# Fox baiting



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.


----------



## CARREG (14 June 2011)

Define baiting................Carreg


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (14 June 2011)

I suppose it depends on how angry you want to make them!


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Hi Carreg. I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.


----------



## Lacuna (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi Carreg. I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.
		
Click to expand...

Another definition is intentionally poisoning foxes with bait, this is currently going on in Tasmania to try and remove foxes from the ecosystem where they arecompeting with the native devils.

Personally I don't find it agreeable as there are too many other animals that could find the bait attractive and die - badgers, kites, buzzards, dogs, cats, etc.


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Yes, baiting has several meanings but in the context of this discussion I mean the definition provided in my earlier post.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2011)

For those who would be prepared to discuss such matters with the original poster,  I would suggest that you view his other posts.  He's a troll.  Troll's specialise in pedantic,  pointless and puerile posts,  which are designed to provide them with entertainment.  Nothing more,  or less.  

Coventry.

Alec.

Ets,  and if you doubt me,  then read his last offering!! a.


----------



## Fiagai (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.
		
Click to expand...




PaulT said:



			... I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.
		
Click to expand...

No still not with you I'm afraid...

Just foxes or all animals?

Dogs. do you mean ....

Dogs -  as in fighting dogs (Pitbull types etc)
Terriers - used to find and locate?  (ref Hunting Act)
Hounds - ditto?

Attack - Find?  Chase? Worry? Kill?

Trapped - Caught?  Killed? 

Restrained - Chained up? Caged?

This question is as about clear as mud.   Could you give a scenario and then maybe could give an proper opinioned answer.

Otherwise as Alec has advised please desits from such troll like activities.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.
		
Click to expand...

What are you prattling on about?


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			No still not with you I'm afraid...

Just foxes or all animals?

Dogs. do you mean ....

Dogs -  as in fighting dogs (Pitbull types etc)
Terriers - used to find and locate?  (ref Hunting Act)
Hounds - ditto?

Attack - Find?  Chase? Worry? Kill?

Trapped - Caught?  Killed? 

Restrained - Chained up? Caged?

This question is as about clear as mud.   Could you give a scenario and then maybe could give an proper opinioned answer.

Otherwise as Alec has advised please desits from such troll like activities.
		
Click to expand...

Hi again, Fiagai. Ill debate with you as Alec has thrown his teddy out of his pram. He didnt like my use of independent scientific evidence in the other thread.

My question related to fox baiting, as the title of the thread and the wording of the question indicated. Im not sure the type of dogs really matter that much unless you think baiting in certain situations is ok?

I generally find most people dont seem to have a problem understanding the words attack, trapped and restrained. However:

Attack - To set upon with violent force; to begin to affect harmfully.

Trapped - A confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult.

Restrained - To hold back or keep in check; control; to limit or restrict.

In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 June 2011)

would you mind telling where fox baiting occurs- i've never heard of such a hideous sport?or are you referring to hunting andtoo daft  to mention such a word?


----------



## Fiagai (15 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?...My question related to fox baiting, as the title of the thread and the wording of the question indicated. I&#8217;m not sure the type of dogs really matter that much unless you think baiting in certain situations is ok?...
		
Click to expand...

I am attempting to understand what you are actually on about...

And please dont attempt another childish prank of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think.

Ok in your scenario who or what is restraining the fox?  Is the fox in a cage? What is the context of the situation?  Maybe if you give an actual example we may make some progress on the question in hand


----------



## EAST KENT (15 June 2011)

Awfully sorry old chap but my nose scents TROLL..sniff..sniff TROLL.TATA   Go orf and annoy someone else please


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

Don't get so touchy, you're beginning to sound like Alec just before he threw his teddy out if the pram. 

The scenario I posed wasn't difficult to comprehend, I deliberately kept it brief. Sounds to me as though you could support fox baiting in certain situations, despite your protestations about apparent misrepresentation of your views. For example, is it ok to set one or more dogs on a fox if it's in a cage, a box or a blocked off tunnel?

Simple yes or no will suffice to each of the three situations above.


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

East Kent, surely you're not another pro-hunter averse to independent evidence?

It's a real shame so few of you actually want to have an evidence-based approach to the hunting debate. This really is a very instructive experience.


----------



## Fiagai (15 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Don't get so touchy, you're beginning to sound like Alec just before he threw his teddy out if the pram. 
The scenario I posed wasn't difficult to comprehend, I deliberately kept it brief. Sounds to me as though you could support fox baiting in certain situations, despite your protestations about apparent misrepresentation of your views. For example, is it ok to set one or more dogs on a fox if it's in a cage, a box or a blocked off tunnel?
Simple yes or no will suffice to each of the three situations above.
		
Click to expand...

Dearest PaulT

I am trying to find out what the *?%@$ you are talking about?  Either you are a real eejit or you are talking gibberish - no one who has replied here has a clue what you are on about. 

As I have already said desist from your childish pranks of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think....I will take it you are not that stupid so I am presuming you are deliberatly once again attempting to flame the thread.....

I have never heard of "fox baiting". I have never ever heard of foxes being put in cages or boxes and being "baited".  Could you give a reference to an actual reputably reported account so we can judge the facts of the case.  Stop beating around the bush and give a real scenario.  

Wait dont bother. Since you have been asked repeatedly and you refuse to give any concrete example of what you are actually talking about, I have googled it and the subject appears to be a made up term by Hardline Anti groups in the UK that covers some very spurious accounts of digging out foxes .  Else where it refers to the use of poison baits especially in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand when poisoned bait is used in the control of out of control fox populations there.

As you appear to be talking nonsense and I will add the give the following nonsense rhyme for your answer...

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Now go away - no one really wants to play your silly little games.....


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 June 2011)

Lets face it, Paul T is an anti and enjoying the wind up-best to ignore him and his research.


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Dearest PaulT

I am trying to find out what the *?%@$ you are talking about?  Either you are a real eejit or you are talking gibberish - no one who has replied here has a clue what you are on about. 

As I have already said desist from your childish pranks of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think....I will take it you are not that stupid so I am presuming you are deliberatly once again attempting to flame the thread.....

I have never heard of "fox baiting". I have never ever heard of foxes being put in cages or boxes and being "baited".  Could you give a reference to an actual reputably reported account so we can judge the facts of the case.  Stop beating around the bush and give a real scenario.  

Wait dont bother. Since you have been asked repeatedly and you refuse to give any concrete example of what you are actually talking about, I have googled it and the subject appears to be a made up term by Hardline Anti groups in the UK that covers some very spurious accounts of digging out foxes .  Else where it refers to the use of poison baits especially in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand when poisoned bait is used in the control of out of control fox populations there.

As you appear to be talking nonsense and I will add the give the following nonsense rhyme for your answer...

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Now go away - no one really wants to play your silly little games.....

Click to expand...

Someone call nurse, Fiagai has had one of his turns again. 

Despite this extremely strange response and liberal doses of feigned bafflement, we got there eventually. Yes, youre quite right Fiagai, terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.  

You asked for a real scenario: fox evades being ripped to pieces by going to ground.  Hunt terriermen called in, who make sure exits to the earth are blocked, and terriers are entered. Terriers confront fox, which is unable to escape  bloody battle ensues. 

You prefer the term terrierwork, I prefer fox baiting  two phrases to describe the same activity. Its telling that so far no one has been prepared to defend fox baiting, an activity which is part and parcel of organised fox hunting.


----------



## Ahunter (16 June 2011)

Fox Baiting = A term dreamed up by the PR B*ll***** Dept of the anti hunt brigade in a daft attempt to align terrier work with badger baiting.

 First made its appearance in the context of hunting at the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs,  The anti hunt brigade  looked right plonkers when they first came out the phrase in front of the committee everybody stood around scratching their heads wondering what the hell they were on about.  

Any more daft terms we can attribute to the Propaganda rubbish of the Anti hunt brigade?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Ahunter said:



			Fox Baiting = A term dreamed up by the PR B*ll***** Dept of the anti hunt brigade in a daft attempt to align terrier work with badger baiting.

 First made its appearance in the context of hunting at the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs,  The anti hunt brigade  looked right plonkers when they first came out the phrase in front of the committee everybody stood around scratching their heads wondering what the hell they were on about.  

Any more daft terms we can attribute to the Propaganda rubbish of the Anti hunt brigade?
		
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Ahunter. So presumably it's okay to label the setting of one or more dogs onto a confined badger as 'badger baiting', but substituting the word badger for fox suddenly makes it b*ll****? 

I didn't realise the concept was animal dependent.


----------



## Herne (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Yes, youre quite right Fiagai, terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.  

You asked for a real scenario: fox evades being ripped to pieces by going to ground.  Hunt terriermen called in, who make sure exits to the earth are blocked, and terriers are entered. Terriers confront fox, which is unable to escape  bloody battle ensues. 

You prefer the term terrierwork, I prefer fox baiting  two phrases to describe the same activity. Its telling that so far no one has been prepared to defend fox baiting, an activity which is part and parcel of organised fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...


No, Paul, terrierwork does not amount to fox baiting. They would, if fox baiting actually existed, be two entirely different things. Just because two activities involve dogs and animals does not make them the same, any more than Formula 1 and Stock Car Racing  can be considered the same thing, just because they both involve cars on a track that sometimes bump into each other.

Personally, I suspect that you are fully aware of the differences between the two  in which case, what you are doing here is no more than an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewing public. Why, I ask myself, if the case against Hunting is supposedly so strong, do you antis always seem to feel the need to embellish the evidence? Does it not stand on its own merit? Seemingly not, if you so constantly feel the need to give it a little help

For the benefit of those not in the know, this definition of the term baiting, usually used in the context of bear baiting or badger baiting, is an activity where dogs are used to torment an animal of another species for  and this is the important part  the entertainment, if you can call it that, of an audience, most usually involving gambling. 

Dog-fighting and cock-fighting are similar activities, but are not generally referred to as baiting because they involve two animals of the same species. However, the principal features are the same. The activity will be conducted in some sort of enclosure, very close in front of an audience and the animals involved will be specifically chosen to maximise the amount of physical injures inflicted upon one or both participants. Apart from the gambling revenue, the only gratification available to the audience of these activities is the sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of the participants.

These activities were all rightly made illegal a long time past.

The anti-hunters often bleat that if they were made illegal and if hunting with dogs is the same thing then why wasnt that made illegal at the same time. But the answer is in the question  Hunting with Dogs was not made illegal, because it is not the same thing. It is different in most or all of those crucial aspects.

In hunting, the audience is nearly always well removed from the place where the dogs kill the animal, so they cannot enjoy the suffering up-close-and-personal and we use a large number of dogs, anyone of which can kill the quarry single-handedly  the complete opposite of how the dogs are chosen in baiting and fighting.

