# Middleton Hunt fox cubs



## hackneylass2 (12 June 2015)

I expect most have seen this.

Can anyone really, honestly say that Lord Middleton is speaking the truth, or is he thinking that there is anyone gullible enough to believe his comments. The man sounds like a complete idiot!

This does the hunting fraternity no good, whichever side of the fence you care to stand!



Why would people working for a hunt be keeping young foxes?

She added that in the Leagues opinion, the answer is simple but terrible  they capture foxes so there is always a ready supply of animals to be chased by the hunt.

The Birdsall Estates Lord Middleton, who hunted three times last year, denied the cubs were being raised as quarry.

Speaking as the landowner, he said: Thats rubbish. Were not allowed to hunt foxes with hounds.

Theyre not being kept for hunting. (But) its not illegal to keep foxes.

Lord Middleton said he had no idea whatsoever the cubs were being kept on his land, but added that they were not being mistreated.

He said he did not condone keeping foxes, and suggested the cubs were being cared for by the Hunt for kind reasons.

I think people have rung up and said, Hey, look Ive got foxes that needs rescuing, their mothers dead, or, I cant live with them where they are, can you look after them?

The Hunt obviously has a supply of meat from farmers etc and it would be able to feed and look after them and then release them back to the wild.


----------



## angrybird1 (12 June 2015)

Why would a hunt, who always say foxes are vermin and need to be controlled keep cubs like this?
There is only one answer as far as I can see and its not pleasant.
Disgusting.


----------



## Judgemental (12 June 2015)

This has to be biggest load of old tosh that has ever been peddled by the Anti's. 

As I said in another originating thread that is immediately below this one, which the OP 'seems' to have missed in their eagerness to denigrate people who plainly did not know about this matter and in my opinion it is a POORLY CONTRIVED SET UP IN THE FACE OF MOUNTING SUPPORT FOR A REPEAL OF THE STUPID AND DEVISIVE HUNTING ACT 2004.


Oh what a load old rubbish - so what a few cubs in a barn.

 16, just shows how this flea infested vermin is breeding unchecked. Vermin that when mature, defecate on lawns and in children's play areas.

 If you know of a restaurant that has their vegetables and salad goods delivered overnight and left on the doorstep, be very cautious because of Foxes urinating on the goods! That goes for bottles of milk left on the doorstep from an early hours delivery.

It's about time folk started to face up to the realisms of Foxes and their disgusting habits.


----------



## Dry Rot (12 June 2015)

Very many years ago I was involved with a hunt. Like everyone else there, I was interested in wildlife -- and still am. We kept hounds but we also kept pets. Just because someone hunts doesn't mean they don't love wildlife and can't keep pets and enjoy observing them at close quarters. Most people who hunt, fish, or shoot will have a very keen interest in learning as much about their quarry as possible and that might indeed include keeping 'vermin' as pets.


----------



## angrybird1 (12 June 2015)

16 Fox cubs as pets?


----------



## Alec Swan (12 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			This has to be biggest load of old tosh that has ever been peddled by the Anti's. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

^^^^ This!  The problem is that with the peddled nonsense,  so the uninformed or wilfully ignorant,  clasp at such twaddle,  and in turn pedal it as 'fact'! 

When I worked as a 'keeper in Heythrop country,  I had a litter of cubs and it would have been either the dog or vixen who were creating considerable damage.  Sitting hen pheasants were being taken,  nightly and from their nests.  I stopped the cubs underground with balls of wire netting,  shot both parents as they returned to feed the cubs,  removed the stopping materials and fed the cubs every day with shot rabbits or pheasant poults which had died on the rearing field.  After a couple of weeks,  the cubs came out to be fed in the evenings,  and though not tame,  they didn't seem to pay much attention to me!  Eventually,  they left home and the food was no longer taken.  I saw them about for some while,  but as by July the threat to nesting game was over,  so they were left in peace.

There is so much ill-informed nonsense talked by those without understanding,  that it's a job to know where to start unravelling the diatribe of drivel!

Alec.


----------



## angrybird1 (12 June 2015)

Find it very very hard to believe that a hunt would keep 16 cubs out of the kindness of their hearts.
If the parents have been shot and foxes are such vermin why not kill the cubs too?
I'm afraid the answer is they are keeping them so when released the hunt will have plenty of quarry to chase in the autumn.
Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with hunting are ignorant townies.
I'm born and bred in the countryside. Have hunted in the past and found it not for me. Have had livestock and have had poultry killed by a fox.
I still disagree with hunting and also know that keeping foxes like this does go on.
It's insulting and boring to constantly be told that people who disagree with hunting are just ignorant townies who don't understand the countryside.
It's not true.


----------



## Sherston (12 June 2015)

Does anyone else see the irony in this one the same as the Scottish pack video. So if the cubs had been killed it would have been fine, the issue is that they are alive and being looked after and are in good health. Same as the Scottish packs, the LAC were complaining that the foxes were not shot.


