

Right and how about regulation over all means of controlling animals which promotes the best one for specific circumstances and aims with a view to minimising the impact on animal welfare?


----------



## zigzagzig (29 April 2009)

G'day Felicity. My basic problem with hunting is that hunts deliberately ensure that there are enough animals to hunt. In the case of foxhunting this traditionally meant introducing foxes to fox-free areas (such as the Isle of Wight) and then killing them. Look at Australia, foxes only exist there because of hunts.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

True.  

Hunts spend a lot of time and effort improving habitat for foxes.  Such as planting trees and maintaining cover.

Another example is creating woodland rides which has a marked effect on woodland butterflies.

As for introducing foxes into Australia.  That would be illegal now and quite right too.


----------



## zigzagzig (29 April 2009)

Yup, agreed. Hunts preserve and even regenerate the countryside. I just wish hunts could be more honest about the steps they take to boost fox numbers, which they then kill for reasons of 'pest control'.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

There are studies out there if you want to read them.  Management and control of the fox population is about maintaining a sustainable number of healthy animals.

Control can be up as well as down.

Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor changes in animal populations.


----------



## Hebegebe (29 April 2009)

My local begle pack has shipped in thousands of brown hares to Devon from the East the country.


----------



## Eagle_day (29 April 2009)

"Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor changes in animal populations."

Indeed it was the otter hunters who drew attention to the population crash of otters in the 60s and 70s.  (And stopped hunting of their own violition.)


----------



## Box_Of_Frogs (30 April 2009)

You're all missing a major point. 

What is the difference between fox hunting and bear baiting, dog fights and cock fighting? The last 3 "sports" have been recognised as barbaric and stopped. But all have the same formula: human beings enjoying the one-sided fun process of killing animals.

Can anyone provide a convincing and reasoned argument on why fox hunting is different?


----------



## Hebegebe (30 April 2009)

Yes fox hunting is about catching a fox and killing it as quickly as possible.

Dog fighting, bear baiting and cock fighting are about doing things with animals once they are in captivity.

People enjoy lamping foxes too.  They also enjoy catching and killing rats.


----------



## Eagle_day (30 April 2009)

"You're all missing a major point."

You might think so but, no, we aren't.

Foxhunting has nothing to do with baiting, which is usually done for betting purposes.  In fact, the only time I see hunting linked with such activities is when the antis' old lies and smears are dragged out again.


----------



## joe_carby (30 April 2009)

1st comment Excellent discussion 

I agree hunts do up the numbers of fox hare populations but as said before regulating a population isnt just about keeping numbers down its about keeping numbers of healthy fox's up. no one wants foxes to be extinct i love watching the cubs on a morning when i wake up.

When i used to work on a farm we were bordered by a large shoot on 2 sides. through spring we lost alot of lambs due to foxes but when the foxes were caught (lamped by us) they had always or nearly always been mamed by traps or guns which we can only presume came from the shoot. Fit healthy foxes very rarely caused us a problem.. i guess what im trying to say is that hunting gets rid of the ones causing the majority of the problems. where as other forms of control do not differentiate (sp) between species or how healthy an animal is.

Hope that all made sense.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 April 2009)

When i used to work on a farm we were bordered by a large shoot on 2 sides. through spring we lost alot of lambs due to foxes but when the foxes were caught (lamped by us) they had always or nearly always been mamed by traps or guns which we can only presume came from the shoot.
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation because I saw exactly the same thing in Australia when I worked on a large sheep station.  The elderly owner wouldn't let ANYONE shoot foxes until he was convinced they were good enough to kill them with one shot!  And shooting foxes with shotguns was forbidden (we used 303's - VERY effective!!)  It wasn't because he cared about fox welfare - he hated foxes with a passion.  It was because he was convinced that it was the injured foxes who preyed on lambing ewes.

This was borne out by the foxes we shot around the lambing fields.  Some 70% of these foxes had shotgun wounds or were wearing wire (snares).  As there was NO shotgun shooting or snaring on that station, they had obviously followed the smell of lambing from nearby (and this WAS a 20,000 acre station!) stations looking for 'easy pickings'.

And - contrary to the much loved anti claim that they only take afterbirth and dead lambs - I saw - in broad daylight - a fox waiting as a ewe was in labour.  I spotted it and rode towards it yelling (and I was riding one horse, leading 3!!)  The fox calmly tore the head off the emerging lamb and made its escape - leaving the poor ewe to deliver a headless lamb - one of the most pathetic things I've seen!!  They would also take the first lamb born while the ewe was delivering the second - ewe would then be tearing around looking for the first (ewes CAN count!!) - often neglecting to attend the second in the process.

Lambing some 8,000 ewes outdoors, the losses to foxes were pretty horrendous despite rigorous fox control.  (A group out shooting at night would kill 70 - 100 foxes in a night and it was a drop in the ocean!!)

Of course, in the UK, the BEST you can do with a firearm is a .222 - and even that isn't guaranteed to kill a fox!  The police in many areas won't permit more than a .22 for fox control - even an expert marksman can't guarantee a clean kill every time with THAT!

