# 80 Years of Campaigning - What a waste of time



## Hercules (17 August 2006)

I find it amusing to read the blinkered comments posted by the LACS supporters regarding the recent prosecution of Tony Wright.

18 months ago, these bigots were popping their champagne corks in celebration of the passing of the Hunting Act.  Since then, approximately 25000 days of legal hunting have taken place, support for all forms of hunting is stronger than ever, it has cost LACS at least £65k to get one prosecution which is likely to be rejeted at the appeal (and doesn't even merit a criminal record) and police forces still consider hunting to be a very low priority. At the same time, foxes are being killed in greater numbers by less humane means.

Whilst I and an increasing number of others look forward to another hunting season, I would imagine that these animal rights vigilantes are choking on their salads at the Act's innefectiveness.

Dust off your video cameras and spy on your fellow citizens if you must, however noone is really interested in what you think.  80 Years campaigning.  What a waste of time.


----------



## Paul T (17 August 2006)

Call it 'hunting' if you like, but I don't think the likes of the late Ronnie Wallace would have used the term to describe what passes as 'hunting' these days. Of course there are hunts which break the law and do hunt, but the 25,000 days quoted includes a fair percentage of equestrian activities that pose little threat to wildlife.

I can't think of any 'antis' I've spoken with who are unhappy with the Hunting Act.


----------



## Hercules (17 August 2006)

Karl,

Legal hunting still means legal fox control using hounds.  Hunting in Ronnie Wallace's day was not the same as the hunting experienced before motorways and railway lines.  Things change and people adapt.  

The fact that the police cannot enforce the legislation, that LACS encourages spying and trespass and £65k out of your funds would suggest that the act is totally ineffective.


----------



## flying_change (17 August 2006)

"the act is totally ineffective"

It's sufficiently effective that you are hunting 'legally'.


----------



## Paul T (17 August 2006)

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail. 

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.


----------



## CARREG (17 August 2006)

"....I can't think of any 'antis' I've spoken with who are unhappy with the Hunting Act...."

Really.................Carreg


----------



## flying_change (17 August 2006)

What's interesting is that post-ban, pro's seem to be using a different definition of the word 'hunting'.

RS


----------



## Hercules (17 August 2006)

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail. 

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Your naievity astounds me.  Plenty of foxes continue to be killed whilst following the artificial trail. The only thing that has changed is the fact that is no longer  *intended* to hunt foxes. As there is little chance of proving the intent against all reasonable doubt (different to Civil Cases where it against the balance of probabilities) it is highly unlikely that the CPS will bother to pursue any allegations of illegal hunting whilst following an artificial trail.  It is also highly likely that LACS are now too skint to take out any further civil cases.  Maybe they can set up a Freepost address to recoup some of he £65k thay have just spent?

My judgement is not distorted and is based on sound experience and knowledge.  I am not even slightly bitter.  After all, I am still hunting 4 days a week and my local hunt's memberchip and support has increased by over 20%.  

Those who are bitter are those sad little people with their cameras wasting their days watching and videoing a sport which they claim to detest.


----------



## Fox_Hunter1 (17 August 2006)

You must be very naive if you think that hunts are acting within the law, can't wait to start cubbing. Wonder if were have a visit from the anti scum again this season, it was fun when they last came out. Bless them trying to call my hounds away with a real crappy hunting horn which sounded like a cat being straggled!!or maybe it was the person who was blowing it (or trying to).


----------



## RunToEarth (17 August 2006)

Whilst I and an increasing number of others look forward to another hunting season, I would imagine that these animal rights vigilantes are choking on their salads at the Act's innefectiveness.
.........................
agreed

.........................
You must be very naive if you think that hunts are acting within the law
........................
I wouldnt call it naive...I would call it dense.


----------



## severnmiles (17 August 2006)

What do you call effective?  The fox still dies when hunting legally.

Remember RS yours is a morality issue not a welfare one!


----------



## wurzel (17 August 2006)

"The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail."


This is absolutely priceless !! Post of the day "!!!!!!!


Of course we start  off following an artificial trail !!!

That is what we agreed with the police.

No foxes being killed by the hunt on Exmoor ! ))


----------



## Doreys_Mum (17 August 2006)

RS, isn't your objection to hunting the objection to animals being killed for sport?

Isn't the purpose of a gun pack or even the trail packs, who kill foxes to make the trail, futher proving that whatever happens, pros will continue to hunt for sport?