----------



## webble (12 June 2015)

Sherston said:



			Does anyone else see the irony in this one the same as the Scottish pack video. So if the cubs had been killed it would have been fine, the issue is that they are alive and being looked after and are in good health. Same as the Scottish packs, the LAC were complaining that the foxes were not shot.
		
Click to expand...

I think its more the hypocrisy than the irony that is the issue


----------



## angrybird1 (12 June 2015)

Definitely hypocrisy. On one hand foxes are vermin that need to be controlled at all costs. On the other a hunt feeds and shelter 16 cubs. Go figure.


----------



## ester (12 June 2015)

Alternatively if hunting is to both control numbers, and ensure a healthy population of the remainder, I'm not sure this/Alec would be passed the remit.


----------



## shadeofshyness (12 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			Find it very very hard to believe that a hunt would keep 16 cubs out of the kindness of their hearts.
If the parents have been shot and foxes are such vermin why not kill the cubs too?
I'm afraid the answer is they are keeping them so when released the hunt will have plenty of quarry to chase in the autumn.
Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with hunting are ignorant townies.
I'm born and bred in the countryside. Have hunted in the past and found it not for me. Have had livestock and have had poultry killed by a fox.
I still disagree with hunting and also know that keeping foxes like this does go on.
It's insulting and boring to constantly be told that people who disagree with hunting are just ignorant townies who don't understand the countryside.
It's not true.
		
Click to expand...

Agree. It's pretty obvious that this is a case of raising them to release later.

Also on your second point, I agree - although I'm not anti hunting, I roll my eyes every time someone says anything about 'townies'. Such a stupid and tired stereotype/argument.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 June 2015)

shadeofshyness said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. , I roll my eyes every time someone says anything about 'townies'. Such a stupid and tired stereotype/argument.
		
Click to expand...

Who,  amongst those who disagree with you and others,  has suggested that it may be 'townies' who are responsible for an unrealistic approach to the subject?  A lack of understanding,  appreciation and acceptance isn't peculiar to those of urban domicile.

Alec.


----------



## angrybird1 (12 June 2015)

In which case explain to us lesser mortals who have no understanding why a hunt would be keeping 16 Fox cubs?
I know and you know why so why not just be honest.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			In which case explain to us lesser mortals who have no understanding why a hunt would be keeping 16 Fox cubs?
I know and you know why so why not just be honest.
		
Click to expand...

If that question was aimed at me,  then I'd suggest that for the very same reasons that I fed wild cubs and allowed them to grow and to take their chances.  Some will have been hunted,  some shot eventually,  some probably died a dreadful death in snares,  and others will have escaped the attentions of man and lived to procreate and to continue the chain.  Why kill young cubs when given the opportunity,  they can take their chances with life,  just as they would had they been left to be reared by their parents?

I fail to see how the 'assistance' offered is so wrong.

Alec.


----------



## ester (13 June 2015)

Essentially it depends whether they were planning on keeping them to release one on a hunt day every so often (which probably wouldn't work anyway) and I imagine what lots think they were planning or release them all when old enough as healthy young foxes and let them take their chances - on the basis that it isn't usually the young ones that cause issues for farmers.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2015)

ester said:



			Essentially it depends whether they were planning on keeping them to release one on a hunt day every so often (which probably wouldn't work anyway) and I imagine what lots think they were planning or release them all when old enough as healthy young foxes and let them take their chances - on the basis that it isn't usually the young ones that cause issues for farmers.
		
Click to expand...

Releasing foxes to be hunted down and killed on a put-and-take basis,  most certainly wouldn't work,  ever.  The reason why the fox has always been hunted,  is because he's in an environment which he knows and understands,  and for that same reason,  the kill-rate is actually abysmally low,  and that's how it should be.  Placing an animal in a strange and unknown environment would have the animal killed within a very few strides,  and that isn't 'hunting'.  If the chances of escape for the fox are so low that success is guaranteed,  then that would be a pointless exercise and the chance of success for the fox has to be heavily loaded in his favour.  That wouldn't be achieved by releasing the fox just prior to being hunted.

Alec.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			If the chances of escape for the fox are so low that success is guaranteed,  then that would be a pointless exercise and the chance of success for the fox has to be heavily loaded in his favour.  That wouldn't be achieved by releasing the fox just prior to being hunted.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, Alec, maybe you are too trusting that anyone involved with hunting would always behave honourably.

You want us to believe that these cubs are being reared for welfare reasons, after somehow being separated from their mothers? Then, at some later point, when they are old enough, *with the landowners full knowledge and permission*, they will be released back into the wild? So farmers are contacting the hunt to say that they are low on foxes, so could they have a few more, please?

I will put to you an alternative view. That the cubs are being raised so that they can be to tossed to the young hounds, to train them to search for fox scent in the future.