But then the police are more interested in public safety than fox welfare or control (quite rightly).  There are a LOT of places in the UK where even a .22 is dangerous!


----------



## zigzagzig (30 April 2009)

An excellent illustration, Janet, of how hunts f***ed up the ecological balance by introducing foxes into oz in the first place.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 April 2009)

An excellent illustration, Janet, of how hunts f***ed up the ecological balance by introducing foxes into oz in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

PEOPLE have screwed up the ecological balance EVERYWHERE - particularly over the last 100 years!  Actually, they screwed up just as badly by introducing rabbits!  And the justification for introducing foxes was that they would control the rabbits!  Both were incredibly stupid things to do.


----------



## zigzagzig (30 April 2009)

Can't you understand why onlookers find it hard to accept the "pest control" justification from people like Liam on his hunting forum, when it was the hunt which introduced foxes to the Isle of Wight, where he's based? Can't you understand why we roll our eyes when hunters trot out with the "ecological balance benefit of hunting" tripe when they so obviously interfere in the balance, and sometimes disasterously for the worse?

If hunters had had their way, they would have introduced the fox into New Zealand. Fortunately, the Governor had better ideas and dumped the poor beasts into the sea.


----------



## joe_carby (30 April 2009)

"the Governor had better ideas and dumped the poor beasts into the sea"

Animal Welfare????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## wurzel (30 April 2009)

Yup, agreed. Hunts preserve and even regenerate the countryside. I just wish hunts could be more honest about the steps they take to boost fox numbers, which they then kill for reasons of 'pest control'.
		
Click to expand...

Tell you what, old girl.

If you can provide proof of the steps hunts on Exmoor take to boost fox numbers, I will cease hunting this August.

How does that sound for a deal?


----------



## Festive_Felicitations (1 May 2009)

On Australia (look where I live!)

Foxes were introduced to control rabbits (introduced cortesy of Thomas Austin 1859) which were allready in plauge proportions by the 1880's.
But I don't think you can use Australia in any argument as its history reads like a "Comedy of Errors":
- Rabbits (early 1800s)
- Foxes (late 1800's)
- Buffalo (early 1900's) God knows what inspired that one...
- Cane toads (mid 1900s)
- any domestic animal that has escaped... since 1780, feral 
   pigs being are a major problem in the north.

At the moment on the edges of Sydney Bandicoot numbers are in decline as they are pushed out by rabbits. Rabbits are reaching plauge levels due to the large food source and the 'aren't they cute, don't hurt them' philosophy which makes it impossible to shoot them (spectacular oppostion and complaits to council at the suggestion and very few were on  OH&amp;S grounds).  You can't poision because Bandicoots and Possums eat the same stuff.  It is really fustrating when you can see native animal numbers declining but a few welfare groups oppose to the most humane form of rabbit control.   But this is a major ongoing argument in Aus...

Apart from that, thanks for your replies it has been very interesting!


----------



## Hebegebe (1 May 2009)

ah yeah but hey lets blame ecological mayhem in australia die to the introduction of foreign invasive species on fox hunters

hell look what they've done to the Isle of wight!!!!!


----------



## Eagle_day (1 May 2009)

But at least foxes would have existed on the Isle of Wight in the last 10,000 years or so - but certainly when there was a land bridge to the mainland.  In which case, the EU Directive about the reintroduction of species will apply?


----------



## zigzagzig (1 May 2009)

"If you can provide proof of the steps hunts on Exmoor take to boost fox numbers, I will cease hunting this August.

How does that sound for a deal?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.


----------



## zigzagzig (1 May 2009)

"But at least foxes would have existed on the Isle of Wight in the last 10,000 years or so - but certainly when there was a land bridge to the mainland. In which case, the EU Directive about the reintroduction of species will apply?"

WTF? Are you an actuary? 

In any case, we know that the Countryside Alliance loves the EU, spending its members money on completely pointless legal cases in its courts.


----------



## Eagle_day (1 May 2009)

"WTF? Are you an actuary?"

No, a zoologist.


----------



## Hebegebe (1 May 2009)

"If you can provide proof of the steps hunts on Exmoor take to boost fox numbers, I will cease hunting this August.

How does that sound for a deal?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.
		
Click to expand...

In other words.  He can't


----------



## Chestnutter (2 May 2009)

I just don't see the point in the fox dying in the first place.
fair enough, it may be the best death for them, but i don't see the need to kill things in nature to begin with, culling just isn'y a good enough reason tbh.  it's nature, i think it should be left like that.


----------



## jrp204 (3 May 2009)

Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance. Arne, an RSPB reserve has been overrun by sika deer, they have had to cull hundreds. They were out competing the native deer and leaving any areas of grassland like a bowling green, left, they would have limited food resources and the fallow deer would have gone. In the scottish highlands, caledonian forest regeneration has been affected by the deer, without predators the  'natural' balance does not exist. So should these culls take place? its all very well saying leave it to nature but at what cost to those other creatures within the food web who would lose habitat or food resources?