It takes 3-4 dead foxes to make a days hunting whereas before we could get away with 3-4 live foxes, and 1-2 dead ones.  Legally, we are forced to kill in order to chase, rather than chasing and letting live.

Hunting IS sport, that is no lie, (although it is also pest control) - but the sport is not in the killing.

When we cannot chase without killing, even prior to the chase to make the scent, or after the chase to abide by the law, then the hunting act isn't working.

It is encouraging killing for sport.

Which goes against your very ethos as an anti.

Of course, those antis who just didn't like people richer than them riding horses aren't too happy either.

However, the majority are foolishly blinded.  Most antis I know ARE Pleased hunting is banned, niavely not believing that foxes aren't being killed, and that all the cutey wutey little foxey woxeys are happy now.  And as LACS and the RSPCA are the only people who can commune the reality of pain the suffering to these people, having wasted their money over the last 80 years to get to this point.... is it any real wonder that most antis are unaware that the hunting ban is doing more harm than good?


----------



## soggy (17 August 2006)

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail. 

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.
		
Click to expand...

LOL

Your ignorance has certainly distorted your judgement.

"Legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control"

The fox dies one why on another, either by the hounds or by the gun.  Sounds like legal fox control to me.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (17 August 2006)

It's less cruel to use dogs to kill foxes that guns because of the different wounding rates.

People would be quite right to put animal welfare above obeying the law.

I do.


----------



## combat_claire (17 August 2006)

Well said Hercules


----------



## flying_change (18 August 2006)

You talk about hunting legally and would seem to claim you are hunting legally.  Is that not the case ?

If you are hunting legally then I assume that means within the exemptions laid out in the hunting bill.  Is that not correct ?

Therefore I conclude that the hunting bill is effective, because you are complying with it.


----------



## flying_change (18 August 2006)

"RS, isn't your objection to hunting the objection to animals being killed for sport?"

True.


"Isn't the purpose of a gun pack or even the trail packs, who kill foxes to make the trail, futher proving that whatever happens, pros will continue to hunt for sport?"

Unfortunately, also true.  I dunno, you sometimes just cant persuade some people to behave morally.

"It takes 3-4 dead foxes to make a days hunting whereas before we could get away with 3-4 live foxes, and 1-2 dead ones"

So stop after killing two ?


RS


----------



## Doreys_Mum (18 August 2006)

It's whats needed to make a decent scent up - we COULD have technically chased a live fox with no intention of killing it, let it live, not dug it out, fox is happy, hunt is happy, no one dies -maybe shoot those one or two that we would have killed normally.

BUT - for those who find the chasing part abhorrant, it wouldn't stick.  So the act said "nope, no chasing allowed - you gotta kill them"

I hope those who do detest the chase don't mind the slaughter that comes from replacing it with a trail, or by shooting every fox they flush as a result of the chase being banned...


----------



## Hercules (18 August 2006)

Flying-Change,

The last time that you visited the planet Earth, did you just touch down and then sod off?

We are hunting legally by intending to follow a trail, you and your sad and lonely little people cannot prove otherwise.  The Act is therefore not working.  If it was, why do the retards turn up to spy on and disrupt a legitimate activity?  

In the meantime, foxes are still being killed by hounds in the same quantity as they were pre-ban.  In addition to kills by hounds, many more foxes are being killed by shooting and snaring in areas where such activity was not permitted pre-ban.  
I am still hunting (and so are hundreds of newcomers) and more foxes are being killed than ever before. The only losers here therefore are LACS and its ignorant, misguided supporters, but more importantly, the fox.

Well done LACS!!  The cretins.


----------



## endymion (18 August 2006)

Were you trying to make a point with this post mate cos all you've achieved to is make yourself sound like a very bad (and somewhat deluded) loser. 

E X


----------



## flying_change (18 August 2006)

"I hope those who do detest the chase don't mind the slaughter that comes from replacing it with a trail, or by shooting every fox they flush as a result of the chase being banned... "

I think there are some interesting interpretations of the hunting bill around.  As we've seen by the recent prosecution, some of those interpretations are flawed.


----------



## flying_change (18 August 2006)

"The last time that you visited the planet Earth, did you just touch down and then sod off?"

Oh, so cutting.....

Of course, as alternative, you could try logic.