Baiting and fighting are specifically designed to allow sadists to get the most out of the activities. Hunting is carried out in such a way that it would be extremely difficult for a sadist to get any pleasure out of it all.

With Terrierwork, the situation is different to hunting  and we should not forget that (a) terrierwork carried out by hunts is only a small proportion of the total terrierwork carried out in this country; (b) that (prior to the Ban) hunt terrierwork was the only terrierwork carried to a code of practice and (c) that terrierwork was specifically allowed to continue by the Hunting Act  in that, by necessity, the activity is carried out in an enclosed space. However, the crucial difference between it and baiting is that it is not in view of an audience.

In terrierwork properly carried out (prior to the ban), the dog should not even fight the fox at all. It should either have merely held it at bay by barking until the terrierman could dig down and shoot the fox (which is now contrary to the Hunting Act) or scare the fox out of the hole so that it could be shot (which is still lawful under the Act).

Occasionally, animals being animals, there would be instances where the dog and the fox would get into a scrap. However, this would still not count as baiting, because all there would be for the audience to enjoy would be a load of muffled yapping and growling noises coming from somewhere underground  which would provide none of the up-close-and-personal action that a sadist would need to get his or her kicks.

So, no, Paul, as you are, no doubt, fully aware Terrierwork is not fox-baiting  and your attempt to link the two is either extremely misinformed or just plain dishonest. Care to enlighten us as to which?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Herne said:



			No, Paul, terrierwork does not amount to fox baiting. They would, if fox baiting actually existed, be two entirely different things. Just because two activities involve dogs and animals does not make them the same, any more than Formula 1 and Stock Car Racing  can be considered the same thing, just because they both involve cars on a track that sometimes bump into each other.

Personally, I suspect that you are fully aware of the differences between the two  in which case, what you are doing here is no more than an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewing public. Why, I ask myself, if the case against Hunting is supposedly so strong, do you antis always seem to feel the need to embellish the evidence? Does it not stand on its own merit? Seemingly not, if you so constantly feel the need to give it a little help

For the benefit of those not in the know, this definition of the term baiting, usually used in the context of bear baiting or badger baiting, is an activity where dogs are used to torment an animal of another species for  and this is the important part  the entertainment, if you can call it that, of an audience, most usually involving gambling. 

Dog-fighting and cock-fighting are similar activities, but are not generally referred to as baiting because they involve two animals of the same species. However, the principal features are the same. The activity will be conducted in some sort of enclosure, very close in front of an audience and the animals involved will be specifically chosen to maximise the amount of physical injures inflicted upon one or both participants. Apart from the gambling revenue, the only gratification available to the audience of these activities is the sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of the participants.

These activities were all rightly made illegal a long time past.

The anti-hunters often bleat that if they were made illegal and if hunting with dogs is the same thing then why wasnt that made illegal at the same time. But the answer is in the question  Hunting with Dogs was not made illegal, because it is not the same thing. It is different in most or all of those crucial aspects.

In hunting, the audience is nearly always well removed from the place where the dogs kill the animal, so they cannot enjoy the suffering up-close-and-personal and we use a large number of dogs, anyone of which can kill the quarry single-handedly  the complete opposite of how the dogs are chosen in baiting and fighting.

Baiting and fighting are specifically designed to allow sadists to get the most out of the activities. Hunting is carried out in such a way that it would be extremely difficult for a sadist to get any pleasure out of it all.

With Terrierwork, the situation is different to hunting  and we should not forget that (a) terrierwork carried out by hunts is only a small proportion of the total terrierwork carried out in this country; (b) that (prior to the Ban) hunt terrierwork was the only terrierwork carried to a code of practice and (c) that terrierwork was specifically allowed to continue by the Hunting Act  in that, by necessity, the activity is carried out in an enclosed space. However, the crucial difference between it and baiting is that it is not in view of an audience.

In terrierwork properly carried out (prior to the ban), the dog should not even fight the fox at all. It should either have merely held it at bay by barking until the terrierman could dig down and shoot the fox (which is now contrary to the Hunting Act) or scare the fox out of the hole so that it could be shot (which is still lawful under the Act).

Occasionally, animals being animals, there would be instances where the dog and the fox would get into a scrap. However, this would still not count as baiting, because all there would be for the audience to enjoy would be a load of muffled yapping and growling noises coming from somewhere underground  which would provide none of the up-close-and-personal action that a sadist would need to get his or her kicks.

So, no, Paul, as you are, no doubt, fully aware Terrierwork is not fox-baiting  and your attempt to link the two is either extremely misinformed or just plain dishonest. Care to enlighten us as to which?
		
Click to expand...


Hi Herne, good to hear from you again. 

The two examples you provide help prove my point  both can still be referred to as racing, even if they involve different types of cars and are arranged in different ways. Similarly, baiting doesnt have to involve specific animals (although it does typically involve dogs) or follow a particular format. Badger baiting is often carried out in a different way to bear baiting, but both still involve using one of more dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal  the definition of baiting. In terrierwork, hunt terriermen block escape routes and enter one or more dogs which confront the fox. The fact a fight takes place underground out of sight, instead of in an arena, doesnt diminish the fact that it involves fox baiting.


In many respects the fact that fox baiting takes place out of sight, where humans are unable to intervene until they are able to dig down and reach the animals involved, makes it even more reprehensible as they lose any ability to control whats going on. Of course many defenders of terrierwork have used this fact to their advantage, claiming, as you do, that no fight takes place; as if we are expected to believe the average terrier will resist the temptation to attack  even if confronted with a cornered fox! It really does stretch credulity beyond the limits. 


The research commissioned for the Burns Inquiry took these claims at face value, and concluded:


The terrier may hold the fox at bay for a considerable period while the terriermen dig down to the fox before shooting it. No scientific work exists to determine the physiological state of the fox during this period. However, the fox is prevented by the terrier from escaping. A circumstance in which the fox can do nothing to alleviate its condition is highly likely to produce a state of great stress (Toates 1995). The cornered fox may be compared with a fox in a box trap. In such a trap White et al. (1991) found that foxes demonstrated a pronounced stress response, including elevated cortisol, ACTH, and bilirubin, increased leucocyte counts, and in some cases adrenal and renal congestion with acute interstitial haemorrhage of the lungs. In addition, anecdotal reports of foxes and terriers fighting underground are not uncommon. (Bateson & Harris, 2000).


However, a number of post-mortems on foxes which had been dug out after being hunted were carried out for the Burns Inquiry. The results include:


*Fox 1*This animal was hunted by the hounds for approximately 31 minutes. The fox went to ground and a terrier was sent down. After 9 minutes, the fox left the earth and was shot as it left the hole. 

*Apparent Pre-death trauma*

Haemorrhage in the soft tissues of the lateral aspect of the proximal right antebrachium (the upper outside region of the forearm) provide evidence of some trauma before death.

*Cause of death*

Death was caused by a free bullet shot to the head with a .22 calibre single shot pistol.

*Fox 2*This animal was hunted with hounds for approximately 7 minutes. The fox then went to ground and a terrier equipped with a radio collar was sent down. After approximately 25 minutes of digging, the fox was revealed, the terrier removed, and the fox shot in the hole with a .22 calibre single shot pistol. Two shots were required.

*Apparent Pre-death trauma* 

*(post commencement of hunt)*

b) Multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head.

c) Damage to the Right eye.

d) Bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck.

e) A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of damage to the vertebrae of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4h cervical vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this first bullet did not kill the animal.

*Cause of death*

A second shot with a .22 calibre bullet caused death. (University of Bristol, May 2000)

Its clear both foxes experienced injuries consistent with being attacked by one or more dogs prior to being shot.

Animal baiting may or may not involve human enjoyment. No doubt some people in attendance derive sadistic pleasure from the confrontation, while others, if gambling takes place, try to maximise winnings. Some may just enjoy the social aspects  who knows; this is irrelevant to the definition of baiting.


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

I do provide prior warning that the following clip (providing the link works) isn't for the faint hearted, but it does illustrate what can happen during fox baiting.


----------



## Ahunter (16 June 2011)

Afternoon PaulT

I didn't realize the concept was animal dependent

Good to see you did not deny the term fox baiting is nothing more than Propaganda B*ll****.  Why did you not refer to it as Fox baiting before the Scottish inquiry, clearly you never thought it was. Oh silly me before then it was subterranean dog fighting, What will your propaganda b*ll**** machine come out with next.


----------



## ThePinkPony (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi again, Fiagai. Ill debate with you as Alec has thrown his teddy out of his pram. He didnt like my use of independent scientific evidence in the other thread.

My question related to fox baiting, as the title of the thread and the wording of the question indicated. Im not sure the type of dogs really matter that much unless you think baiting in certain situations is ok?

I generally find most people dont seem to have a problem understanding the words attack, trapped and restrained. However:

Attack - To set upon with violent force; to begin to affect harmfully.

Trapped - A confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult.

Restrained - To hold back or keep in check; control; to limit or restrict.

In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?
		
Click to expand...

So basically Digging? 

Well its boring (i dont ''dig''. i am girl, girls cant dig) but its a means to an end.

With all of these little arguments it all comes down to ''who'' is doing it and what they see as cruel.


----------



## ThePinkPony (16 June 2011)

And just to point it out  Paul, no terrierman worth his salt would put down two dogs into one hole. freaking stupid.

Why oh why dont people get their facts straight before TRYING to cause arguments?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Ahunter said:



			Afternoon PaulT

I didn't realize the concept was animal dependent

Good to see you did not deny the term fox baiting is nothing more than Propaganda B*ll****.  Why did you not refer to it as Fox baiting before the Scottish inquiry, clearly you never thought it was. Oh silly me before then it was subterranean dog fighting, What will your propaganda b*ll**** machine come out with next.
		
Click to expand...

Alright, calm down, calm down [said in thick scouse accent].


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 June 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			And just to point it out  Paul, no terrierman worth his salt would put down two dogs into one hole. freaking stupid.

Why oh why dont people get their facts straight before TRYING to cause arguments?
		
Click to expand...

cos they go by this research rubbish, not in the real world---


----------



## ThePinkPony (16 June 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			cos they go by this research rubbish, not in the real world---
		
Click to expand...

verrry frustrating.


----------



## Herne (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Animal baiting may or may not involve human enjoyment. No doubt some people in attendance derive sadistic pleasure from the confrontation, while others, if gambling takes place, try to maximise winnings. Some may just enjoy the social aspects &#8211; who knows; this is irrelevant to the definition of baiting.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, good try, Paul, but sadly no coconut.

If you look up the definition of to bait in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, it is to torment a chained animal. The definition of bate (the alternative spelling) is a rage or cross mood or the state of a baited person (or, presumably, animal).