----------



## wurzel (3 May 2009)

"If you can provide proof of the steps hunts on Exmoor take to boost fox numbers, I will cease hunting this August.

How does that sound for a deal?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.
		
Click to expand...

But you seemed to be saying that we do something to boost fox numbers?!

Now I guess it is one of three things...

1. You know it to be true.
2. You told a little lie (and you admiring honesty and all!)
3. You have not got a clue what you are talking about.

I wonder which one?


----------



## rafferty (3 May 2009)

{Quote}Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance. 

This natural preditor arguement is a load C**p, I don't think anyone really believes it. Wolves and bears did not have mobile phones and quad bikes and didnt chase an animal for hours for a laugh Hunting is not natural selection.
Theres no piont us lying to each other I think we all have an interest in this for one reason or another so we may as well not treat each other as idiots.


----------



## Festive_Felicitations (4 May 2009)

I object to the apparent belief by (some) Antis that anyone who hunts does it out of cheer blood lust, and that we all stand around cackling and laughing at the kill. 

I don't know of any one who laughs, and if I ever meet any one who does I would probably report them to the police, out of concern for their mental stability. 
All hunts I have been involved in (fox and pig (in Aus)) go to considerable effort to make the actual death as quick as possible, with the least amount of blood spilt.

Most people who do Hunt do so becasue they enjoy watching the hounds work, as a social event, for the pleasure of riding across country, 
AND (as the above can be done without a fox) because they belive it is the best thing for the fox population, as a means of controling population numbers as there are no natural predators left in England. 

Re-the predator argument: a lot of people do believe it, and there is a lot of highly respected, scientific literature to support it (written by non-hunting ecologists).


----------



## Hebegebe (4 May 2009)

{Quote}Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance. 

This natural preditor arguement is a load C**p, I don't think anyone really believes it. Wolves and bears did not have mobile phones and quad bikes and didnt chase an animal for hours for a laugh Hunting is not natural selection.
Theres no piont us lying to each other I think we all have an interest in this for one reason or another so we may as well not treat each other as idiots.
		
Click to expand...

It's not a load of crap.  Predators have a significant role to play in maintaining a natural equilibrium.  In the case of deer without predators or some kind of control the population will expand until it exhausts its food supply.  This is extremely damaging to the environment.

Hunts do not chase animals for hours either.  They may hunt an animal for hours but they don't chase it for hours.

In actual fact the average time from finding a fox to either killing it or losing it is something like 20 minutes.

However wolves have in fact been observed to chase animals for significant distances.

With respect to fox hunting it is very hard to argue that a fit young fox has an equal chyance of escaping the hounds to a wounded or sick animal.


----------



## zigzagzig (4 May 2009)

""WTF? Are you an actuary?"

No, a zoologist."

The zoologists' annual fun day out must be a riot.


----------



## zigzagzig (4 May 2009)

Would a letter sent to all hunt masters from the Chairman of the MFHA, asking them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed suffice?


----------



## wurzel (4 May 2009)

Would a letter sent to all hunt masters from the Chairman of the MFHA, asking them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed suffice?
		
Click to expand...

No. Because you can't produce a letter sent to us by the Chairman of the MFHA asking us to do that.

And you know you can't.

Why do you lie?

If you have the letter why not just put it on the board and humiliate me. 

How would the farmers in Minehead Harriers and Exmoor Foxhounds country actually go about encouraging foxes ?

You have not got the slightest clue.

Why do you lie?

It is pathetic.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 May 2009)

he's not a liar, just plain bloody ignorant in all things hunting wise- he and that other creep scratcharse haven't a clue so make it all up!waste of spaces.


----------



## jrp204 (4 May 2009)

At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling)  are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.


----------



## zigzagzig (5 May 2009)

Consider yourself humiliated, Tim
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041003/ai_n12910763/?tag=untagged


----------



## zigzagzig (5 May 2009)

"Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology?"

What do you think of the theory that the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was an ecological "godsend"?


----------



## jrp204 (5 May 2009)

I don't know if i would call it a 'godsend' Many reports have suggested that the exclusion zone is a thriving ecosystem and it appears that in the low level radiation areas this is probably the case BUT there is also evidence of mutation and chromosomal aberration in some species in the exclusion zone surrounding chernobyl, these have led to partial albinism, feather asymmetry, reduced clutch sizes,hatching failure and a reduced survival rate in some birds (swallows have been studied quite extensively) - more so in areas of high radiation. There is a 66% decline in in the abundance of birds between areas of most contamination and those with normal background levels of radiation, species richness decreased by more than 50% in the same areas. 
I think the only positive thing to come out of the disaster is that it has allowed research to be conducted into the long term effects on the whole ecosystem of radiation poisoning.


----------



## Hebegebe (5 May 2009)

maybe we will get some new species out of all those mutations


----------



## Eagle_day (5 May 2009)

I think we've got one or two posting on this forum now.