"We are hunting legally by intending to follow a trail, you and your sad and lonely little people cannot prove otherwise. The Act is therefore not working"

Oxymoron.

"If it was, why do the retards turn up to spy on and disrupt a legitimate activity? "

I suspect it's in case the activity is in reality illegal, or the exemptions to the act are not being followed correctly (as in the recent legal case).

"In the meantime, foxes are still being killed by hounds in the same quantity as they were pre-ban. In addition to kills by hounds, many more foxes are being killed by shooting and snaring in areas where such activity was not permitted pre-ban. 
I am still hunting (and so are hundreds of newcomers) and more foxes are being killed than ever before. The only losers here therefore are LACS and its ignorant, misguided supporters, but more importantly, the fox."

If you're upset about the number of foxes being killed, I suggest you stop killing them.  Or when you've killed enough, stop.


----------



## Paul T (18 August 2006)

Some hunts are breaking the law but quite a few others don't seem to want the bother and are adapting to life after the ban.

The fact remains that what you describe as 'hunting' typically bears little relationship to the searching, chasing and killing of foxes by hounds which was the focus of the campaign to ban hunting. Why don't you just admit that the 25,000 'hunting' days are nothing of the sort, and instead consist of a rag-bag mixture of largely equestrian activities, some of which are undoubtedly illegal?


----------



## Hercules (18 August 2006)

Endymion,

Dogs mate.  I am not your mate.  You are clearly not the brightest, are you?

I am not deluded in the slightest.  I deal only with facts gained through experience.

Support for hunting greater now than before the ban - FACT.
No hunts closed down since the ban - FACT
Foxes killed by hounds whilst trail hunting in same numbers as pre-ban  - FACT.
Farmers and landowners now permitting snaring and shooting of foxes when they did not pre-ban - FACT.
No prosecutions (or court appearances)for hunt staff participating in trail hunting - FACT.
Proving intent to hunt against all reasonable doubt will be incredibly difficult - FACT.
Hunting is a very low priority for police forces - FACT.

I have lost nothing (other than respect for those people who spy on their fellow citizens).  Polish your camera lens.  I look forward to watching you prove nothing again next season.


----------



## Paul T (18 August 2006)

I glad to see you're concerned about animal welfare and think shooting is cruel. Perhaps you'd join with me in criticising the millions of pheasants that are bred as living targets and released into the countryside each year?

Also I'm pleased to see you're opposed to the current practice of hunts that take pot shots at foxes. There's hope yet!


----------



## Hercules (18 August 2006)

Karl,

Have you been drinking?

Not once have I stated or even intimated that I think shooting is cruel.  However it is less selective and has a higher risk of wounding than hunting (where there is no wounding)

Neither have I said that I am opposed to the current practice of 'hunts that take pot shots at foxes'.  However, the only reason that some hunts now shoot foxes is because of the Hunting Act.  The only reason that Landowners now allow shooting and snaring on their land is because of the hunting Act.

I have always been interested in animal welfare and conservation.  That is why I support hunting.


----------



## Paul T (18 August 2006)

If you looked at the messages in threaded view you'd see I was responding to Giles, not you.


----------



## CARREG (18 August 2006)

Hercules
Karl cant help it the LACS have spent the last 80 yrs lying and twisting the facts to suit their way of thinking............Carreg


----------



## lucecaldicott (18 August 2006)

the act is flawed, no two ways about it. so far there has been 1 prosecution and lets face it, tony wrights appeal is highly likely to be succesful.


----------



## duffgirl (18 August 2006)

i also think not a lot of anti's actually know that hunts can still go out and cull foxes with dogs, (scotland being different with more dogs allowed)  so i do think lots of them dont understand the Bill and think its been stopped all together.  That woudl be why some are happy with the Bill.

if they only read it and were realisitc they woudl understand it was a waste of everyones time and money.  Their anger should be at the government for making a fool of them.


----------



## Nigel (18 August 2006)

Hi Karl,

   If you are that worried about millions of pheasants being blown out of the sky purely for sport, why were you more worried about 15,000 foxes killed with a pest control element attached? 

Cheers 

Nigel

PS, Richard Course in his Submission to the Burn Inquiry,

The second of these motives is better described as moral fundamentalism which is rarely a sound basis for legislation. In this particular case, "killing for fun" or "killing for sport" would inevitably put fishing and shooting at the top of such an agenda.


----------



## Doreys_Mum (18 August 2006)

The act is flawed because antis and pros are happy with it...