This alternative view is horrendous, and the vast majority of people involved with hunting would be be absolutely horrified at the prospect. It is the first thing that came to mind for me, though .


----------



## horserugsnot4u (13 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			Find it very very hard to believe that a hunt would keep 16 cubs out of the kindness of their hearts.
If the parents have been shot and foxes are such vermin why not kill the cubs too?
I'm afraid the answer is they are keeping them so when released the hunt will have plenty of quarry to chase in the autumn.
Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with hunting are ignorant townies.
I'm born and bred in the countryside. Have hunted in the past and found it not for me. Have had livestock and have had poultry killed by a fox.
I still disagree with hunting and also know that keeping foxes like this does go on.
It's insulting and boring to constantly be told that people who disagree with hunting are just ignorant townies who don't understand the countryside.
It's not true.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, although you missed out that we are all vegetarians and bunny huggers.  Also I get annoyed when told if you haven't hunted then you don't understand it and therefore your opinion is flawed. Well there are countless horrible things that you know are immoral and it is ridiculous to suggest you have to participate in them to have a valid argument.


----------



## horserugsnot4u (13 June 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			You want us to believe that these cubs are being reared for welfare reasons, after somehow being separated from their mothers? Then, at some later point, when they are old enough, *with the landowners full knowledge and permission*, they will be released back into the wild? So farmers are contacting the hunt to say that they are low on foxes, so could they have a few more, please?

I will put to you an alternative view. That the cubs are being raised so that they can be to tossed to the young hounds, to train them to search for fox scent in the future.

This alternative view is horrendous, and the vast majority of people involved with hunting would be be absolutely horrified at the prospect. It is the first thing that came to mind for me, though .
		
Click to expand...

I also wonder where the fox urine comes from that is used in trail hunting, which is apparently all that goes on since the ban.


----------



## ester (13 June 2015)

You can by all sorts of pee! 

http://www.predatorpee.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=FU
I don't imagine the full correct story will ever be known as they weren't doing anything illegal at the time and it seems unlikely that there will be any proof of intent to use them as bait or released for the day's sport.


----------



## pixie (13 June 2015)

Alec_Swan: This is the same hunt that I PM'd you about last year.  This is the same hunt that was fined in 2013. They have been in the news several times in regards to illegal hunting.
They were not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.  Their reputation locally is appalling.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 June 2015)

ester said:



			I don't imagine the full correct story will ever be known as they weren't doing anything illegal at the time and it seems unlikely that there will be any proof of intent to use them as bait or released for the day's sport.
		
Click to expand...

Agree. As I posted on the other thread, keeping foxes in a barn is not illegal, as long as their basic needs are met.

Probably only a very few individuals know exactly what was going on, and the true future plans for the cubs.


----------



## angrybird1 (13 June 2015)

I doubt very much that these foxes would have had a pleasant end.
Anyone who thinks that this hunt was kindly feeding and sheltering them out of the kindness of their hearts is either very trusting and nieve or living in a dream world.


----------



## fburton (13 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			I doubt very much that these foxes would have had a pleasant end.
		
Click to expand...

Do they ever??


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2015)

Assisting cubs to reach maturity has nothing to do with an act which would be 'out of the kindness of their hearts',  but rather giving an animal the chance to grow,  thrive,  reproduce and perhaps in time,  provide sport.  Last year I found some wild Bee Orchids which I placed a fence around,  to protect them from the attentions of my sheep.  I have a small flight pond and in the autumn and through the winter,  I feed the wild ducks which come in.  Every so often,  I'll stand and shoot a few in the evening,  but the greatest pleasure for me is in standing at a distance and watching the evening flight as they come in to feed.  As we sow, so we reap.  It's the way of the world for some,  and supporting a litter of cubs serves the same purpose.

There will be those who fail,  or refuse to understand the rational behind the involvement which gives some of us pleasure,  and their clear cut and apparently entrenched views are such that further explanation seems to be pointless!  Ill-founded and ill-thought through assumptions do little to support those who seem unable to consider the larger picture.

pixie,  I remember our discussion about the Middleton,  but am unable to now find your PM,  and I'm also unable to remember its content!  There are clear ethics attached to Hunting,  and if you have clear evidence of any breach of acceptable behaviour on the part of any pack,  then that evidence should be placed before the MFHA.

Amongst one of the offerings above,  there's a clear statement that the Police were investigating the fact that cubs were being kept in a barn.  Whilst the practice may raise an eyebrow or two,  rearing cubs in captivity is not a criminal offence.  To claim that an offence has been committed,  when clearly it hasn't,  does little to support the argument of those who oppose Hunting.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (13 June 2015)

horserugsnot4u said:



			I also wonder where the fox urine comes from that is used in trail hunting, which is apparently all that goes on since the ban.
		
Click to expand...

That from my sources is probably the reason these foxes were being kept. Actually the harvesting of Fox Urine is interesting and fetches a very high price. 