----------



## wildduck (5 May 2009)

well said "Eagle_day" not been a member long (2 days) and read some posts on here,and enjoying the banter.Can't say that I have come across any mutant wild duck yet whilst out myself.Still perhaps "zig" has, whilst out shooting.. have you zig? Do let us know when you do get one in the bag.


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

Quote{At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling) are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.}

No i havn't. I have spent 30 years getting drunk and I thought I was on a hunting forum.
I was saying hunting is not quite the same as having wolves and bears. the above creatures did not have mobiles quads and shovels.


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

Wild duck you know you're not really a tiger, well zig zag......oh it doesn't matter.


----------



## wildduck (5 May 2009)

NO? I cant download a decent picture from my computer so I chose this tiger from the avatar menu on here.Wife says i'm her tame (pussycat) will that do?


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

Its not really Zig


----------



## Hebegebe (5 May 2009)

Quote{At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling) are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.}

No i havn't. I have spent 30 years getting drunk and I thought I was on a hunting forum.
I was saying hunting is not quite the same as having wolves and bears. the above creatures did not have mobiles quads and shovels.
		
Click to expand...

Indedd but they run fast, chase their prey and dig them out.


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

Anyway now your here you must state your cause.

All pros are *******
All Antis are *******
I'm just here to wind up the antis/pros
I would like to hear both sides conducting well thought out arguements so I can make up my own mind 
I just like killing things


----------



## Hebegebe (5 May 2009)

Interesting quote here:

http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol04Issue09/predators.html

"Wolves are coursing predators that chase prey over long distances in open habitat and have a relatively low success rate, selecting substandard prey."


----------



## wildduck (5 May 2009)

Quite easy that one "ugly" (sorry. i'm sure you are not in the least ugly).My cause is to defend my right to hunt and shoot,within the laid down law of the land.My view is that the next step in the so called "anti" brigade would be to attack us who are the "shooting society".and that our sport will be the next to become endanged. (ZIG s photo? got that bit) he does not recieve mail too .. I wonder why? Still :
You Ask:
All Pros are "Doing what they enjoy and earning a living"
All Antis are "Doing what they belive in" (in my view).

I shoot and kill vermin, shoot duck and geese as my sport and so EVERYONE has a right to his own SPORT.


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

Hebe 

I know what your saying, I just dont quite agree that hunting is replacing natural predators. Just my opinion.


----------



## rafferty (5 May 2009)

I am but thats for another forum !.
I don't think anti hunting and anti shooting are mutually exclusive.
Quote {I shoot and kill vermin, shoot duck and geese as my sport and so EVERYONE has a right to his own SPORT} yes so long as its moraly and legaly exceptable.
Ducks are my favourite animal and my favourite meat, how does that work. Now if you could justify ME eating duck I'd be a happy man.


----------



## Eagle_day (5 May 2009)

That is indeed interesting.  And yet I've heard that African hunting dogs have the highest predator kill-rate of all, being successful in 50% of all hunts they undertake.  Surely their methods aren't that different to those of wolves?


----------



## wildduck (5 May 2009)

natural predation? I'm at the top of that list as "man"and as such am a natural preditor.As I cannot run fast,creep/pounce/etc as other preditors in the ecology chain i use my intelligence and therefore invented the shotgun. perhaps the animals/birds that I hunt/shoot will one day overtake "man" and hunt me,some animals in Africa are "man hunters" are they not?natural preditors are changing to other sources for food like our town/city dustbins,blame the rubbish tips/easy food chains,and even us householders for that.So why should one waste energy hunting when food is easy available in the dustbin of an inner city,or country cottage?  Just a thought there?


----------



## wildduck (5 May 2009)

just noticed "why am i shown as a stranger" and you addict, and journeyman? still been called worse in my time.


----------



## wurzel (5 May 2009)

Consider yourself humiliated, Tim
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041003/ai_n12910763/?tag=untagged

Click to expand...

No Zig. Absolutely hopeless !!!

You are saying I should be humiliated by a cock and bull story in the Sunday Mirror !!!

I think you need to read the little challenge again.

Show me the letter, Zig. Show me the letter.

A letter to an Exmoor hunt telling the Master to order farmers to breed Foxes.

I can see Ian Baker sitting at my kitchen table now. Ordering me to breed foxes !!!

You really are a hopeless liar !!!

Have you got the slightest clue what you are talking about ??


----------



## zigzagzig (6 May 2009)

Faggus, if you want to be humiliated by a cock or a bull, that is entirely a matter for you.


----------



## wurzel (7 May 2009)

Faggus, if you want to be humiliated by a cock or a bull, that is entirely a matter for you.
		
Click to expand...

So where is the letter_

Are you ready to concede that you are a liar and you made it up?

Do you get all your hunting information from the Sunday Mirror?


----------



## zigzagzig (8 May 2009)

If you want the letter, simply ask your hunt secretary for it. It'll be on file.

Are you stating that the Chairman of the MFHA did not write to hunt masters complaining of the shortage of foxes?