Indeed, the absolute definition of baiting does not actually require the use of dogs at all. Bear baiting in the middle ages sometimes just involved people poking it with sharp sticks.

The element of torment and enragement and doing it for enjoyment is, in fact, crucial to the definition of the term and not incidental.

By your definition, the perfectly legal practice of using a terrier to kill a rat enclosed in a corn shed in seconds would also be "baiting" - which it clearly is not.

It is perfectly plain what is traditionally meant by badger baiting and bear baiting and it is equally plain that what occurs during terrierwork, whilst having some similarities, is not the same thing either in process or in motivation.

You are, as usual, merely trying to add weight to the rather spurious case against hunting with dogs by trying to form word associations with other activities that nearly everyone thinks should be illegal.

What is rather silly is that you are actually smoke-screening your own case. There are, as you point out, potential welfare problems inherent with terrierwork &#8211; as there are with all methods of conservation and wildlife management, including doing nothing &#8211; but it is, of course a little difficult for you to complain about these directly, seeing as how terrierwork is now enshrined as being morally, legally and sociably acceptable within the terms of the Hunting Act.

Hence your (unsuccessful) attempt to try to bad-mouth it by incorrectly linking it to other banned parctices.


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Someone call nurse, Fiagai has had one of his turns again.
		
Click to expand...

Your purile attempts to rile posters are really as pathetic as they are childish...



PaulT said:



			Despite this extremely strange response and liberal doses of feigned bafflement, we got there eventually. Yes, you&#8217;re quite right Fiagai, terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.
		
Click to expand...

If everything here is strange to you I would perhaps suggest you are in the wrong forum.  I have never mentioned "Terrier Work" in my reply btw  Never heard of "fox baiting" except here so I believe its another little invention of yours or a figment of those little Anti folk who have nothing better to do than make up very gorey fairy stories to frighten little children with

So why couldn't you come up with this little piece of Anti fantasy when asked previously?  You are quite clearly attempting to start arguments and not engage in rational discussion.  Anyway according to you its "terriers" now is it?  When previously asked what kind of dogs were involved (and given possible suggestions) you said.....



			
				PaulT said:
			
		


			My question related to fox baiting, as the title of the thread and the wording of the question indicated. *I&#8217;m not sure the type of dogs really matter* that much unless you think baiting in certain situations is ok?
		
Click to expand...

As stated there is no such thing as "fox baiting" except in the twisted heads of the Anti Ilk that you are obviously a member of, as you are clearly toating the same party line as the spurious Anti groups on the web.



PaulT said:



			You asked for a real scenario: fox evades being ripped to pieces by going to ground.  Hunt terriermen called in, who make sure exits to the earth are blocked, and terriers are entered. Terriers confront fox, which is unable to escape &#8211; bloody battle ensues.
		
Click to expand...

Why has it taken you 18 posts to come out with this ripe piece of garbage?  What is wrong with you that you cannot enter into a proper debate and instead attempt to insult the inteligence of those that clearly know more than you will ever know about wildlife and its management?



PaulT said:



			You prefer the term terrierwork, I prefer fox baiting &#8211; two phrases to describe the same activity. It&#8217;s telling that so far no one has been prepared to defend fox baiting, an activity which is part and parcel of organised fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Do I?  You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.  You must hunt extensively to know so much about how hunting is actually conducted - oh no thats right you "read" about this in those paragons of truth found on the Anti Websites..so of course you must be correct (laughs loudly into own hat)


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 June 2011)

How come Paul T.can take all these disagreements and still ramble on- it seems he is Paul no mates which must be embarassing?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Herne, all you've done is found a variant definition - the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them. In fact if you trace the origins you'll find the word derived from the 13th century Old Norse beita, to hunt!

As much as the etymology of the word bait is fascinating, the meaning I've used is perfectly correct for everyday understanding. In fact when I first mentioned it, no one objected. It seems only now, when the penny has finally dropped that it could well cover terrierwork, that you've sought out an alternative meaning.

You claim the aspect of enjoyment is central to the activity of baiting. Again, I beg to differ. In fact the Collins English Dictionary simply defines the word as 'to set dogs upon (a bear etc)' - no mention of enjoyment or even torment.

It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.

Following on from the evidence from the post mortems and the horrendous cruelty involved in the video clip (taken from a fox hunt), the fact that none of you has spoken out out against this vile activity speaks volumes.

BTW, you're on extremely dodgy ground in using the Hunting Act as the yardstick for moral acceptability - where does that place live quarry hunting? Don't tell me, the comparison only holds true when it suits you.


----------



## EAST KENT (16 June 2011)

Please you lot..don`t feed the Troll. Now I`m orf on another scent,bored rigid by this one.


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Fiagai, ye doth protest too much, methinks. Get a grip, there's a good chap.

You asked for a scenario, I provide one. True to form you dismiss it out of hand as garbage without explaining why; in fact you dismiss anything you don't like to hear, instead of taking an evidence-based approach with the blinkers off.

Then again, I guess if you couldn't give a toss about animal welfare it's only too easy to dismiss gratuitous cruelty which is plain for all to see.


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Fiagai, ye doth protest too much, methinks. Get a grip, there's a good chap.
You asked for a scenario, I provide one. True to form you dismiss it out of hand as garbage without explaining why; in fact you dismiss anything you don't like to hear, instead of taking an evidence-based approach with the blinkers off.
Then again, I guess if you couldn't give a toss about animal welfare it's only too easy to dismiss gratuitous cruelty which is plain for all to see.
		
Click to expand...

Scenario  = 18 posts later.
Guess you just had to make it up the end (or perhaps your friends on those lovely  spurious Anti websites)

"Evidence based" how are ye...  blah blah "animal welfare" - I'm afraid you wouldn't know animal welfare or cruelty if it bit you in the proverbial rear end.  Smells like horse, no cow no its definitly bull....


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Please you lot..don`t feed the Troll. Now I`m orf on another scent,bored rigid by this one.

Click to expand...

Will do....bored now dont you know!


----------



## Jake10 (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			I do provide prior warning that the following clip (providing the link works) isn't for the faint hearted, but it does illustrate what can happen during fox baiting. 

Click to expand...

If that is actual footage that hasn't been edited/tampered with then  is how I feel. Why not humanely (or as close as possible) dispatch the fox while in the sack??? Was there any need to release the fox to be far from humanely dispatched by a pack of dogs??


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Exactly Jake, I share your anger and horror at this vile activity. Even before it was put into the sack, it had a chunk of scalp ripped away when the terrier was pulled away.

Let's hope other contributors are privately ashamed at such atrocities, even if they haven't the guts to speak out in this forum.


----------



## applecart14 (16 June 2011)

Years ago a yard owner whose yard I had my horse stabled at caught a young vixen after it had killed half his chickens.  He caught it in a humane live trap.  I begged him to let me contact the nearest wildlife rescue centre who told me they were happy to come out and collect the live fox.  I told the YO what they had said, and he said it was too late he had 'disposed' of the fox.  When I pressed him for details he told me he had got his two rotweiller dogs to sit either side of the door of the cage and then opened the door.  From memory his words "I gave it a fair chance to escape" appalled me.  I'm sorry to say the dogs set upon it and ripped it apart in seconds.  To position two dogs either side of a wire cage with the intention of killing a fox and justify the means by saying 'it had a fair chance' is like throwing yourself out of a plane from a thousand foot and saying 'you have a fair chance of surviving the fall'.

So no I don't agree with the OP's question which I understood to mean variations on what I have just described above.


----------



## Dillon (16 June 2011)

As not being a regular contributor to this area, I thought that the only anti approved method of Fox control when required was the shooting of the Fox, and from what I read on here they assure everybody that it is a swift death and that it can be done on a Fox breaking cover.

Surely the evidence they quote proves that this is not possible;

e) A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of damage to the vertebrae of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4h cervical vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this first bullet did not kill the animal.

*Cause of death*

A second shot with a .22 calibre bullet caused death. (University of Bristol, May 2000)

If I read this correctly a trained and competant marksman was unable to swiftly dispacth the fox at close range in a confined space, thus prolonging the stress and pain the fox was under.

Would this then suggest to pault that other methods must be considered to manage a fox population? Perhaps a pack of hounds?


----------



## ThePinkPony (16 June 2011)

Oh how i love this type of Anti. I expect its taken you months of heated 'oh its horrific' yes its  horrific ''oh its  horrific'' ing, on Anti websites for you  to compile all of this drivel.

Do you not realise you  sound so ignorant its unbelievable. One again one moron brings down the Anti  reputation as propaganda vomiting, google quoting ignoramuses. Why for once cant we have an anti who actually KNOWS what he/she is talking about? 

Wonders wether PaulT is a strict vegan?


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			Oh how i love this type of Anti. I expect its taken you months of heated 'oh its horrific' yes its  horrific ''oh its  horrific'' ing, on Anti websites for you  to compile all of this drivel.

Do you not realise you  sound so ignorant its unbelievable. One again one moron brings down the Anti  reputation as propaganda vomiting, google quoting ignoramuses. Why for once cant we have an anti who actually KNOWS what he/she is talking about? 

Wonders wether PaulT is a strict vegan?
		
Click to expand...


I agree - I would like to meet for once an Anti with an independant train of thought.  Do you might mean "strict vegetable" by any chance...


----------



## Serenity087 (16 June 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion.  Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight.  I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...


----------



## ThePinkPony (16 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			I agree - I would like to meet for once an Anti with an independant train of thought.  Do you might mean "strict vegetable" by any chance...

Click to expand...

...well it would be very refreshing.

I remember years ago being jumped upon by a LACS type blokey in the middle of town, thrusting leaflets at me and spouting off about the ''cruelty and horror'' of hunting and deer culls.

One question knocked him for six... 

''do you know how a fox or deer naturally dies?''

''old  age of course''...

walked away, what infuritates me is this lust to  educate us country folk when they have not bothered to educate themselves beforehand.


----------



## Herne (17 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Herne, all you've done is found a variant definition - the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them. In fact if you trace the origins you'll find the word derived from the 13th century Old Norse beita, to hunt!
		
Click to expand...

Heh. I love the way you throw this in as if it is the result of your years of study into this subject, as if you were some sort of expert &#8211; whereas, in fact, you have simply read it on the bottom of the Collins on-line dictionary definition of the word "bait" to which you later refer. Comical.




			As much as the etymology of the word bait is fascinating, the meaning I've used is perfectly correct for everyday understanding. In fact when I first mentioned it, no one objected. It seems only now, when the penny has finally dropped that it could well cover terrierwork, that you've sought out an alternative meaning.
		
Click to expand...