That in itself argues the antis points that it works - hunters aren't upset about it...

Hunting has not changed.  I hate to say it, but someone has to, the flaw in the hunting act is that there are enough exemptions for huntsmen to carry on as normally and then tip their caps at policemen whilst saying "trail huntin', officer" - the only policemen to know any different being the pro hunting ones anyway!!!!

And that is the major loophole.  Only the foxhounds and the huntsman know if they're hunting a real fox or a trail.  Even the best film footage might not prove if they're hunting the fox, or if the fox has moved away from the area the hounds are in, having learnt in the past to run - after all, I've seen foxes run from hounds since the ban myself - I have a photo of one!!!  No one is hunting them, they're just vacating the area!

The hunting act will only work if the excemptions, trail hunting, drag hunting and alternative species hunting are removed.

You can shout it till you're blue in the face.  We all blooming well know that hunts are still hunting foxes properly in between trails - they're just for show - and THAT means the ban has failed!


----------



## wurzel (18 August 2006)

"You can shout it till you're blue in the face. We all blooming well know that hunts are still hunting foxes properly in between trails - they're just for show - and THAT means the ban has failed! "

Oh dear !!

The hideous truth!!!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 August 2006)

It's interesting what you say about the exemptions allowing people to carry on hunting.

I look at it from the other way round.

I'm convinced that what I do isn't cruel at all.  I don't kill any animals and yet it's still against the law.  I'm more interested in what the law stops me doing than what it lets other people do.

Or at least would stop me doing if I could be bothered to obey it.

Can you suggest a way I can legally walk my dogs round my farm given that I know they will flush out deer?  I doubt it. 

I'm happy to stop them chasing deer but even flushing out is banned.  The judge in the Tony Wright case has ruled that this is seperate from chasing.

Can I just let them flush the deer out and to hell with it?  What is the point of my obeying the law?

After all what I do isn't cruel.  I'm sure you agree with that.

There were red deer over the valley this evening.  Tomoroow morning I am going to go out and flush them with my dogs.  I'll make sure the dogs don't chase them and I won't kill them but I will deliberatly flush them out.  Why is that illegal?  

The law means I can't go out with my dogs because I know doing so is going to flush out deer.  That bans me from 90% of my property.  I live in harmony with the wildlife on my farm why should I let some stupid, ill thouight out law get in the way of my hard earned lifestyle.

Worst of all the morons who wrote this law say I CAN flush out the deer with two of my four dogs to protect my woodland  but I have to shoot them as soon as possible.   The government say that this is somehow in the deer's interest.  Eh?  You can forget that, there is NO WAY I am shooting some deer just because of some stupid law that LACS lack the honesty to admit is ridiculous and won't get enforced any way.  I just can't be bothered and LACS are insisting that I have to employ at least one LINE of gun men to slaugher the deer.  If I break the law then all of those deer will survive.  Which would you prefer I do?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to have a law against cruelty?  That would have resolved all these issues.

Sorry, but I'm off hunting deer tomoorow in direct and deliberate breech of the hunting act.  I coulldn't give a damn whjether you like it or not.  There's nothing you can do to stop me.


----------



## Nigel (19 August 2006)

Hi Sheeps

  Thanks for our posting. I Hunted the drag all last year the Exmoor. Chuckle chuckle,Nudge Nudge wink wink say no more.

Do you think Karl will ever respond?

Nigel


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 August 2006)

Karl get's a little upset now and again.   He goes away and thinls about things, which is a good sign, but he still comes back with the same old drivel.


----------



## Paul T (21 August 2006)

I'm not upset at all, just amused, and I go away every now and again because I have a life (unlike some).

You seem to have missed my previous message so I've reproduced it again for you:

"I'm glad to see you're concerned about animal welfare and think shooting is cruel. Perhaps you'd join with me in criticising the millions of pheasants that are bred as living targets and released into the countryside each year?

Also I'm pleased to see you're opposed to the current practice of hunts that take pot shots at foxes. There's hope yet!"


----------



## endymion (21 August 2006)

Support for hunting greater now than before the ban - FACT.

erm, its not actually. As most pros point out recent poles suggest that support had remained the same, opposition has reduced slightly leaving a larger number of 'dont give a toss'. Although antis are still the majority. 


No hunts closed down since the ban - FACT
Point? I'm more than happy for hunts to carry on - drag hunting. 