Certainly that is the procedure in the States and Canada where they cannot hunt live quarry because of Rabies. 

In the same way mare's urine is harvested and used in the manufacture of the Female Contraceptive Pill. That will give one or two something to chew on!


----------



## Judgemental (13 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			That from my sources is probably the reason these foxes were being kept. Actually the harvesting of Fox Urine is interesting and fetches a very high price. 

Certainly that is the procedure in the States and Canada where they cannot hunt live quarry because of Rabies. 

In the same way mare's urine is harvested and used in the manufacture of the Female Contraceptive Pill. That will give one or two something to chew on!
		
Click to expand...

There really are some Prize Fools about!

I strongly recommend that those, especially a well known national broadcaster, who were looking for an excuse to create a means of denigrating hunting generally and in particularly the Middleton Hunt would do well to access the following links about collecting Fox Urine before they spout any more drivel.

http://www.predatorpee.com/predatorpee-collection.htm

http://www.ehow.com/how_6081522_collect-coyote-fox-urine.html


----------



## Dobiegirl (13 June 2015)

As far as I know the Middleton Hunt hasnt said the foxes were being reared to harvest the urine, maybe they should have said this as I find it more believable then their explanation.

I cant believe how many hunts shoot themselves in the foot with their ridiculous explanations which does more harm then anything the antis can throw at them and I speak as someone who is pro hunting. Incidently even though I get foxes in my garden they have never felt the need to relieve themselves on my door stop or on any friends door stop, maybe Somerset foxes are better behaved.


----------



## angrybird1 (14 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Assisting cubs to reach maturity has nothing to do with an act which would be 'out of the kindness of their hearts',  but rather giving an animal the chance to grow,  thrive,  reproduce and perhaps in time,  provide sport.  Last year I found some wild Bee Orchids which I placed a fence around,  to protect them from the attentions of my sheep.  I have a small flight pond and in the autumn and through the winter,  I feed the wild ducks which come in.  Every so often,  I'll stand and shoot a few in the evening,  but the greatest pleasure for me is in standing at a distance and watching the evening flight as they come in to feed.  As we sow, so we reap.  It's the way of the world for some,  and supporting a litter of cubs serves the same purpose.

There will be those who fail,  or refuse to understand the rational behind the involvement which gives some of us pleasure,  and their clear cut and apparently entrenched views are such that further explanation seems to be pointless!  Ill-founded and ill-thought through assumptions do little to support those who seem unable to consider the larger picture.

pixie,  I remember our discussion about the Middleton,  but am unable to now find your PM,  and I'm also unable to remember its content!  There are clear ethics attached to Hunting,  and if you have clear evidence of any breach of acceptable behaviour on the part of any pack,  then that evidence should be placed before the MFHA.

Amongst one of the offerings above,  there's a clear statement that the Police were investigating the fact that cubs were being kept in a barn.  Whilst the practice may raise an eyebrow or two,  rearing cubs in captivity is not a criminal offence.  To claim that an offence has been committed,  when clearly it hasn't,  does little to support the argument of those who oppose Hunting.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph says it all really.
So basically, you are saying that the hunt is raising Fox cubs for future sport.
Do you not find this hypocritical?
How if the Fox needs controlling and is such a pest to farmers is it right to raise them in this way to provide sport for the hunt?
Hunting foxes is illegal is it not?
One of the arguments for the repeal of the hunting ban is pest control, yet they are in effect breeding foxes. 
To me, this can not be right.
I fully expect to be shot down by people saying I don't understand country ways or farming etc. 
I do understand what's going on here and its not good.


----------



## Archangel (14 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			In the same way mare's urine is harvested and used in the manufacture of the Female Contraceptive Pill.
		
Click to expand...

It is for HRT rather than contraceptive use - once the cruelty involved was made public there was *shock* *horror* *probe* and it was shunned (think it is still prescribed but there was a huge backlash).


----------



## SO1 (14 June 2015)

It does seem a bit of a strange situation and I expect we will never find out the reasons they were being kept for.

If pro hunting people say the only reason they want to hunt is to get rid of foxes as they are vermin and and they want the fox population to be as low as possible then why keep more foxes in a shed, why not just get someone in to dispatch them. I think a lot of the issues around fox hunting is the perceived enjoyment that those participating seem to get from chasing and dispatching the vermin rather than people not understanding or realizing that foxes are don't cause damage to livestock. Large numbers of rats which are also considered vermin are killed every year and very few people seem to take offense at that, probably because very few people relish the chance to get rid of the rats or mice infestations, dispatching rats and mice is seem as a necessarily evil rather than a hobby.

I think respect for the fox hunting community was lost due to perceived arrogance of the fox hunting community towards people who live in towns, and they are not always open about the pleasure they get from hunting. I grew up in the countryside and hunted as a teenager and I believe that the main reason people fox hunted was because they enjoyed it. As an adult it is not something I would wish to partake in again. 