Smokescreen. What other people may have said is not relevant to my comments. I have questioned your definition from the start of my involvement 




			You claim the aspect of enjoyment is central to the activity of baiting. Again, I beg to differ. In fact the Collins English Dictionary simply defines the word as 'to set dogs upon (a bear etc)' - no mention of enjoyment or even torment.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Seeing as it is available to all on the internet, how foolish of you not to mention that Collins actually gives two definitions of the noun and three of the verb, and the preceding (and therefore more common) verbal definition given by Collins is: "To persecute or tease" - which takes us straight back to enjoyment and torment.

To pretend that you perhaps hadn't noticed that prior definition might be one thing, but to claim that Collins make "no mention" of it - well, I wonder how to look at that as anything other than disingenuous.




			It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.
		
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is quite clear that they are substantially different activities and that you are trying to draw similarities to bolster your case.




			Following on from the evidence from the post mortems and the horrendous cruelty involved in the video clip (taken from a fox hunt), the fact that none of you has spoken out out against this vile activity speaks volumes.
		
Click to expand...

Not really. I would be perfectly happy to condemn the activities shown in the video were they to be relevant to the here and now. However, let's inform the boys and girls of the viewing public that the said film was taken years (or possibly decades?) ago in a different country, shall we?

Shall we also consider that it is heavily edited - so that we do not know what went on during the edited-out times, nor even if all of the concatenated clips were filmed on the same day? 

And then, of course, there is the fact that the film was shot in Ireland. Do we know whether this was shot during the period when, owing to the troubles, hunts in Ireland were not allowed to carry human killers and were therefore unable *by law* to shoot foxes as is the common practice in this country at this time.




			BTW, you're on extremely dodgy ground in using the Hunting Act as the yardstick for moral acceptability - where does that place live quarry hunting? Don't tell me, the comparison only holds true when it suits you.
		
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am on record as thinking that the whole of the Hunting Act is garbage, and therefore I am free to rubbish it as often as I like. You are the one who seems to be picking and choosing which bits of the Act are valid depictions of acceptable moral behaviour and which are not...


----------



## PaulT (17 June 2011)

applecart14 said:



			Years ago a yard owner whose yard I had my horse stabled at caught a young vixen after it had killed half his chickens.  He caught it in a humane live trap.  I begged him to let me contact the nearest wildlife rescue centre who told me they were happy to come out and collect the live fox.  I told the YO what they had said, and he said it was too late he had 'disposed' of the fox.  When I pressed him for details he told me he had got his two rotweiller dogs to sit either side of the door of the cage and then opened the door.  From memory his words "I gave it a fair chance to escape" appalled me.  I'm sorry to say the dogs set upon it and ripped it apart in seconds.  To position two dogs either side of a wire cage with the intention of killing a fox and justify the means by saying 'it had a fair chance' is like throwing yourself out of a plane from a thousand foot and saying 'you have a fair chance of surviving the fall'.

So no I don't agree with the OP's question which I understood to mean variations on what I have just described above.
		
Click to expand...


Hi applecart14, that's really awful. 

Decent minded people will be horrified that until the passage of the Hunting Act such behaviour was legal, to the best of my knowledge. Thank God society has moved on, even if a tiny number of pro-hunt dinosaurs haven't.


----------



## PaulT (17 June 2011)

Herne said:



			Oh dear. Seeing as it is available to all on the internet, how foolish of you not to mention that Collins actually gives two definitions of the noun and three of the verb, and the preceding (and therefore more common) verbal definition given by Collins is: "To persecute or tease" - which takes us straight back to enjoyment and torment.

To pretend that you perhaps hadn't noticed that prior definition might be one thing, but to claim that Collins make "no mention" of it - well, I wonder how to look at that as anything other than disingenuous.
		
Click to expand...

I repeat, the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them.  In fact yet again you shoot yourself in the foot by providing the meaning &#8216;to persecute *or tease&#8217; &#8211; while tease does suggest a degree of enjoyment, persecute (definition: &#8216;to oppress, harass, or maltreat, esp because of race, religion, etc&#8217 accurately describes what terriermen are doing when they engage in fox baiting. For all I know, they probably do thoroughly enjoy what they are doing as well; I doubt they&#8217;re dreading another day&#8217;s fox baiting as they get out of bed in the morning. You'll notice, however, I haven't made much of this as it's incidental to the defintion of baiting I have adopted. Reasonable people will understand the definition of &#8216;allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal&#8217;, and readily associate it with the activity of baiting.

As you know, but won&#8217;t dare admit publicly, fox baiting is part and parcel of organised hunting. As a result, the pro-hunt dinosaurs on this forum appear happy (well, some are at least) to condemn badger baiting but not fox baiting. However, in doing so they don&#8217;t have the guts call a spade a spade. That suggests to me that they appreciate that association with the cruel and murky world of baiting is a step too far, even for them.




			No, it isn't. It is quite clear that they are substantially different activities and that you are trying to draw similarities to bolster your case.
		
Click to expand...

Simply saying they are different doesn&#8217;t make them so. You&#8217;ve assisted me with my argument on at least a couple of occasions, where I have demonstrated that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity. It&#8217;s a real shame you haven&#8217;t the honesty and integrity to own up.




			Not really. I would be perfectly happy to condemn the activities shown in the video were they to be relevant to the here and now. However, let's inform the boys and girls of the viewing public that the said film was taken years (or possibly decades?) ago in a different country, shall we?
		
Click to expand...

Actually Herne I provided a link to the clip to demonstrate the outcome of fox baiting, but while we&#8217;re on the subject that fact that it happened to involve a fox hunt (albeit in Ireland) and hunt terriermen won&#8217;t have gone unnoticed by the &#8216;viewing public&#8217;.  Afterall, once entered underground to confront a trapped fox, terriers will be terriers whether they lived in Ireland ten years ago or in England today.




			Shall we also consider that it is heavily edited - so that we do not know what went on during the edited-out times, nor even if all of the concatenated clips were filmed on the same day?
		
Click to expand...

When all else fails, suggest the evidence has been heavily edited or an out and out fake! Unbelievable.  As I&#8217;ve already said, the fact you&#8217;re incapable of bringing yourself to condemn this atrocity is shameful, and says much about the mindset of the pro-hunt dinosaurs on this forum.




			And then, of course, there is the fact that the film was shot in Ireland. Do we know whether this was shot during the period when, owing to the troubles, hunts in Ireland were not allowed to carry human killers and were therefore unable by law to shoot foxes as is the common practice in this country at this time.
		
Click to expand...

I assume you actually meant 'humane' killers.  If this is the case, and it meant terriermen were unable to &#8216;humanely despatch&#8217; dug out foxes, they should not do it. Of course in reality there&#8217;s nothing humane about the whole activity of fox baiting, and if they were unable to use a humane killer I doubt very much they lost any sleep over it.*


----------



## PaulT (17 June 2011)

Dillon said:



			As not being a regular contributor to this area, I thought that the only anti approved method of Fox control when required was the shooting of the Fox, and from what I read on here they assure everybody that it is a swift death and that it can be done on a Fox breaking cover.

Surely the evidence they quote proves that this is not possible;

e) A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of damage to the vertebrae of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4h cervical vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this first bullet did not kill the animal.

*Cause of death*

A second shot with a .22 calibre bullet caused death. (University of Bristol, May 2000)

If I read this correctly a trained and competant marksman was unable to swiftly dispacth the fox at close range in a confined space, thus prolonging the stress and pain the fox was under.

Would this then suggest to pault that other methods must be considered to manage a fox population? Perhaps a pack of hounds?
		
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you're prepared to condemn the cruelty involved in the end point of this episode of fox baiting, if not the considerable suffering involved before the botched end point was achieved. Your shooting colleagues will be chuffed to bits that yet again we see a pro-hunter knocking their sport.


----------



## PaulT (17 June 2011)

Serenity087 said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion.  Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight.  I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...
		
Click to expand...

Hi Serenity. You seek to differentiate the term terrierwork from baiting on the grounds that different dogs are used. In fact the meaing of the word bait isn't dependent on the breed of dog - a terrier can quite as easily bait a fox as a pitbull.


----------



## EAST KENT (17 June 2011)

Bait   can also be the sandwiches in a workers lunchbox.Now P..... Off Troll.


----------



## ThePinkPony (17 June 2011)

Serenity087 said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion.  Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight.  I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...
		
Click to expand...

You are actually pretty spot on. OP has got his knickers  in a twist and instead of keeping to facts has taken the name of something quite despicable and applied it to a form of fox control which is conducted in a totally different manner with a totally different aim at the end. Almost everyone has heard of badger baiting and knows what it is (apart from OP it seems) and by alleging that terrierwork is the same thing,  just with foxes, the OP doesnt have to work so hard to convince Almost Antis into agreeing with him. Lazy and ignorant.

A couple of points though, A good fox digging dog will have little  contact with a fox, if any. No one wants a bashed up dog at the end of the day. 

and The fox isnt as ''terrified'' as you would like to believe and the concept of digging is very much like the foxes own concept of hunting a rabbit or other prey.


----------



## EAST KENT (17 June 2011)

DON`T FEED THE TROLL


----------



## PaulT (17 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Bait   can also be the sandwiches in a workers lunchbox.Now P..... Off Troll.

Click to expand...

Hi EastKent, yet again your sophisticated style of debate adds a touch of gravitas to the pro-hunt defence of fox baiting. I'm sure the casual visitor will marvel at such perceptive contributions.


----------



## ThePinkPony (17 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			DON`T FEED THE TROLL

Click to expand...

But its so obvious the guy is clueless. hes not even a decent troll. Dont let it bother you EK, thats what the OP wants.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi EastKent, yet again your sophisticated style of debate adds a touch of gravitas to the pro-hunt defence of fox baiting. I'm sure the casual visitor will marvel at such perceptive contributions.
		
Click to expand...

When will those,  who are discussing this ridiculous post,  and with an idiot,  come to realise the futility of reasoned discussion,  when the protagonist has no intention of debate,  but every intention of mischief,  purely for the sport and their own childish intents?

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (17 June 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			But its so obvious the guy is clueless. hes not even a decent troll. Dont let it bother you EK, thats what the OP wants.
		
Click to expand...

Point is TPP  I am not on the least bothered..but those who continue to feed this troll will only encourage it. You kill a cancer by removing it`s blood supply,same difference.


----------



## Dobiegirl (17 June 2011)

I will personally pm everyone who posts to this troll and give you a piece of my mind

I have read every thread and I swear I can hear the old brain cells dying reading this drivel.


----------



## Serenity087 (17 June 2011)

No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.

I'm going to take a poodle fox baiting.  Do you think a chiuana would do any good?


----------



## Fiagai (18 June 2011)

Serenity087 said:



			No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.