If the Sunday Mirror isn't to your liking, here's the story covered by the Sunday Times:

"One of the (hunt) protesters key arguments  that foxes need to be destroyed  has been undermined, however, by the discovery of a letter sent by the Master of Foxhounds Association to masters and hunt chairmen. 

Complaining about a shortage of foxes, it berates landowners who did too little to encourage the animals to breed. 

The letter, circulated last March, has come to light following the leak of documents from the Countryside Alliance. It is referred to in an e-mail from Simon Hart, chief executive of the alliance, to Lord Daresbury, the chairman of the foxhounds association. Hart warns the letter would be damaging if it were made public. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article486999.ece?token=null&amp;offset=24&amp;page=3


----------



## wurzel (10 May 2009)

If you want the letter, simply ask your hunt secretary for it. It'll be on file.

Are you stating that the Chairman of the MFHA did not write to hunt masters complaining of the shortage of foxes?

If the Sunday Mirror isn't to your liking, here's the story covered by the Sunday Times:

"One of the (hunt) protesters key arguments  that foxes need to be destroyed  has been undermined, however, by the discovery of a letter sent by the Master of Foxhounds Association to masters and hunt chairmen. 

Complaining about a shortage of foxes, it berates landowners who did too little to encourage the animals to breed. 

The letter, circulated last March, has come to light following the leak of documents from the Countryside Alliance. It is referred to in an e-mail from Simon Hart, chief executive of the alliance, to Lord Daresbury, the chairman of the foxhounds association. Hart warns the letter would be damaging if it were made public. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article486999.ece?token=null&amp;offset=24&amp;page=3

Click to expand...

I asked the hunt secretary and it is not.

No letter received.

I am stating that the Chairman of the MFHA did not write to the Minehead harriers complaining of the shortage of foxes.

It would seem a bizarre subject for a letter.

he may well be angry to us simple farmers down here.....as we do not encourage foxes to breed. We kill them.

About time you stumped up the letter you little liar.


----------



## zigzagzig (11 May 2009)

Your secretary is either lying or mistaken. You seem to be suggesting that the journalists on both the Sunday Times and Sunday Mirror are making up the story about the MFHA complaining about the shortage of foxes. At the same time you imply that Simon Hart of the Countryside Alliance wrote to the MFHA complaining about a letter which never existed.

Hunts have always encouraged foxes to breed. In Victorian times they were at least open about this. Nowadays, they have to resort to cheap lies, covering up their tracks, looking over their shoulders. No backbone!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 May 2009)

effing crap!!!!!! you write an absolute load of boll---s ! you call yourself a "countryside expert"- well,well,well! sunday mirror? say no more. lol!! i said the other day that you weren't a liar, just tup! but i was wrong, you are a liar, can't do anything with liars!!!(thieves yes, just chop their fingers off- but liars- no.)


----------



## zigzagzig (11 May 2009)

Once again, the pros here show that, defeated in reasoned debate, they resort to childish name-calling.

But we antis are tolerant folk and so will put up with your bad manners.


----------



## samsonsoup (11 May 2009)

But we antis are tolerant folk and so will put up with your bad manners.
		
Click to expand...

If that's the case then you of all people should know about tarring us all with the same brush.


----------



## wurzel (11 May 2009)

Your secretary is either lying or mistaken. You seem to be suggesting that the journalists on both the Sunday Times and Sunday Mirror are making up the story about the MFHA complaining about the shortage of foxes. At the same time you imply that Simon Hart of the Countryside Alliance wrote to the MFHA complaining about a letter which never existed.

Hunts have always encouraged foxes to breed. In Victorian times they were at least open about this. Nowadays, they have to resort to cheap lies, covering up their tracks, looking over their shoulders. No backbone!
		
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting anything other than the fact that no letter was received.

Again, if you would like to present some evidence of hunts on Exmoor encouraging foxes to breed......but I wont hold my breath.

Until then I think you are a naughty little liar.

It is only a silly little internet forum but until you come up with the goods you are a liar.

Or.

We can meet at a pub on Exmoor this weekend have alittle pint together and then show me how we encourage foxes.


----------



## zigzagzig (12 May 2009)

I've already provided evidence: reports in two national newspapers which quote directly from the letter and Simon Hart's response. Why would this letter be such a surprise? Encouraging foxes to breed has always been played a prominent role among hunts.


----------



## wurzel (12 May 2009)

I've already provided evidence: reports in two national newspapers which quote directly from the letter and Simon Hart's response. Why would this letter be such a surprise? Encouraging foxes to breed has always been played a prominent role among hunts.
		
Click to expand...

No you have provided no evidence.

This letter would be a surprise because we do not lack foxes.

How have Exmoor hunts always encouraged foxes?

A tough question I know.


----------



## Hebegebe (12 May 2009)

I've already provided evidence: reports in two national newspapers which quote directly from the letter and Simon Hart's response. Why would this letter be such a surprise? Encouraging foxes to breed has always been played a prominent role among hunts.
		
Click to expand...

That is not even grammatical


----------



## wurzel (12 May 2009)

I've already provided evidence: reports in two national newspapers which quote directly from the letter and Simon Hart's response. Why would this letter be such a surprise? Encouraging foxes to breed has always been played a prominent role among hunts.
		