I don't think fox hunting will become legal again in this country in the same format as it was before. If it does come back I expect it will be under strict licensing laws with a only small number of people with licenses being allowed to participate.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 June 2015)

How effective are the MFHA at actually regulating what goes on in individual packs? Do they react robustly to reports of dodgy goings on, like this case? They will be very aware of it.

I notice that the current Director of the MFHA, Tim Easby, is listed having been associated with the Middleton Hunt in the past.


----------



## hackneylass2 (15 June 2015)

Judgemental,  READ Lord Middleton's quotes.  Tell me he is not speaking utter twaddle. Really, read it slowly, before being so err Judemental and not being able to see how stupid and patronising his words were.  Maybe he sees Antis as being townies with no idea, but that also shows his ignorance.

I think people have rung up and said, Hey, look Ive got foxes that needs rescuing, their mothers dead, or, I cant live with them where they are, can you look after them?

What would your hunt, if you have one, respond to this??? 

Also read my words... 
"This does the hunting fraternity no good, whichever side of the fence you care to stand!" Can you tell if I am pro, anti or just someone who thinks that Lord Middleton is an idiot in replying as he did?

PS  My ears pricked up at this article because my first hunt, many many years ago, was the Middleton.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 June 2015)

Assuming that Middleton's been quoted,  and word verbatim,  then I agree with you.  If his words were as you've quoted,  then the display of stupidity will be there for all to see and as you say,  regardless of any fence.

Alec.


----------



## Fellewell (15 June 2015)

hackneylass2 said:



			Judgemental,  READ Lord Middleton's quotes.  Tell me he is not speaking utter twaddle. Really, read it slowly, before being so err Judemental and not being able to see how stupid and patronising his words were.  Maybe he sees Antis as being townies with no idea, but that also shows his ignorance.

I think people have rung up and said, Hey, look Ive got foxes that needs rescuing, their mothers dead, or, I cant live with them where they are, can you look after them?

What would your hunt, if you have one, respond to this??? 

Also read my words... 
"This does the hunting fraternity no good, whichever side of the fence you care to stand!" Can you tell if I am pro, anti or just someone who thinks that Lord Middleton is an idiot in replying as he did?

PS  My ears pricked up at this article because my first hunt, many many years ago, was the Middleton.
		
Click to expand...


You really have no right to speak so disparagingly of Lord Middleton.

No one has been charged. No laws have been broken. This is a non-story.


----------



## fburton (15 June 2015)

Has anyone come forward to say it was they who put the young vermin in the shed?


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 June 2015)

Fellewell said:



			No one has been charged.
		
Click to expand...

 True. 




			No laws have been broken.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly true. Depending very much on how the cubs were obtained, what happened to their mothers, and what the true future plans for the cubs were.




			This is a non-story.
		
Click to expand...

False. This is a BIG story that plays right into the hands of the antis, and quite rightly too.

I will move out of the pro hunting camp, and straight into the anti camp, if it became clear that it is common practice for hunts to raise captive foxes for hunting.

TP (Has hunted with 7 different packs - 5 foxhound, 2 harriers, 0 drag, all pre ban).


----------



## Orangehorse (15 June 2015)

There was a local MFH, who was very much an eccentric, and she had pet foxes on long chains all over the place.  I think she had a pet one in the house too.  This was in her house, and the hound kennels were in the yard next door.


----------



## Judgemental (15 June 2015)

Fellewell said:



			You really have no right to speak so disparagingly of Lord Middleton.

No one has been charged. No laws have been broken. This is a non-story.
		
Click to expand...

I quite agree. Indeed when I saw the comments initially, I was immediately surprised and struck by the venom they contained.

It really is a symptom of 'these people' who have an on-going antipathy towards anything that amplifies our traditions, customs and the seam, particularly in the countryside,  that goes through our society that acts as a catalyst, that supports our governance by consent.

Frankly, if 'these people' have a problem with people with titles, they should hop off to North Korea for example,


----------



## angrybird1 (15 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			I quite agree. Indeed when I saw the comments initially, I was immediately surprised and struck by the venom they contained.

It really is a symptom of 'these people' who have an on-going antipathy towards anything that amplifies our traditions, customs and the seam, particularly in the countryside,  that goes through our society that acts as a catalyst, that supports our governance by consent.

Frankly, if 'these people' have a problem with people with titles, they should hop off to North Korea for example,
		
Click to expand...

Good God.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			Good God.
		
Click to expand...

Quite agree.

JM, if you think that your little tirade is going to persuade any waverers that Repeal is the way forward, then you are sadly mistaken.