I'm going to take a poodle fox baiting.  Do you think a chiuana would do any good?
		
Click to expand...

Dont know about poodles however here is a photo of a serious incident of dog baiting that I came across.  Evidence that the situation is "cruel" and causing "unnecessary suffering" to all concerned....


----------



## Fiagai (18 June 2011)

Serenity087 said:



			No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.

I'm going to take a poodle fox baiting.  Do you think a chiuana would do any good?
		
Click to expand...

Did a bit of reseach and bingo - yes you can take your poodle "fox bating"

Didn't realise poodles grew that big though....


----------



## Herne (18 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Simply saying they are different doesnt make them so. Youve assisted me with my argument on at least a couple of occasions, where I have demonstrated that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.
		
Click to expand...

I have not "simply said that they are different", I have demonstrated at least two ways in which your definition that "baiting is an activity in which dogs are set upon an animal in a confined space" is flawed. First, by pointing out that bear baiting often took place in the middle ages without using dogs, so by your defection that would not be bear-baiting. Fail. Second, by pointing out that the perfectly legal practice of a farmer using a terrier to kill a rat in a grain store would by your definition be rat-baiting. Fail.

Where your little scheme falls apart is your failure to understand the difference between evidence and proof. You have taken two factors that each may or may not indicate that an activity could be defined as baiting and are trying to invent a rule that the presence of these two factors automatically proves that any activity therefore is defined as baiting. This is a fallacious argument.

To take the above example further, I suppose that you could, if you were so inclined, construct an activity involving a very small dog and an absolutely ginormous rat in a grain store with an audience that could be classified as "rat-baiting". However, that does not mean that any famer killing any rat in any grain store with any dog is automatically proven to be guilty of "rat baiting". If it helps you, try constructing a few Venn diagrams.





			Its a real shame you havent the honesty and integrity to own up.
		
Click to expand...

And this is what it's all about. Were you hoping that we were all going to throw up our hands and say _"Damn, that's it, Guys, after all these years  of successful dissimilation, PaulT has finally seen though us. There's no use hiding any more, our guilty secret is out. Ok, guvnor, it's a fair cop. We'll come quietly..."_. Oh dear, you poor thing...

You lone antis who turn up on forums like this from time to time always seem to have your gimmick which you seem think is going to be a world-beater, always failing to realise that there is nothing new under the sun and that by now we have seen it all before. The previous guy's gimmick was to pretend that he was someone who was pro-field sports and pro killing of foxes in other ways but thought that hunting with dogs was unjustified. Once we got into the argument in any depth, however, it was soon transparent that he knew very little about any form of fox control and off he went.





			That suggests to me that they appreciate that association with the cruel and murky world of baiting is a step too far, even for them.
		
Click to expand...

Bingo! As I pointed out before, do you not realise that you are actually weakening your case here. If you think, unlike the Government apparently, that terrierwork is unjustified, then you should be able to bring a case against terrierwork in and of itself. This case should be brilliant and logical and well-argued and supported by compelling evidence that stands alone - that's how to win the argument.

Whining little whinges that an activity ought to be banned because it bears a surface resemblance to some other activity that has already been banned are really not going to get you anywhere very fast. It is a very idle form of argument.


----------



## Herne (18 June 2011)

Serenity087 said:



			No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.
		
Click to expand...

Damn. That is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## Fiagai (18 June 2011)

Oh well thats another one accounted for then.....


----------



## EAST KENT (18 June 2011)

Now now Herne..stop feeding vermin ,you`ll just encourage it.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Now now Herne..stop feeding vermin ,you`ll just encourage it.

Click to expand...

Probably the most quotable post,  yet!! 

Alec.


----------



## PaulT (18 June 2011)

Evening Herne. You claim my definition would exclude bear baiting as practised in the Middle Ages. Perhaps, but the word has several connotations, some of which would still be applicable to this situation. In the context of terrierwork it involves dogs. In terms of rats, it depends whether they are confined or not.

Stop tying yourself in knots trying to argue night is day, there's a good chap. Your cack handed attempts to distance so-called terrierwork from the murky world of animal baiting is truly a marvel; in a league of its own. *It is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same; conforming to the definition I have provided.*

Most people object to being treated like idiots, so only like-minded hunt fanatics will be fooled by your shameful attempts to trivialise fox baiting as though it's akin to a Sunday picnic on the village green. Fiagai and your fellow defenders of animal baiting have taken to ridiculing the whole concept of animal baiting, and have put themselves well and truly beyond the pale. You must be ever so proud of your current company, given their propensity to ignore the facts and play to the ignorance of their fellow defenders of fox baiting.

Actually, I don't have high expectations of anyone who sticks up for fox baiting, so I'm certainly not expecting you to have any decency or personal integrity when it comes to discussing this obscenity. I'm not looking for any of you to own up. It is a shame, though, that it isn't possible for yourself, Fiagai et al to discuss these issues in an honest fashion, with a willingness to adopt an evidence-based approach. I really don't think you are mature enough to countenance that, preferring instead to wallow in the arrogance of an 'I'm right, and everyone who happens to disagree is wrong' approach to debate.*

It is noticeable, and extremely telling, that hostility towards my posts to this forum increased as soon as I started to quote scientific research (see 'Taking Stock' thread), which people like Alec regard as 'pointless' and used by 'vermin'. With the exception of possibly Claire, there is little, if any, indication that any of you are concerned about animal welfare. You are more intent on trying to lose the essence of the discussion in nit picking, while the like of Fiagai and Alec are desperate to shut down discussion completely.

Despite these various attempts to end discussion and sweep uncomfortable truths under the carpet, I'm more than happy to continue debating hunting and its associated activities. Surely this forum hasn't been reduced to labelling anyone who has the temerity to base his or her argument on independent scientific research as a 'troll', has it?*


----------



## Herne (19 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Evening Herne. You claim my definition would exclude bear baiting as practised in the Middle Ages. Perhaps, but...
		
Click to expand...

Excellent. Thank you. Point one confirmed.




			In the context of terrierwork it involves dogs. In terms of rats, it depends whether they are confined or not.
		
Click to expand...

A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.




			*It is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same; conforming to the definition I have provided.*
		
Click to expand...

But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.

Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.





			Most people object to being treated like idiots...
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.




			so only like-minded hunt fanatics will be fooled by your shameful attempts to trivialise fox baiting as though it's akin to a Sunday picnic on the village green.
		
Click to expand...

I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.

The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you. 




			I really don't think you are mature enough to countenance that, preferring instead to wallow in the arrogance of an 'I'm right, and everyone who happens to disagree is wrong' approach to debate.
		
Click to expand...

But how do you propose that one should act if one *is* right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.




			Surely this forum hasn't been reduced to labelling anyone who has the temerity to base his or her argument on independent scientific research as a 'troll', has it?*
		
Click to expand...

On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread.


----------



## EAST KENT (19 June 2011)

Herne said:



			Excellent. Thank you. Point one confirmed.



A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.



But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.

Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.




Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.



I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.

The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you. 



But how do you propose that one should act if one *is* right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.



On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread. 

Click to expand...

Do you see Herne now?? Stop helping vermin feed


----------



## PaulT (19 June 2011)

Hello Herne. After the pasting you've been given, if it makes you feel better to claim victories which clearly aren't there, far be it from me to disillusion you!

You've conclusively demonstrated nothing in regard to the definition of baiting, although you have proved a number of other things which I suspect even you won't be proud of - at least you certainly shouldn't be.

In terms of your acceptance that there are adverse welfare consequences which arise from fox baiting, at least we have at last identified a point we can agree on. To explore this a bit further, would you accept that a fox having part of it's scalp bitten away whilst being baited comes under the general banner of 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the fox? Furthermore, would you also accept that there are also 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the terrier(s) engaged in the baiting?

I need some context to your question about how one should act if one is right, I'm afraid, as it doesn't make much sense as it stands.

BTW, look forward to renewing the discussion on the Taking Stock thread. No need to wait for our current discussion to end as it really isn't all that taxing contributing to more than one thread. At least I don't tend to find it so.


----------



## Ahunter (19 June 2011)

As previously stated, nothing more than a propaganda b*ll**** term dreamed up for the benefit of the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs, 

"I was going to propose an alternative to just identifying what we have termed fox baiting, which is terminology that has recently come into our vocabulary.We may know what it means, but I am not sure that everybody else does" 

The Scottish Parliament banned fox baiting but restricted terrier work quiet clearly they can see there is a difference.

PaulT - fine by me if you want to peddle b*ll**** propaganda just don`t expect anybody to believe you.


----------



## PaulT (20 June 2011)

Ahunter said:



			As previously stated, nothing more than a propaganda b*ll**** term dreamed up for the benefit of the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs, 

"I was going to propose an alternative to just identifying what we have termed fox baiting, which is terminology that has recently come into our vocabulary.We may know what it means, but I am not sure that everybody else does" 

The Scottish Parliament banned fox baiting but restricted terrier work quiet clearly they can see there is a difference.

PaulT - fine by me if you want to peddle b*ll**** propaganda just don`t expect anybody to believe you.
		
Click to expand...

Fox baiting is fox baiting, whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt.


----------



## Jake10 (20 June 2011)

Is it classed as shrew/mouse baiting if a cat brings a live shrew/mouse into a house and releases it. Then I tell my dogs to find it and get it (as I refuse to touch them and obviously they weren't very smart if they couldn't avoid a cat)? If so this happens 4/5 times a week 

Would you class ferreting as rabbit baiting?


----------



## Herne (20 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hello Herne. After the pasting you've been given, if it makes you feel better to claim victories which clearly aren't there, far be it from me to disillusion you!
		
Click to expand...

The beauty of discussions on forums like this, Paul, is that the previous messages all hang around for everyone to look at. It is therefore rather silly to make grandiose claims about what has happened before when anyone and everyone can simply scroll back and see in seconds whether what you claim is true.

Take this case, for example. What this whole thread basically boils down to is a semantic discussion about whether a somewhat archaic term can correctly be applied to an activity to which is has not traditionally been applied.

I have explained what the traditional definition of the term has generally been understood to be and why it therefore has not previously been applied to the activity in question. 

You have supplied an alternative suggestion for a strict definition of the term and explained why, if that definition is correct, the activity would be covered.

I have supplied two examples of why your proposed definition is inaccurate. You have conceded one and not challenged the other.

It would seem fairly logical, therefore, that the result so far is that the traditional definition is probably more accurate than your new one and that therefore your suggested classification of the activity with that term is flawed.


However, the point here is that it is all pretty insignificant. We are discussing whether one word is or is not applicable to an activity that is entirely lawful under the new Hunting Act and that is only incidental to Hunting with hounds in any case.

Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing.

To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck. 