Foxes killed by hounds whilst trail hunting in same numbers as pre-ban - FACT.
I never thought the ban would reduce numbers of foxes killed just the way in which they were killed. More humanely. 

Farmers and landowners now permitting snaring and shooting of foxes when they did not pre-ban - FACT.
I'd like to see your figures for this......

No prosecutions (or court appearances)for hunt staff participating in trail hunting - FACT.
Ok so whos not the brightest now...why would i want to see people arrested for legal hunting  :crazy:



Proving intent to hunt against all reasonable doubt will be incredibly difficult - FACT.
True, but as just seen its not impossible and we'll all be keeping a very close eye....

Hunting is a very low priority for police forces - FACT.
True again, but as long as antis are there we'll do the job for them and then its up to the CPS to decide...

I have lost nothing (other than respect for those people who spy on their fellow citizens). Polish your camera lens. I look forward to watching you prove nothing again next season. 

hahaha, I love it when pros get defensive, its hilarious. Sometimes I wonder if I sab for moral reasons or to see the little angry red faces of you lot when we spoil yer fun!  :grin:


----------



## LACS (21 August 2006)

"80 Years of Campaigning - What a waste of time"

How did the Waterloo Cup go this year?


----------



## combat_claire (21 August 2006)

Interestingly Endy the most recent poll that Kieran and myself could locate hails from 2005 and shows that support for the hunting ban had dropped from 2/3 to under half. Ban Supporters accounted for just 47% of the total. Full details from the Mori website.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2005/bbc-countryfile.shtml

Quite true no packs of hounds have shut down, indeed 1 and a half have been formed. The Private pack in Heythrop country and Giles' hounds accounting for the half  

Research from the Middle way Group has surveyed 600 farmers and found a worsening in welfare: Full details here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/nhunt28.xml

I truly believe that what we did pre-ban was for the best. We'll carry on working within the law that we have been given, you guys will keep slaving away trying to prove our intent, the legal bills spiralling from both sides. Whilst the life of no fox will be improved and many more will in fact be suffering more. 

We'll continue ignoring the sabs and the opportunists who come out to yell abuse at us..and one day history will judge which side was right.


----------



## combat_claire (21 August 2006)

Bah just lost this long post once...

The latest poll is by Mori in 2005, they found that support for the ban had dropped from 2/3 to 47% in 6 years or so. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2005/bbc-countryfile.shtml

No hunts have closed, but 1 and a half have been opened. The private pack in Heythrop country and Giles' motley crew. Hunting appears to be thriving! 

Whilst the Middle Way Groups survey of 600 sheep farmers suggests that welfare has been lowered by a ban on hunting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/nhunt28.xml

We'll keep working with the law we've been given, you guys will keep on monitoring and bringing cases, the legal bills will mount on both sides, we'll keep ignoring the mouthfuls of abuse we get from anti-hunting people who join the Fitzwilliam. But at the end of the day only history will be able to tell which side was right!


----------



## combat_claire (21 August 2006)

Spooky apparently my post was lurking in the database afterall....


----------



## wurzel (21 August 2006)

"Farmers and landowners now permitting snaring and shooting of foxes when they did not pre-ban - FACT.
I'd like to see your figures for this......
"


Why do you think I would keep records of this?

I use snares. Fox gets snared. Shoot fox or if dead just remove it. Throw dead fox on bonfire. Reset snare or move it. End of the matter.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

"I use snares. Fox gets snared. Shoot fox or if dead just remove it. Throw dead fox on bonfire. Reset snare or move it. End of the matter. "

A good example of old Faggot's concern for animal welfare.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

All instructed by DEFRA my townie friend !!

(Apart from the fire of course)


Don't tell me you disagree with ZANU labour !!!!


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

DEFRA forces you to catch foxes with snares, does it?


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

Karl,
it may not FORCE people to snare, but DEFRA (by using the hunting law) is restricting the way in which foxes can be controlled. As hunting cant be used as effectively as before landowners must find other means to control the fox population, shooting is one and snaring is another. 
Would you prefer carte-blanche killing by gassing foxes in their lair. All the ban has done is to increase the suffering of the fox, which if I remember rightly, was the opposite to what the antis claimed to want. Implementing the ban has hardly had the effect on fox welfare that antis claimed, has it?


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

In effect, Yes !!