Click to expand...

That is not even grammatical
		
Click to expand...

That is the least of its problems !!


----------



## zigzagzig (13 May 2009)

Referring to reports in two national newspapers which quote directly from the MFHA letter, and the Countryside Alliance's response to it is clearly evidence.


----------



## Herne (14 May 2009)

No. Actually it is clearly "hearsay". 

Evidence would be copies of the actual letter and e-mail, so that everyone could look at them and judge the content for themselves. 

It is patently obvious that if the letter and e-mail did say what you claim, then they would be pasted all over every anti-hunting website and you would have no difficulty in posting them in their entirety here for everyone to see.

As it is, however, the letter contains no references whatsoever to breeding foxes, or even encouraging them to breed. None. Not one word.

What it actually refers to is the fact that in some areas foxes are being over-culled by other methods - and once again I look forward to the twisted gyrations of the anti-hunter trying to turn a complaint about over-culling of foxes into a bad thing...

What Simon Harts e-mail subsequently warned about was the danger that the letter could be deliberately misquoted and misrepresented to imply that hunts should encourage people to breed foxes  and lookee here  he was right!


----------



## Herne (14 May 2009)

[quote - Box_of_Frogs]You're all missing a major point. 

What is the difference between fox hunting and bear baiting, dog fights and cock fighting? The last 3 "sports" have been recognised as barbaric and stopped. But all have the same formula: human beings enjoying the one-sided fun process of killing animals.

Can anyone provide a convincing and reasoned argument on why fox hunting is different? [/quote]

Try this as a starting point:

http://www.fitzwilliamhunt.com/FAQ/badgbait.htm


----------



## zigzagzig (14 May 2009)

Actually, reports of the letter do constitute evidence. Whether a court etc. would deem the evidence "hearsay" or not is irrelevant given that, as far as I can tell, an internet forum isn't a court.

Since you appear to have access to the letter can I ask you the following:

1. Can you confirm that the letter exists and was sent to hunt masters?

2. In it does the chairman of the MFHA refer to a "problem" of a "shortage of foxes"?

3. In the letter does the Chairman ask hunt masters to be firmer with hunt subscribers "who do not keep foxes"?

4. According to the newspaper reports, what Hart actually said in his email was that the Chairman of the MFHA in his letter advocates "the artificial enhancement of a 'pest species' for purely sporting benefit" . Are you saying he didn't say this?

5. Finally, given that the MFHA letter is so innocuous, would you be kind enough to reproduce it on this forum in its entirety?


----------



## Herne (14 May 2009)

You are, deliberately I expect, missing the point.

For you to prove that the MFHA have done as you suggest - YOU need to produce a letter that says what you say it did.

There is absolutely no point me producing one or a hundred letters that don't say what you say one did. If I produce a letter, I will immediately be open to accusations of "producing the wrong letter" or "editing one" or something. Its your claim  you have to substantiate it.

Instead of doing that, you are asking me to prove a negative  which is, as we all know impossible.

I can see from discussions of this issue on another website  four and a half years ago  that I was convinced then that the letter did not say what the anti in question claimed. YOU post the letter that YOU are talking about and then we can dissect it line by line, word by word.

If there was such a letter then, as I say, it would be all over the anti-hunt websites and you should have no trouble in producing it. 

If you can't produce it, then that makes it seem pretty likely that it does not exist in the form that you suggest.


----------



## Hebegebe (14 May 2009)

He does spend rather a lot of the time deliberately missing the point.


----------



## Herne (14 May 2009)

Funny how selective they are. One moment it's "evidence this..." and "evidence that..." when they think they've found a bit and the next moment it's suddenly irrelevant whether it's evidence or not when they realise that they haven't...

&lt;&lt;Actually, reports of the letter do constitute evidence....&gt;&gt;

Some people would claim that reports of Elvis serving behind the fish counter at Tesco's also constitute evidence, but most of us require a little more convincing than that...


----------



## zigzagzig (15 May 2009)

What utter tosh.

- "you are asking me to prove a negative  which is, as we all know impossible."

"Jane, can you go into the garden and check that the big black dog has gone?"

"Yes, it's not there any more."

"Thanks!"

Let me ask you this: if the letter from the MFHA was so harmless, why did Simon Hart say that the Chairman was advocating "the artificial enhancement of a 'pest species' for purely sporting benefit"?

I find myself in the likely position of sharing Hart's view: that the MFHA was urging landowners to encourage foxes to breed. When you and Tim accuse me of making this up, you are in effect accusing Hart of the same thing.


----------



## Hebegebe (15 May 2009)

Sigh

what he said was that it would be interpreted as calling for the artificial enhancement of foxes

"This can only be interpreted by the outside world as suspicious - the artificial enhancement of a 'pest species' for purely sporting benefit."

You are using Simon's Hart's concern about how a letter would be interpreted to try and prove that that is what the letter said.  