			In terms of your acceptance that there are adverse welfare consequences which arise from fox baiting, at least we have at last identified a point we can agree on.
		
Click to expand...

No, I said that there are adverse welfare implications that can be associated with hunt terrierwork. If you would like to discuss these I would be entirely happy to do so in a thread about hunt terrierwork. Talking about hunt terrierwork in a topic about fox-baiting, if such a thing even exists, would be to take the thread off-topic.


----------



## Ahunter (20 June 2011)

"Fox baiting is fox baiting, whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt" 

And 

Terrier work is Terrier work whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt


----------



## PaulT (21 June 2011)

Herne said:



			The beauty of discussions on forums like this, Paul, is that the previous messages all hang around for everyone to look at. It is therefore rather silly to make grandiose claims about what has happened before when anyone and everyone can simply scroll back and see in seconds whether what you claim is true.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I love the fact that comments are there for all to see, although this is really only beneficial if the reader is willing to take the trouble to think about the arguments and consider the evidence presented in an unblinkered fashion. Im sure that anyone prepared to do this will be extremely interested in the quotes provided in the Taking Stock thread, for example. Likewise, in this discussion they will appreciate there is little doubt that terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.




			Take this case, for example. What this whole thread basically boils down to is a semantic discussion about whether a somewhat archaic term can correctly be applied to an activity to which is has not traditionally been applied.
		
Click to expand...

I would argue the term is very much current, because there is a need to accurately label some aspects of human activity which typically involve dogs being used in confrontations with captive or restrained animals. I do not believe the word 'terrierwork' captures the essence of what the 'sport' actually involves - it says nothing about the 'welfare implications' you pointed to earlier, which I would argue are of central concern and certainly not peripheral. On the other hand, people generally understand what is meant by baiting.




			I have explained what the traditional definition of the term has generally been understood to be and why it therefore has not previously been applied to the activity in question. 

You have supplied an alternative suggestion for a strict definition of the term and explained why, if that definition is correct, the activity would be covered.

I have supplied two examples of why your proposed definition is inaccurate. You have conceded one and not challenged the other. 

It would seem fairly logical, therefore, that the result so far is that the traditional definition is probably more accurate than your new one and that therefore your suggested classification of the activity with that term is flawed.
		
Click to expand...

But this completely ignores the fact, which I have pointed out on several occasions, that the word does have more than one meaning. In the Middle Ages it may well have been used to refer to an activity which didnt involve dogs, in the modern day setting it does. 

Herne, your responses remind me of another example where pro-hunters were unable to see the bigger picture. During the time of the Countryside March many hunters believed they had achieved the be-all-and-end-all when in fact they had lost sight of what was actually happening behind the scenes in Parliament. You point to inconsequential differences between two examples of baiting, which in no way detract from the blindingly obvious similarities.  My point about you having received a pasting relates to this bigger picture.




			However, the point here is that it is all pretty insignificant. We are discussing whether one word is or is not applicable to an activity that is entirely lawful under the new Hunting Act and that is only incidental to Hunting with hounds in any case.

Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing. 

To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck. 

Click to expand...

See above; yet again youre getting far too hung up on inconsequential detail which doesnt detract in any way from the fact that in fox baiting humans are using dogs to attack a confined fox.

I completely agree with your point that whatever its called, it makes no difference to the activity itself. However, as already stated, I do believe it is important to have accurate terminology instead of using labels which are designed to sanitise. 




			No, I said that there are adverse welfare implications that can be associated with hunt terrierwork. If you would like to discuss these I would be entirely happy to do so in a thread about hunt terrierwork. Talking about hunt terrierwork in a topic about fox-baiting, if such a thing even exists, would be to take the thread off-topic.
		
Click to expand...

Again, see above. I feel quite strongly the accurate way to label this activity is as fox baiting, so entirely disagree that it is in any way off topic for the reasons already given.


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Again, see above. I feel quite strongly the accurate way to label this activity is as fox baiting, so entirely disagree that it is in any way off topic for the reasons already given.
		
Click to expand...

You can feel as strongly as you like.  The FACT is that those of us who know how proper terrierwork is carried out - and who can envisage the type of activities that might be classified as 'fox baiting' - disagree strongly.  For THAT reason we will NOT debate the welfare implications of terrier work on a thread about fox baiting, which none of us would support for a second!!

So I would suggest this topic might have run its course!


----------



## EAST KENT (21 June 2011)

Indeed..PT run off and play some/anywhere else


----------



## PaulT (21 June 2011)

Janet, you're joining the others in trying to close down legitimate debate.

Tell me how the 'proper terrierwork' you refer to differs from fox baiting. Your response does suggest there is such a thing as 'improper terrierwork'; I'm intrigued.


----------



## CARREG (21 June 2011)

PaulT  this whole baiting crusade you are on can be put to bed quite simply;

1/ BAITING (of any animal) ILLEGAL

2/ TERRIERWORK LEGAL

The Government of this country does not hold that terrierwork is baiting or it would be illegal in all forms...............Carreg


----------



## Herne (22 June 2011)

Paul, dear boy, do please try to apply even a little bit of logic to your thinking - it's not a big ask.

Try to observe the fact that *your own* argument is *self*-defeating - regardless of what I or any other pro say about it.

Think about this simple fact: if what you say were true, you would not need to be saying it.

If terrierwork _could_ be referred to as fox-baiting, then it already *would* be referred to as fox-baiting. The anti-hunting lobby has been going for over 70 years now - do you really think that none of them have considered the possibility; do you suppose that they had not already considered the advantages of the "guilt-by-association" ploy that you are trying? Plainly they have &#8211; see the references elsewhere in this thread to the reference being made in regard to the Scottish Ban &#8211; but is it part of standard anti-speak? No. Why not?

Obviously, they have realised - as you seem to be unable to do at present - that the definition does not apply. Baiting means something else. The argument is too easily defeated to be worth perpetuating.

You are so blinded by the self-satisfaction of thinking that you have invented this oh-so-clever gimmick that you seem to have failed to stop and wonder why no one else has beaten you to it.

You claim to have made this great new revelation and yet you are also claiming that it is so obvious that &#8220;_anyone with at least half a brain_ can see it.

Er, right, ok, so if it were that obvious, then it would have been part of the anti-hunt doctrine since the first attempted ban in 1948 and there would be absolutely no point in you saying it now.

The very fact that you even feel the need to raise it demonstrates that you are wrong about how obvious it is.

So we seem to have two options here:

Either 

the whole anti-hunt movement, the media and the politicians and every one else have failed for the last 70 years to spot something that is so obvious that anyone with half a brain can see it.

Or 

Poor, lonely little PaulT in the H&H Hunting section has got his definition wrong and is too stubborn to admit it.


Personally, my money is on option 2, but hey, I&#8217;m biased. I&#8217;ll let people make their own minds up.


----------



## PaulT (22 June 2011)

Evening Herne. It's rather amusing that you are critical of my logic whilst adopting such sloppy 'reasoning'. Your latest corker, that so-called terrierwork can't possibly constitute fox baiting because it's widely labelled 'terrierwork', may possibly be your best yet.  Presumably this 'reasoning' didn't apply to the pastime of cub-hunting (labelled as such for generations), before some bright spark decided it needed a PR makeover and renamed it 'autumn hunting'?  Of course misnomers have never ever found their way into common parlance!

In fact Herne I have never claimed to have been the first to accurately label fox baiting - this term has been used interchangeably with the term terrierwork by those opposed to your barbaric pastimes for years. The fact that you and your chums prefer the latter term should surprise no one.

Yet another example of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Herne, for me you're truly the gift that keeps on giving. Just when I think you can't possibly get any further up your own backside, you surpass yourself. 

Tell me, do you think the association of fox baiting with hunting helps, rather than hinders, the campaign to repeal the Hunting Act?


----------



## JanetGeorge (22 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Janet, you're joining the others in trying to close down legitimate debate.

Tell me how the 'proper terrierwork' you refer to differs from fox baiting. Your response does suggest there is such a thing as 'improper terrierwork'; I'm intrigued.
		
Click to expand...

Alright - I'll bite!

I know nothing of fox-baiting - I don't move in those circles - but I assume it is an activity similar to badger baiting (which I also have managed to steer well clear of) where the aim is to torment the target species using dogs until ONE of them if badly injured or dies.  The victims are not usually 'baited' in the wild but in an enclosed area - so they can't escape!  Betting on the outcome usually forms an integral part of the activity!

Proper terrierwork involves using a trained terrier - wearing a locator collar - to pinpoint the area of the earth (or other underground tunnel) where a fox is.  The terrier blocks the exit - so the terrier handlers can dig down and despatch (kill) the fox with a pistol.  The aim is fox control - not sick 'entertainment'!

Terrier work is largely carried out by gamekeepers - and is totally legal when the aim is to protect gamebirds.  This - of course - is illogical!  If terrier work is unacceptably cruel then there should have been no exceptions - and what makes the protection of gamebirds more important than the protection of poultry or lambing ewes??  Well - I'll let you into a little secret.  The Labour Government didn't want to be seen as attacking shooting!!  Logic has NOTHING to do with the Hunting Act!

IMPROPER terrier work is terrier work that does not follow the Code of the National Federation of Working Terriers, where foxes are not properly,  promptly and humanely killed, where exits are blocked when terriers are underground, etc etc.  IF you're at all interested (and I doubt that the facts actually DO interest you) see http://www.terrierwork.com/nwtfcode.htm


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (22 June 2011)

I would sooner Bait pault obviously stands for T***


----------



## EAST KENT (23 June 2011)

Hairy Old Cob said:



			I would sooner Bait pault obviously stands for T***

Click to expand...

    GOOD ONE !


----------



## Ahunter (23 June 2011)

Your latest corker, that so-called terrierwork can't possibly constitute fox baiting because it's widely labelled 'terrierwork', may possibly be your best yet. Presumably this 'reasoning' didn't apply to the pastime of cub-hunting (labelled as such for generations), before some bright spark decided it needed a PR makeover and renamed it 'autumn hunting'? Of course misnomers have never ever found their way into common parlance



PaulT  THE Corker is by you using flawed logic. Cub Hunting is the same activity as Autumn hunting, you have taken two separate activities as recognized by HM Government and tried to rebrand one with the name of the other.


----------



## PaulT (23 June 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Alright - I'll bite!

I know nothing of fox-baiting - I don't move in those circles - but I assume it is an activity similar to badger baiting (which I also have managed to steer well clear of) where the aim is to torment the target species using dogs until ONE of them if badly injured or dies.  The victims are not usually 'baited' in the wild but in an enclosed area - so they can't escape!  Betting on the outcome usually forms an integral part of the activity!