But I am open to better methods.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

On the one hand we're being told hunting is carrying on much as before the ban, now you're saying hunting isn't as effective as it was. Which is it to be?

Thank God the law is finally taking into account the fact that foxes are capable of suffering, and restricting the worst excesses of those hellbent on killing foxes. Like all pros on this site, you take it as read that foxes absolutely have to be killed. Don't assume the rest of us share your blind prejudice.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

What do you mean 'in effect'? Either it does or it doesn't.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

OK, It does


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

"Like all pros on this site, you take it as read that foxes absolutely have to be killed."

I dont remember ever saying anthing like that. I am a pro because i believe that people should have the freedom to choose. 
Foxes are not the cutey cutey fury cuddly animals you seem to think they are. I sugges you watch Jimmys farm (was on late last night but will be on again this week, im sure. 1 fox killed all his poultry...... did the fox take them all err NO took only a couple for itself and killed the rest BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY DO. Foxes kill everything inside a confined space because ( i can only assume) they enjoy it. A chicken is hardly a threat to a fox so its sure as hell got nothing to do with the fox being concerned about his survival.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Karl,

You state that foxes are capable of suffering.  Jackie Ballard (one of your 'leaders') stated that there was no evidence to show that a wounded fox suffered after being shot.  What is it to be?


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Thought so, you've no sense of personal responsibility but instead prefer to blame everyone else for your own actions. 

My son used to be like that but thankfully grew out of it whilst in primary school.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Why is Jackie Ballard one of my leaders?

You'll have to ask her about her comments but there's no doubt foxes are capable of suffering, I hope you'll agree.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

Oh no, I take full responsibility for Foxes I cause to be killed.

The only practical, legal way left to me is snaring.

And I take full and complete responsibility for the whole process.

And I follow DEFRA guidelines.

Like a good boy.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

So DEFRA doesn't force you to catch foxes with snares. Thought not.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

This is challenging you isn't it?

I follow DEFRA guidelines to snare foxes.

I am happy to consider a viable alternative.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

Nothing challenging about it. You claimed DEFRA forced you to snare foxes and all I've done is demonstrated they do nothing of the sort.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

The fact of the matter is that Farmers and Landowners want and need foxes to be culled.  DEFRA also agree with these sentiments, hence the reason that culling of foxes remains legal.

As a result of bigotry and ignorance, they and LACS as a result of their pursuance of the Hunting Act, deem it more acceptable to inflict a lingering death on an animal which has little or no chance of escape than the alternative of either escape or a quick death.

And they claim to be animal lovers?! They must be really proud of themselves.  Case closed.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

You keep presenting your simplistic views as though they are established fact. Some farmers and landowners may want foxes killed but it is not fact that they need to be killed.

Stop being so silly and distorting virtually everything to suit your own ends.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

You have been reading too much Walt Disney.  

If there was no need for foxes to be killed, why would the vast majority of farmers and landowners want them killed (even if they do not support hunting)?

Instead of gobbing off on the computer, how about going outside, getting some fresh air and gaining some experience of the real world.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

You ask why would farmers want foxes killed.

"[1.4.1.6.3 ]...farmers appear to over-estimate the density of foxes by 5-18 times, possibly as a consequence of a single litter of cubs being split, giving the misleading appearance of two litters instead of one or because the same litter of cubs has been moved from one den to another." White et al research report commissioned by Burns Inquiry.

"[5.7] Landholders perceptions of effectiveness and cost-efficiency may not be accurate. For example, farmers overestimate foxhunting bags by as much as 10-fold.
Commonly used measures of effectiveness (e.g. numbers of animals culled) and efficiency (e.g. financial outlay required to kill one animal) can be very misleading because they do not take into account the density of the quarry. Nonetheless, these measures are components of any estimate of effectiveness and efficiency." MacDonald et al research report commissioned by Burns Inquiry.



"[1.4.3] Despite the widespread belief that foxes are serious predators of livestock, there is evidence to suggest that their importance is generally over-estimated and that, in fact, they are responsible for only a minor percentage of losses and that they are substantially less important than other forms of mortality..." White et al research report commissioned by Burns Inquiry.

"[2.1.1.b]... change in a species abundance will not necessarily translate into a pro rata change in damage. 
[2.1.1.c]... Whether or not a species really causes the damage it is accused of is central to the validity of any control programme. If the species is not, in fact, the cause of the damage, then a programme to control its population will be misplaced at best, and counterproductive at worst, as resources will be directed away from the real source of the problem." MacDonald et al research report commissioned by Burns Inquiry.