Incidently one of the aspects of Hunting is that people who hunt are in an ideal position to monitor population fluctuations in their prey.


----------



## Herne (15 May 2009)

I have no doubt that you are actually perfectly intelligent enough to understand the logical trap you are in, but I can understand why you really have no option other than to pretend otherwise, so I will play along with your charade.

Jane saying that dog isnt in the garden is not PROOF that the dog isnt in the garden. Jane might not have been able to see the dog because it was hiding behind a large petunia, she might not have recognised the dog for what it was or, indeed, she might have been lying to you.

Likewise, I cannot prove that someone never wrote something in a letter. I can point out  at tedious length  that there is no evidence that they did, but that is not proof that they didn't. You, on the other hand could easily prove that someone did write something in a letter by producing the letter.

.
Imagine this scenario: 

I tell people that Zigzagzig admitted in a letter that hunting with dogs really is the best form of fox control and also that he only refuses to admit this in public because he is too proud to admit that he made a mistake.

"That's a lie!" says you. "I never wrote any such thing."

"Ok," says I, "prove that you didnt".

You cant. Does that prove that you did? Of course not. Well, it works both ways.

.
I have, to my knowledge, never seen Harts e-mail. I do not know whether the words you quote are a direct quotation or, as I suspect, some journalists paraphrasing. Neither, I suggest, do you.

As I understand it, rather than stating that the letter advocated the enhancement of the species, Hart was warning  with remarkable prescience, as it turns out  that  the letter would be misinterpreted as advocating the enhancement of the species. That is a very different thing.

.
Your course here is simple. Post the text of the letter, post the text of Harts e-mail and then we can analyse them both line by line  and one of us will be PROVEN wrong.

Until you do so, however, you are merely bandying about baseless allegations. I suggest the only reason that you do not do so is because you know that it is you who will be caught out.


----------



## zigzagzig (15 May 2009)

Your rather nihilistic view means that nothing can be "proven". I prefer to live in a more practical world whereby, for example, if I see a fox it proves - at least to my satisfaction - that it's not a bear or a pig. You will argue that it may indeed be a pig but one which looks remarkably like a fox, and so there is no "proof". Frankly, I find these little philosopical sallies childish and very boring (and you will never know the struggle I have at this point not to invoke the name of Tom Faggus).

I am satisfied that the Chairman of the MFHA wrote to hunt masters urging them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed for three reasons:

1. At least two national newspapers (and there are probably more) quote directly from the letter.

2. The same reporters quote directly from Hart's response.

In both cases, let me stress, they quote and don't, as you suggest, paraphrase. I would add that your unwillingness to reproduce the letter, for all your flimflam hot air reasons, adds to the greasy film of secrecy and yuckiness which increasingly covers foxhunters' activities.

3. The letter, if it existed as I describe, would be ENTIRELY in keeping with the tradition of hunts encouraging foxes to breed. I'm talking about feeding foxes, buying them at markets, importing them from abroad, building artificial earths etc...

Lets me ask you, are there any artificial earths in your hunt country?


----------



## Hebegebe (15 May 2009)

Sunday Mirror article is here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041003/ai_n12910763/

Inspite of what you say it doesn't quote directly from MFHA letter but from an email about the letter written by Simon Hart.  The Mirror did not see the MFHA letter it states it 'learned about it' from Simon Hart's email.


----------



## Herne (15 May 2009)

&lt;&lt; Your rather nihilistic view means that nothing can be "proven".&gt;&gt;

Total nonsense. I have stated very clearly that you can prove your case by producing the letter and e-mail and demonstrating that they do indeed say what you claim they do.
.

&lt;&lt; Frankly, I find these little philosopical sallies childish and very boring &gt;&gt;

Theres nothing philosophical about it. You are claiming that something has happened. I am stating that I find it to be extremely unlikely and am asking you to provide proof of your claim. That is a pretty elementary principle of natural justice.

Your position seems to be that because you are unable to prove your case then I should be obliged to prove it for you  and, further that, by some entirely bizarre twist of logic, if I do not prove your case for you, then somehow that very lack of proof itself proves your case to be true.

Well, youve certainly got all your bases covered  it would make a pretty good win-win situation  if it wasnt quite so transparently desperate. I suspect you arent fooling anyone  least of all yourself.

.

.
And, yes (yawn) there are artificial earths in our hunt country, so before you use this as a red herring to divert attention away from your lack of evidence for your claims, lets establish quite clearly that it has never been the position of fox hunting that we have any intention of trying to eradicate all foxes from any given area.

It has always been the position of hunting that foxes play a useful role in the countryside ecosystem and that hunting is about managing a viable population  which by definition means wishing numbers to increase when they are too low every bit as much as it does wishing numbers to decrease when they are too high.

Cutting down what would probably turn out to be pages of argument  and I think it is becoming pretty obvious that you and I have had this argument before  artificial earths do not create  or breed  extra foxes. They merely alter the geographical dispersal of the existing population. Creating new habitat will increase population  merely making another hole in the ground wont. Theres no shortage of holes in the ground, you know.