Proper terrierwork involves using a trained terrier - wearing a locator collar - to pinpoint the area of the earth (or other underground tunnel) where a fox is.  The terrier blocks the exit - so the terrier handlers can dig down and despatch (kill) the fox with a pistol.  The aim is fox control - not sick 'entertainment'!

Terrier work is largely carried out by gamekeepers - and is totally legal when the aim is to protect gamebirds.  This - of course - is illogical!  If terrier work is unacceptably cruel then there should have been no exceptions - and what makes the protection of gamebirds more important than the protection of poultry or lambing ewes??  Well - I'll let you into a little secret.  The Labour Government didn't want to be seen as attacking shooting!!  Logic has NOTHING to do with the Hunting Act!

IMPROPER terrier work is terrier work that does not follow the Code of the National Federation of Working Terriers, where foxes are not properly,  promptly and humanely killed, where exits are blocked when terriers are underground, etc etc.  IF you're at all interested (and I doubt that the facts actually DO interest you) see http://www.terrierwork.com/nwtfcode.htm

Click to expand...

Morning Janet, good of you to join us. Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed. 

Its extremely difficult to get inside the minds of these people who participate in baiting so all we can do is speculate on their motives, as I doubt any of them are likely to say anything they consider incriminating or likely to put what they do in a bad light. Some may really think theyre performing some sort of useful function  possibly fox control  whereas Ive little doubt that others derive considerable enjoyment from what they do. Who knows, perhaps both motives apply in some cases.

Whether or not they derive enjoyment, the fact remains that fox baiting involves setting one or more dogs on a trapped or restrained animal. Once a fox goes to ground, escape routes are typically blocked and a terrier is entered. Once the terrier locates the fox I dont dispute that barking or a locator collar helps hunt servants find where both animals are to dig down. They may even cleanly despatch the fox, once located with a humane killer (then again, they may botch the killing, as happened to the fox mentioned earlier in the post-mortem report). That isnt the point at issue; my main objection is what is likely to happen when the terrier confronts the fox. As you know, it can take a considerable time for hunt servants to dig down and locate both terrier and fox. In some cases I believe a dig out has lasted hours rather than minutes. We are all expected to believe there is simply a standoff between fox and terrier in the confines of the earth! Even if the terrier is exceptionally well trained not to attack in such a situation, I doubt the fox is similarly disciplined. 

Herne earlier mentioned that occasionally the animals get into a scrap. I would regard the confrontation as part and parcel of the activity of baiting, and it amounts to far more than a simple scrap. Just because the baiting is out of sight it doesnt mean it isnt happening. The post-mortem evidence posted earlier, which was carried out for Burns, showed that one of the foxes dug out had multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head; damage to the right eye; and bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck. These injuries didnt kill the fox, and they were the result of a so-called scrap with a terrier during a dig out lasting 25minutes. No mention is made if the terrier was injured during the baiting.  God only know what injuries are inflicted on fox, and possibly terrier, during dig outs which last over an hour. 

As far as I can see, none of this breaches the NFWT code  it isnt worth the paper its written on. Even if it were possible to provide training lessons to terrier and fox on how to behave in a nice way to each other before each dig out, who is going to make sure everything that takes place is above board and according to the code? Dont tell me, the terriermen and their friends!

If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago.


----------



## Paddydou (23 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Morning Janet, good of you to join us. Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed. 

If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago. 

Click to expand...

Paul - I think your sole intention was to come on this forum not read what people have posted and twist words around. There are drugs that can help this sort of behaviour - they are availabel under your local GP.

JG is an extreemly well respected and accomplished woman. As are many of the other members you are "baiting". Your behaviour is starting to wane from polite discussion to extreemist type veiws.

It is obvious that you do not have ANY idea of the amount of training and attention to detail that goes into many forms of hunting and nor are you prepared to learn about them. 

Fox baiting is illegal and the baiters are despised by hunters for the sole reason that they are cruel and vile people. I think you are mixing up many of the legal and decent country persuits with those carried out by monstrous folk (the sort we are always trying to get the police to sort out but they are too busy eating doughnuts and filling out yesturdays paperwork to attend). You are in effect tarring all with the same brush and there are very big and important details that you are choosing to ignore because it doesn't agree with your indoctrinated views.


----------



## PaulT (23 June 2011)

Paddydou said:



			Paul - I think your sole intention was to come on this forum not read what people have posted and twist words around. There are drugs that can help this sort of behaviour - they are availabel under your local GP.

JG is an extreemly well respected and accomplished woman. As are many of the other members you are "baiting". Your behaviour is starting to wane from polite discussion to extreemist type veiws.

It is obvious that you do not have ANY idea of the amount of training and attention to detail that goes into many forms of hunting and nor are you prepared to learn about them. 

Fox baiting is illegal and the baiters are despised by hunters for the sole reason that they are cruel and vile people. I think you are mixing up many of the legal and decent country persuits with those carried out by monstrous folk (the sort we are always trying to get the police to sort out but they are too busy eating doughnuts and filling out yesturdays paperwork to attend). You are in effect tarring all with the same brush and there are very big and important details that you are choosing to ignore because it doesn't agree with your indoctrinated views.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Paddydou. With a few exceptions (which should be taken firmly with tongue in cheek) I have tried to remain polite during these discussions, despite unwarranted provocation from various pro hunters. Ive no doubt that Janet is extremely well respected and accomplished (Ive never suggested otherwise), but that doesnt mean I have to unquestioningly accept whatever she posts; after all, I thought this is a discussion forum! 


Tell me, which 'big and important details' am I choosing to ignore?


----------



## Fiagai (23 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi Paddydou. With a few exceptions (which should be taken firmly with tongue in cheek) I have tried to remain polite during these discussions, despite unwarranted provocation from various pro hunters. Ive no doubt that Janet is extremely well respected and accomplished (Ive never suggested otherwise), but that doesnt mean I have to unquestioningly accept whatever she posts; after all, I thought this is a discussion forum! ...
		
Click to expand...

Btw this is not a reply for the benefit of PaulT.   For those reading this thread, I would like to make the following observations

The OP is deliberatly using tactics that are aggresive, provocative and inflamatory.  When faced with a rational discusion his methodolgy has been to attempt to flame the thread. 

I have abstracted the following extracts from PaulTs posts for those that may be tempted to reply to this individual believing that he is actually  a genuine poster.

 I know his defence to this will be that I am "attempting to close down enlightened discussion"!  I will allow other posters to make their own mind up about the truth of this statement from what PaulT has already posted...



			
				PaulT said:
			
		


			Alec has thrown his teddy out of his pram

Don't get so touchy, you're beginning to sound like Alec 

Someone call nurse, Fiagai has had one of his turns again

Alright, calm down, calm down [said in thick scouse accent]. 

Get a grip, there's a good chap.

Thank God society has moved on, even if a tiny number of pro-hunt dinosaurs haven't. 

The pro-hunt dinosaurs on this forum appear happy 

Stop tying yourself in knots trying to argue night is day, there's a good chap. Your cack handed attempts to distance so-called terrierwork from the murky world of animal baiting is truly a marvel; 

I really don't think you are mature enough 

After the pasting you've been given

Your latest corker...

Just when I think you can't possibly get any further up your own backside, you surpass yourself.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## PaulT (23 June 2011)

Selective quotes taken completely out of context Fiagai, tut tut. 

Of course if I were to do the same about far worse insults I've received, you'd argue that's completely different - you never were any good with the equal application of principles. 

Run out of excuses for fox baiting and hunting?


----------



## Ahunter (24 June 2011)

"Whether or not they derive enjoyment, the fact remains that fox baiting involves setting one or more dogs on a trapped or restrained animal. Once a fox goes to ground, escape routes are typically blocked and a terrier is entered. Once the terrier locates the fox I dont dispute that barking or a locator collar helps hunt servants find where both animals are to dig down"

You mentioned hunt servants with fox baiting, according to HM Government 
they are carrying out legit pest control commonly know as terrier work.

You made up the term "Fox Baiting"and gave the definition to HM Government, it only shows you were clueless in the first place if you got your definition wrong.


----------



## ThePinkPony (24 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Morning Janet, good of you to join us. Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed. 

Its extremely difficult to get inside the minds of these people who participate in baiting so all we can do is speculate on their motives, as I doubt any of them are likely to say anything they consider incriminating or likely to put what they do in a bad light. Some may really think theyre performing some sort of useful function  possibly fox control  whereas Ive little doubt that others derive considerable enjoyment from what they do. Who knows, perhaps both motives apply in some cases.
*okay, i'll give you  the most generic example. Night before last keeper has 79 poults killed outside a pen,  charlie has left a lovely set of tracks across a drilled feild, right to her earth. 79 poults isnt much to lose, but if this happens every night until october then thats the whole pen of poults gone... = a bloody expensive dinner bill for charlie.

Last night,  tonight and every  night, keeper will be sat out until dark with  his trusty .243, IF this fails  and charlie waits  until dark to inflict her damage then keeper will resort to getting his lovely patterdale terrier and giving her a  little jolly down a dark hole. This particular terrier has  not one scar on her pretty little head, as this particular terrier does not touch said  charlie, or  allow herself to be touched. 

Now, keeper doesnt want to have to do this, he has poults towood  and would much rather his attention be on other things, but this is priority number one, you know,  keeping his family in house and home etc.

Keeper is hoping muchly that terrier will be dropped in, charlie will run out the ohter side and the shotgun can make short work of a rather laborious job.

Does that give you an idea? mind you that story (true by the way) doesnt apply to ''fox baiting'' as it is a made up  term.*

Whether or not they derive enjoyment, the fact remains that fox baiting involves setting one or more dogs on a trapped or restrained animal. 