It seems most are pig-ignorant.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

Pig ignorant?  

Is that because many of them have lived on the same farm for centuries, know their land and the 'ways of the countryside' like the back of their hand and have experienced foxes killing their livestock?

Or is it that they have not read a report by a few academics whose only experience of the countryside was when they ventured out from behind their computers for half a day to compile the said report.

As you can see from the report, a lot of it is not based on fact and is merely speculation (phrases such as : MAY not be accurate, MAY overestimate, POSSIBLY as a consequence, NOT necessarily)

Experience is the key.  I suggest that you get some.


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

It doesn't surprise me you're anti science and pro woolly-thinking mumbo-jumbo. It also doesn't surprise me that you confuse experience with ignorance.


----------



## Hercules (22 August 2006)

I hold a Master of Science Degree.  However, an education has taught me to gain an opinion based on experience and not sentiment, you mong.


----------



## LACS (22 August 2006)

"However, an education has taught me to gain an opinion based on experience and not sentiment, you mong."

Haha, the irony!


----------



## Paul T (22 August 2006)

To think they have the nerve to criticise the quality of higher education today when the deficiencies of yesteryear are plain for all to see.


----------



## Fairynuff (22 August 2006)

Im getting tired of saying this every few months but, I will say it again.Hey ho-my uncle and cousins sheep farm in Stirlingshire. All ewes are on the Campsies(hills and moor) and are blackface or welsh mule crosses.All lamb out unless the weather is horrific and are brought down nearer the farm. Foxes exist and a few lambs are lost to them but, the majority of losses are to the weather as no sheep would naturally lamb in Feb and are now genetically required to do so. Almost all of the still born or weak lambs die due to other causes and are THEN scavanged by the fox.There is no hunt near Glenhead Farm nor was there ever and my family has always been in control of the situation. Stray dogs or roaming dogs cause far more trouble and are shot on sight with no questions asked-this also includes any border collie who thinks he has the right to work sheep on his own.The fox is not the number one cause of lamb loss, at least where I grew up. Ive never heard of a fox taking a calf, maybe due to the fact that my uncles are hill cattle and dont take crap from anyone. Sorry, I can not believe in the legend of the bloodthirsty fox, at least not 100%. I think its an excuse to allay guilt feelings in most of the pros and make it okay to take part in a very enjoyable day out with a very unfair end for many a fox. M.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

It is simplistic.

I need to kill them.

Shall I follow DEFRA's guidelines or yours?


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

"It seems most are pig-ignorant."

Of course most farmers are pig ignorant.  

Good argument.

What do you do for a living?


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

Of course we are pig ignorant, arnt many pig farmers left! Im ignorant about pigs because I grow crops and look after horses! LOL


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

I am ignorant of pigs.

Plus most arable.

I am a genious with sheep mind !!

hey that reminds me "!!!

i haven't heard that old "better animal husbandry" chestnut from the antis recently !!!

Usually involves about 678 miles of electric fencing on the farm !!


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

You are a better man than me Tom, I cant stand sheep. When they are born they spend the next 4 weeks trying to hang themselves in netting, jumping ditches.. missing and breaking their necks... and my favourite baiting the fox to have a fight and lose!! They just dont want to live in my experience... but I was on a Welsh sheep farm at the time.LOL


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

Thanks, but i disagree.

Nothing cuddlier than a Exmoor Horn !!!


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

Tom, I am sure the exmoors are great sheep, but the welsh just wanted to die.
BTW although i am an "on the fence" pro, I am totally with you where the antis are concerned on here, their arguments are at best flimsy.


----------



## wurzel (22 August 2006)

"I am sure the exmoors are great sheep, but the welsh just wanted to die."

Actually you are right. I don't know why I do it !! Probably because I will be one of the last.


You are right the antis are hopeless..


But they are quite fun. 

I just don't think they have actually experienced much...


----------



## allijudd (22 August 2006)

They have all the qualifications of NIMBY's


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

No you don't need to kill them at all.


----------



## Paul T (23 August 2006)

"Nothing cuddlier than a Exmoor Horn !!! "

Thought as much.


----------



## wurzel (23 August 2006)

"No you don't need to kill them at all."

Yes I do.

And I will.

They eat my lambs.

You can believe what you want but it ain't going to change this fact.


----------