<goes off to lie down in a darkened room, vowing never to attempt to defend hunting ever again>


----------



## Judgemental (15 June 2015)

angrybird1 said:



			Good God.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you so much. I was becoming a little bored with Judgemental


----------



## Countryman (15 June 2015)

I don't know anything specific about this case, except that it seems to be nothing to do with the hunt. To say it occurred on land leased out by a local land owner - a large landowner, who apparently attended just 3 meets in a season is really clutching at straws. In our country I doubt you could find a single farmer or landowner who hadn't been to say, 3 meets in an entire season-just one every 2 months!

What I will say is that any suggestion hunts "breed" foxes for hunting is categorically untrue.

HOWEVER in days gone by, the hunt terrierman was often called upon by farmers out of season to dispatch problem foxes. Unfortunately these foxes were often vixens with young - hence why organised hunting had stopped, out of respect for the rearing period.

In some cases, the troublesome fox may have been killed, but the young cubs would not always necessarily have been put down - if they were not causing any harm to the farmer. 
Instead, the farmer may demand that they be moved - perhaps to a part of the local area which had very few foxes, for instance after a mange epidemic had destroyed the population. In this case, "management" of the fox population actually meant moving these cubs to that area. Left alone, the cubs would have died-and indeed, usually they would be culled along with their parents, but sometimes a case was made to rehome them elsewhere where there was a low fox population. (Which can certainly occur - an ideal fox population for the purposes of biodiversity is neither too high or too low).

The fact that it was the hunt terrierman undertaking this work was irrelevant - he was simply the most likely local pest control man the farmers turned to, and probably the only expert at digging out. 

No foxes were bred for hunting, and as far I know no hunts have ever  bred foxes, or done anything like that,  for at least 100 years!


----------



## hackneylass2 (16 June 2015)

Crikey, now class has become involved. (which in a roundabout way, also does hunting in general little favour).  If I think someone is speaking 'utter twaddle' (excuse abject venomosity) I will say so, no matter how titled/linebred/inbred/influential that person may be.  

Now, more than ever, hunts need to keep their acts in order.

Goodnight Master
(Backs away tugging forelock)


----------



## Judgemental (16 June 2015)

hackneylass2 said:



			Goodnight Master
(Backs away tugging forelock)
		
Click to expand...

Should think so too. I shall take that as a grovelling apology.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 June 2015)

Insulting one another does little to support any discussion.  I wasn't present,  none of us were,  when Lord Middleton made his alleged comments.  Assuming that he's been correctly quoted,  it would seem on the face of it,  that his response to the accusations made for little sense.  But then neither did the original accusations.

As the claims made by those who are opposed to Hunting become ever more ridiculous,  so it seems are some of the responses.  Children who squabble rarely apply any common sense to their claims,  and the argument regarding Hunting is following a similar route,  generally.  To return to the base of the argument,  it seems to me that the off-the-scale claims offered by those who are opposed to Hunting are given a level of false credibility when they're matched with equally puerile responses.

J_m's opening lines on another thread which concern the money which is expended by those who hunt and on their mounts is an irrelevance,  as the money will be spent on horses regardless of whether they are used for hunting,  or not.  Similarly,  to claim that hunting is the only efficient way of 'controlling' vulpine numbers is equally flawed,  for the simple reason that the number of foxes accounted for in the course of a year (pre-ban) and solely by hounds, would be an infinitesimally small proportion of the national head count.

There can be no question in my view that since the ban on hunting,  our previously balanced,  ethically and effectively managed vulpine population has been done a great disservice.  When Hunting was within the Law,  vast areas of land were given over to the wholesale protection of the fox and for the purpose of sport.  There were those who nibbled away at the outside of it all,  by shooting and snaring,  but even their influence was minimal.  Hunting is the only effective way of promoting the good health of our fox population,  for the simple reason that it would be the diseased and the elderly who would fall before hounds,  generally,  and as with all properly managed wildlife plans,  it was the general well being of the animal concerned,  regardless of the argument of class or privilege,  which had us at that happy state.  Today we have the hand of just about everyone who owns a rifle or sets a snare,  turned against our fox population and with no possible thought to selection,  so the killing is indiscriminate,  sadly.

As a similar example of management,  consider our native deer population.  It's the responsibility of all that selection is vital and mostly,  that's why we have such a healthy,  if oversized population.  The same thing could once be said about the West Country Red Deer,  until hunting with hounds was placed outside the Law.  For centuries a system evolved which promoted the wellbeing of our hunted wildlife,  which has been brought to its knees by those who with a lack of understanding or care,  for the damage that they have done.

I don't and have never ridden to hounds,  but along with a previous director of the lacs (amongst others),  feel that hunting is the only selective and ethical system of natural selection and promotion of our fox population,  and I also feel that it's the most compelling reason for a reversal of the ludicrous ban of 2004 by an Act of Parliament which was bought rather than justified.

I suspect that those who oppose Hunting do so because others enjoy it,  rather than for any altruistic protection of an animal to whom they've committed untold damage.

Alec.


----------



## fburton (16 June 2015)

Thank you, Alec. Your levelheadedness is commendable.