In order to demonstrate that an artificial earth would increase fox numbers, you will have to demonstrate that the vixen in question would not simply have her litter elsewhere if the earth was not in place.

I wont hold my breath


----------



## Hebegebe (15 May 2009)

Wait for it.  He will now lick his wounds and come out fighting with a comment about the chernobyl nuclear accident.


----------



## wurzel (15 May 2009)

Your rather nihilistic view means that nothing can be "proven". I prefer to live in a more practical world whereby, for example, if I see a fox it proves - at least to my satisfaction - that it's not a bear or a pig. You will argue that it may indeed be a pig but one which looks remarkably like a fox, and so there is no "proof". Frankly, I find these little philosopical sallies childish and very boring (and you will never know the struggle I have at this point not to invoke the name of Tom Faggus).

I am satisfied that the Chairman of the MFHA wrote to hunt masters urging them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed for three reasons:

1. At least two national newspapers (and there are probably more) quote directly from the letter.

2. The same reporters quote directly from Hart's response.

In both cases, let me stress, they quote and don't, as you suggest, paraphrase. I would add that your unwillingness to reproduce the letter, for all your flimflam hot air reasons, adds to the greasy film of secrecy and yuckiness which increasingly covers foxhunters' activities.

3. The letter, if it existed as I describe, would be ENTIRELY in keeping with the tradition of hunts encouraging foxes to breed. I'm talking about feeding foxes, buying them at markets, importing them from abroad, building artificial earths etc...

Lets me ask you, are there any artificial earths in your hunt country?
		
Click to expand...

I can answer your last question.

Here it comes.....

Are you ready?........

No. No artificial earths.

Unless, dare I say it, you have evidence or proof to the contrary !!!

I won't hold my breath you little liar !!!!


----------



## Herne (16 May 2009)

Ok, just for clarification...

I answered the question with regard to my local area, Tom_Fagus was speaking about his local area. 

Two different areas, so two different answers. Not contradictory.


----------



## gg68 (16 May 2009)

Yawn yawn


----------



## zigzagzig (22 May 2009)

Excellent! I feel that we are slowly groping our way to a kind of truth. May I ask you what your role in your hunt is? Also, how many artificial earths do you reckon there are in your hunt country?


----------



## Herne (22 May 2009)

You can ask me whatever you want to about artificial earths in a new topic dedicated to that subject.

In the meantime, lets keep this one dedicated to your claims about this letter shall we? This habit your side has of changing the subject every time things get tricky makes the threads so difficult for the public to follow.

Unless, of course, you'd like to admit that you have no basis for that claim - in which case I would be happy to change the subject hereafter...


----------



## zigzagzig (22 May 2009)

Well actually, this thread is about "death and dying", not about letters, so you've already broken your own rule. I've given my reasons several times now for why I think the MFHA urged hunts to do more to encourage foxes to breed in their hunt areas. In one breath, with a moral outrage worthy of combat-claire you hotly deny doing anything to encourage foxes to breed in your hunt country, in another you blithely admit that there are artificial earths in your hunt country where foxes breed. I'm not surprised you've suddenly become coy about answering questions...


----------



## Herne (22 May 2009)

I have proposed no rules and I dont think you can seriously accuse me of being shy of a subject when I have invited you to open up a whole new topic in which to discuss it.

I merely want to highlight your habitual tactic of trying to change the subject whenever a conversation fails to go your way. As soon as it become apparent that your case on one particular thing is all smoke and mirrors, whoops, you dont want to discuss that any more  you want to discuss some other thing instead. A very convenient way of never having to admit that you are wrong

So, to sum up the letter business: 
.
Your case would appear to be entirely based upon a rumour you heard about what someone might or might not have said in an e-mail that you have never read in response to a letter  that you have also never read.

Well, golly gosh! The age of incisive reasoning is not dead.
.
.
.
Ok  moving on:
.
.
&lt;&lt; with a moral outrage worthy of combat-claire you hotly deny doing anything to encourage foxes to breed in your hunt country&gt;&gt;

I did? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

I merely pointed out, once again, that foxes dont need encouragement to breed. They do it all by themselves.

I am reminded, by the by, of a lovely image that Claire once conjured up of a group of hunters watching a dog fox approaching a vixen and shouting Go on! Give her one!

Once again, I point out to you that the suggestion that artificial earths will somehow increase fox numbers is only valid if you can demonstrate that the vixen would not simply have her litter elsewhere if the artificial earth was not present  and once again, I look forward to you demonstrating that she wouldnt


----------



## zigzagzig (23 May 2009)

You seem to be getting rather hot under the collar, Hernia. Here's some verse to cool your brow:

When the Huntsman claims praise for the killing of foxes,
Which else would bring ruin to farmer and land,
Yet so kindly imports them, preserves them, assorts them,
There's a discrepance I'd fain understand.


----------



## Herne (23 May 2009)

Most entertaining.

Another diversion from the question at hand - as was your attempt to claim that I am "getting hot under the collar" - but entertaining all the same.

Yours or someone else's?


----------