----------



## Judgemental (16 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			J_m's opening lines on another thread which concern the money which is expended by those who hunt and on their mounts is an irrelevance,  as the money will be spent on horses regardless of whether they are used for hunting,  or not
		
Click to expand...

Alec I really have to disagree with you and being entirely serious for the following reasons.

Going back in history to 1936 when Nazi Germany banned all hunting with hounds, including trail and drag. Indeed they had all the hounds shot along with a number of hunt servants.

Everybody in Germany simply gave up keeping horses and their lack of economic input simply disappeared.

Where it not for the 'hope' and now PROMISE of repeal, many hunters would have been disposed of and their economic input/output would have been lost.

So whilst folk have been Dragging/Trailing, in the main they are only maintaining their establishments for the day of the wonderful Repeal.


----------



## oakash (16 June 2015)

This thread has made interesting reading. For me, whilst it seems unlikely that hunts would keep a barn full of foxes, if it IS true, then personally I would have no problem with that. I see hunting as the most natural way to control the fox population. It is a system perfectly at one with the natural world. If there are an excess of foxes then more will be killed by hounds. If there are too few then many countries will help them to breed. No-one in a hunt country wants to see foxes totally eradicated from the land - except the anti-hunters in some cases. Surely a balanced population at a level which allows sheep farmers to operate  is what is required. Add  to that the point of natural selection which has already been raised, then I fail to understand why the anti hunters are not marching outside parliament and writing to their MPs to get this remarkably wicked ban on hunting lifted for the sake of our wildlife and countryside.


----------



## fburton (17 June 2015)

oakash said:



			I see hunting as the most natural way to control the fox population.
		
Click to expand...

Not good (efficient) at regulating absolute numbers though, right?


----------



## Alec Swan (17 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Alec I really have to disagree with you and being entirely serious for the following reasons.

Going back in history to 1936 when Nazi Germany banned all hunting with hounds, including trail and drag. Indeed they had all the hounds shot along with a number of hunt servants.

Everybody in Germany simply gave up keeping horses and their lack of economic input simply disappeared.

Where it not for the 'hope' and now PROMISE of repeal, many hunters would have been disposed of and their economic input/output would have been lost.

So whilst folk have been Dragging/Trailing, in the main they are only maintaining their establishments for the day of the wonderful Repeal.
		
Click to expand...

J_m,  we live in a different world to almost 80 years ago.  It's better in some ways,  but not others,  I'll grant you that! I would though,  point out that the 'promise' is not of repeal,  but of a free vote for our Parliamentarians,  and I honestly suspect that there won't be enough of them who are prepared to risk the backlash of a return to the status quo,  without clear argument as to the ethical reasons for a return, also &#8230;&#8230;..



oakash said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. I fail to understand why the anti hunters are not marching outside parliament and writing to their MPs to get this remarkably wicked ban on hunting lifted for the sake of our wildlife and countryside.
		
Click to expand...

&#8230;&#8230;.. you'd think so,  wouldn't you? 

I remember a television programme from around the time of the ban when there was a West Country vet being interviewed.  The programme focused on stag hunting,  and he gave a lucid and well argued case for the fact that the native red deer,  as a group,  were in the happy condition that they were,  because of hunting.  Deer,  indeed just about all animals,  benefit from being preyed upon.  It's being a part of a food chain which has had them develop as they have,  by the process of natural selection,  and specifically with Red deer,  then particular stags were targeted and hunted,  and as a gender balance,  then it was hunt staff who generally shot the older and the failing hinds.  The process in the West Country has previously produced a well balanced and healthy stock of red deer.  Ill-informed,  though presumably well intentioned bodies decided that they knew best,  and just look at the damage that has been done to the deer themselves.

With deer,  selection for those who know what they're doing is a natural and relatively simple process.  With the fox, that's simply not the case.  The opportunity to give consideration to which fox should be hunted,  snared or shot,  simply isn't there,  because deer will often stand and stare,  foxes tend not too.  Those who would orchestrate an attempt at repeal,  would be well advised to seek out and promote the opinions of those who's opinions are such that they can explain to our parliamentarians and the voting public who can be bothered with the matter,  that the benefits to the well being of our wildlife,  in general,  of being hunted are of paramount importance.  Those voices,  Giles Bradshaw and Robin page being amongst them,  though neither of them men who Hunt,  should be the support that is garnered,  I'd suggest.  The views of those who can apply the logical benefits to the well being of the hunted animal should be the sought out support,  rather than taking part in a bickering contest which achieves nothing in the way of benefit,  or none that I can see.

We all too often focus upon those of the Hunting fraternity who behave in an unethical or unacceptable fashion,  and they're all so often held up as examples or the reasons in part,  why Hunting should remain illegal.  Do we ban Football because of the minority who bring the 'game' in to disrepute?  Of course we don't.  Those who ride to Hounds today have had their ranks swelled since the ban of 2004,  and I wonder what that tells us.

Before any attempt at repeal,  we have to consider the debacles which have previously been obvious,  but conveniently forgotten.  We should consider the pointless attempts,  for instance at a badger cull which quite predictably achieved absolutely nothing,  barring 30 or 40 dead badgers.  Again,  it was a Government attempt to appease both sides of the argument without actually having any effect,  whatsoever.  Both Government and the general public need to have a well reasoned and logical argument put before them.

I could go on and on! 

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (17 June 2015)

fburton said:



			Not good (efficient) at regulating absolute numbers though, right?
		
Click to expand...

Not at a national level, no.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 June 2015)

fburton said:



			Not good (efficient) at regulating absolute numbers though, right?
		
Click to expand...




Countryman said:



			Not at a national level, no.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.  Hunting alone no longer has the ability to reduce our vulpine population to the previously healthy and sustainable levels.  Hunting will though,  as it always has,  remove the old,  the weak,  the diseased and the generally infirm,  and by so doing enable only those which by age and 'condition' are best prepared to produce and rear healthy cubs.

Alec.


----------



## fburton (18 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Agreed.  Hunting alone no longer has the ability to reduce our vulpine population to the previously healthy and sustainable levels.  Hunting will though,  as it always has,  remove the old,  the weak,  the diseased and the generally infirm,  and by so doing enable only those which by age and 'condition' are best prepared to produce and rear healthy cubs.
		
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest, wouldn't this tend to _increase_ the population overall by increasing the number of family units producing next generation foxes?

While I find the argument for improving the health and vigour of wild animals by culling the less healthy and vigorous quite appealing on an emotional level, it also seems somewhat contrived and, well, speciesist - considering that other wild animals don't receive this kind of attention. It's true that foxes are apex predators, so prey species with get some 'weeding out' treatment naturally, without man's intervention. Indeed, that might be an argument to (re-)introduce other apex predators to e.g. 'look after' deer populations. However, we don't perform the same service for aerial predators (eagles and owls); they are left to fall off their perches. I suppose that's because they have less (potential) impact on agriculture and there is less sport to be had.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 June 2015)

fburton said:



			As a matter of interest, wouldn't this tend to _increase_ the population overall by increasing the number of family units producing next generation foxes?

While I find the argument for improving the health and vigour of wild animals by culling the less healthy and vigorous quite appealing on an emotional level, it also seems somewhat contrived and, well, speciesist - considering that other wild animals don't receive this kind of attention. It's true that foxes are apex predators, so prey species with get some 'weeding out' treatment naturally, without man's intervention. Indeed, that might be an argument to (re-)introduce other apex predators to e.g. 'look after' deer populations. However, we don't perform the same service for aerial predators (eagles and owls); they are left to fall off their perches. I suppose that's because they have less (potential) impact on agriculture and there is less sport to be had.
		
Click to expand...

Para 1;  I'm not too sure,  but I'd doubt it because any environment can only support any given species by the availability of a food supply.  It's an interesting point that over the last 30 years,  the massive expansion in the rearing of game,  supplies our fox population with a ready food supply.  Similarly,  after WW11 the Forestry Commission was formed,  there were quite literally millions of acres of tree planting programmes,  and as the forestry at the time went through growth stages which were 'staged',  so it provided the perfect environment for (certainly in the South of England),  our native Roe Deer.  The effect was a colossal increase in numbers with Roe in the South being at near plague proportions.  Thanks to the remarkably incisive work of men like Richard Prior who was at the forefront of Roe management,  so what could have become a pest and demonised has been saved by being viewed as an asset.  Our native vulpine population has,  I suspect,  been similarly though unintentionally,  supported.

Para 2:  The reintroduction of other 'apex' predators would be a disaster,  for all of our wildlife.  If not a disaster,  then there would likely be a chain of events when the introduced creatures would become of a real and detrimental influence.  Whilst not at the top of any food chain,  just look at the damage done by the grey squirrel which has no natural enemies of any real substance.

I'm also not too sure how any prey species which isn't itself preyed upon,  would receive any natural 'weeding out' process.  Birds of prey,  I'll grant you,  through protection seem to maintain a reasonable level of numbers,  with the exception of buzzards,  which now seem to be just about everywhere,  or at least they're seen in numbers and in areas where 30 years ago they were a rarity.  Specifically and considering our birds of prey population,  the numbers have never really recovered from the appalling effects of DDT,  which is something else that I don't really understand.

Much of what we have is supported,  or it isn't,  by the environment which we provide,  or we don't,  which neatly takes us back to the 16 cubs which are or were,  being reared in a barn!  

Alec.


----------



## fburton (18 June 2015)

As ever, I appreciate hearing your thoughts, Alec.


----------



## hackneylass2 (19 June 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Should think so too. I shall take that as a grovelling apology.
		
Click to expand...

And I will take that as proof positive that you are a complete Jenny.


----------