*one dog... get it right PaulT*

Once a fox goes to ground, escape routes are typically blocked and a terrier is entered. Once the terrier locates the fox I dont dispute that barking *ahem... baying, not ''barking''... well one is a stickler for using the correct term... oops, not you,  i mean me* or a locator collar helps hunt servants *hunt servants.. oh again i see you only really care if it includes that word..because obviously only hunt supporters kill foxes dont they * find where both animals are to dig down. They may even cleanly despatch the fox, once located with a humane killer (then again, they may botch the killing, as happened to the fox mentioned earlier in the post-mortem report). *i wonder if  you spared that thought for your sunday roast, as other have said.. these things happen*That isnt the point at issue; my main objection is what is likely to happen when the terrier confronts the fox. As you know, it can take a considerable time for hunt servants to dig down and locate both terrier and fox. In some cases I believe a dig out has lasted hours rather than minutes. *yes, A. because a fox doesnt just sit on its bum waiting to be dug... and B, slow diggers*We are all expected to believe there is simply a standoff between fox and terrier in the confines of the earth! Even if the terrier is exceptionally well trained not to attack in such a situation, I doubt the fox is similarly disciplined. *so really in a court of law its charlies fault because he attacked terrier first... for crying out loud what do you think happens when a rather rude charle decides that lowly old brocks sett looks like a comfy bed for the night... a STAND OFF, because this is how predators fight,  they size eachother up and wait, there are more 'walk aways' than there are fights, good old david attenborough can tell you that.*

Herne earlier mentioned that occasionally the animals get into a scrap. I would regard the confrontation as part and parcel of the activity of baiting, and it amounts to far more than a simple scrap. Just because the baiting is out of sight it doesnt mean it isnt happening.*animals fight, if it were two dog foxes the same would occasionally happen* The post-mortem evidence posted earlier, which was carried out for Burns, showed that one of the foxes dug out had multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head; damage to the right eye; and bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck. *yes, evident of canines fighting*These injuries didnt kill the fox, and they were the result of a so-called scrap with a terrier during a dig out lasting 25minutes. *yes and you do realise that the majority of this was most likely the terrier or the fox holding the other in its  jaws, if you are going to over dramatise things and all* No mention is made if the terrier was injured during the baiting.  *no,  because lets face it PaulT, you dont give a flying fig if the terrier was  bitten, mortally wounded or even dead because it isnt ginger and it doesnt have a long bushy tail*God only know what injuries are inflicted on fox, and possibly terrier, during dig outs which last over an hour.  *well from past experience, which  is quite  evidently more than you can claim to, neither dog or  fox have come out with wounds... OCCASIONALLY there  is a little  nick in the ear or charlie has grabnbed terriers nose, but they are superficial and completely unnoticed by either side.  none of my  dogs have ever been badly injured by a fox,  or anyone i know who partakes in terrierwork. Theres more chance of injury from a rat than a fox, because foxes dont work that way!*

As far as I can see, none of this breaches the NFWT code  it isnt worth the paper its written on. *neither is the hunting act,  but you lot seem to hail that as if it were the holy grail*Even if it were possible to provide training lessons to terrier and fox on how to behave in a nice way to each other before each dig out, who is going to make sure everything that takes place is above board and according to the code? Dont tell me, the terriermen and their friends! *yes, because its their dog  at the end of the day, in some instances the little ball of fur thats curled up in front of the fire most nights, and just for your sake PaulT, who wants a dog that gets itself  bashed up and needs weeks of rest and stitches, when there is work to be done every day?*

If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago. *well it is, in a completely different way  in the form of fox hunting with  hounds and horses...um...durrrrrrrr*

Click to expand...

that enough for you, although  my answers arent particularly directed at you, just for anyone else who happens on this thread, and hopefully realises just whow ignorant and uneducated to this you actually are.


----------



## combat_claire (24 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed.
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, the reason I have not responded on this thread is that I have very limited knowledge of terrier work, so I feel I am poorly qualified to answer your posts. Knowing my limitations is not the same as attempting to close down debate as you well know; much as fox baiting is not terrier work!


----------



## PaulT (24 June 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			that enough for you, although  my answers arent particularly directed at you, just for anyone else who happens on this thread, and hopefully realises just whow ignorant and uneducated to this you actually are.
		
Click to expand...

OK PP, youre clearly a connoisseur of fox baiting.  Ill try to deal with some of your more lucid (and relevant) remarks, and resist the temptation to snigger at your references to ignorance and being uneducated. 

The immediate thought which springs to mind is what is your keeper friend doing to prevent the fox getting at his poults in the first place? Anyway, to the topic at hand. 



ThePinkPony said:



			this particular terrier does not touch said charlie, or allow herself to be touched

for crying out loud what do you think happens when a rather rude charle decides that lowly old brocks sett looks like a comfy bed for the night... a STAND OFF, because this is how predators fight, they size eachother up and wait, there are more 'walk aways' than there are fights, good old david attenborough can tell you that.
		
Click to expand...

Tell me, in the fox baiting situation associated with hunts, how is the fox supposed to walk aways when the escape route is blocked by a terrier at one end and earth, rocks and sundry debris at the other? If you believe a cornered fox, let alone the terrier, will just size eachother up for half an hour, or an hour, or who knows how long, you must be even more puerile than your posts suggest.




			OCCASIONALLY there is a little nick in the ear or charlie has grabnbed terriers nose, but they are superficial and completely unnoticed by either side
		
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind you posted this in response to the post-mortem evidence where a dug out fox had its face, head, eye and neck savaged by a hunt terrier, the absurdity of your comments are clearly lost on you. You are impervious to any evidence which contradicts the gibberish you would like others to believe. 

PP, the most comical aspect of all is how readily you, of all people, are willing to treat readers to this thread as complete and utter idiots. I dont expect the irony of this to in any way sink home, but a few others will know exactly what I mean.


----------



## Ahunter (24 June 2011)

Tell me, in the fox baiting situation associated with hunts...

Correction,

Tell me, Terrier work asscociated with hunts...

You made up the term "Fox Baiting"and gave the definition to HM Government,it only shows you were clueless in the first place if you got your definition wrong.


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			my main objection is what is likely to happen when the terrier confronts the fox. As you know, it can take a considerable time for hunt servants to dig down and locate both terrier and fox. In some cases I believe a dig out has lasted hours rather than minutes. We are all expected to believe there is simply a standoff between fox and terrier in the confines of the earth! Even if the terrier is exceptionally well trained not to attack in such a situation, I doubt the fox is similarly disciplined.
		
Click to expand...

Normally there IS just a stand-off - there isn't space for much else.  And good hunt terriers are 'soft' terriers who will stand their ground - and bark and snarl - but who won't attack.  In visiting MANY hunts in my earlier career - and always taking an interest in the terriers - I rarely saw a scarred terrier!  In fact, one hunt terrier man I know uses the SAME terriers to work foxes as his wife takes to Crufts (and wins with!!)  Not a scar on any of them!

And foxes - believer it or not - are NOT stupid!  They will only fight if they have to.  They will snarl - and threaten - but in the confined space of whatever tunnel they have chosen to go to ground in, they won't attack.

In the hill countries they tend to use tougher (hard) terriers because digging is not always possible - and a 'soft' terrier would stay under until he and the fox died - or until they'd had to bring in dynamite to blast half a mountain away!  And it's in the hill countries where terrier work is ESSENTIAL for fox control!

And no hunt terrierman (or experienced keeper) blocks ALL exits before putting a terrier to ground - just because stand-offs happen and tie people up for hours!  You net one or more exits and HOPE that the terrier drives the fox to exit there - where he can be quickly despatched.  Most hunt terriermen would FAR rather NOT have to dig (it's bloody hard work!)


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Selective quotes taken completely out of context Fiagai, tut tut. 

Of course if I were to do the same about far worse insults I've received, you'd argue that's completely different - you never were any good with the equal application of principles. 

Run out of excuses for fox baiting and hunting?
		
Click to expand...

where has boy wonder disappeared to, under the bridge?


----------



## EAST KENT (28 June 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			where has boy wonder disappeared to, under the bridge?
		
Click to expand...

Just being a good little Troll. Do hope this oh so boring he/she or it stays there..or drowns even


----------



## Alec Swan (28 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Just being a good little Troll. Do hope this oh so boring he/she or it stays there..or drowns even

Click to expand...

That's what we need,  in this world,  a few more like you,  E_K,  with a good,  old fashioned christian approach to life!!  

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (28 June 2011)

Abso bloody lutely Alec..it`s hot..hate tennis..made a suggestion as to how to usefully shed some trolls and enjoy doing it. Life`s too short to bother with things that just need a good swat.
    Now, off to do the Church flowers........


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Just being a good little Troll. Do hope this oh so boring he/she or it stays there..or drowns even

Click to expand...

Iused to like trolls as a kid, with their sticky up  hair and ugly faces- do you think they have changed?


----------



## ThePinkPony (28 June 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Iused to like trolls as a kid, with their sticky up  hair and ugly faces- do you think they have changed?
		
Click to expand...

Ask PaulT....

Do they have mirrors under bridges.


----------



## EAST KENT (28 June 2011)

Probably moved on now to a steriotype the same but sort of greeny `Golom stuff added in..sexless of course,assuming (Praise be!) they don`t procreate. No mirrors ,sure of that one,,it`d frighten `em too much. Wonder if they guard "preciouses" under there?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 June 2011)

ThePinkPony said:



			Ask PaulT....

Do they have mirrors under bridges.
		
Click to expand...

its done a bunk i reckon.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 June 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			its done a bunk i reckon.
		
Click to expand...

Or been debunked.  Or perhaps,  being dim,  took The PP's suggestion literally,  assumed that water would reflect their image,  and got themselves flattened by the 4.15 from Swansea to Paddington.  Perhaps someone should have explained that bridges don't just span rivers!  Mind you,  it would have been pointless,  he's listened to little else.

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (29 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Or been debunked.  Or perhaps,  being dim,  took The PP's suggestion literally,  assumed that water would reflect their image,  and got themselves flattened by the 4.15 from Swansea to Paddington.  Perhaps someone should have explained that bridges don't just span rivers!  Mind you,  it would have been pointless,  he's listened to little else.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 Oh Laudy..flat baked Troll PMSL thanks Alec


----------



## Fiagai (29 June 2011)

...just love it when threads take on a life of their own....

ref: Alecs & EKs flat baked (t)rolls

Anyone have any recipes?


----------



## EAST KENT (29 June 2011)

Pepper well with rock salt loaded cartridges...


----------



## Dobiegirl (29 June 2011)

What are you lot like. You are like a lot of kids deprived of their ball.

You wont be happy until he comes back.


----------



## EAST KENT (29 June 2011)

We are all enjoying a hunt here...casting about at the mo`......


----------



## rubysmum (29 June 2011)

if anyone would like to instigate a bit of fox baiting towards the very large urban fox on my street who recently chased my [ admittedly quite camp] terrier down the street - i suspect he would be grateful as his street cred is at a low ebb at the moment


----------



## ThePinkPony (29 June 2011)

rubysmum said:



			if anyone would like to instigate a bit of fox baiting towards the very large urban fox on my street who recently chased my [ admittedly quite camp] terrier down the street - i suspect he would be grateful as his street cred is at a low ebb at the moment

Click to expand...

Bloody hell dont let PaulTit see that,  he'll spend another two days writing a condescending and factually incorrect essay on how a fox would NEVER EVER IN A GIZILLION YEARS instigate violence towards any other creature!!!


----------



## rubysmum (29 June 2011)

tell him to come & meet Mr Fox [ think MrT from the Ateam] who grows fat  on a diet of rabbits & guinea pigs


----------



## EAST KENT (30 June 2011)

rubysmum said:



			if anyone would like to instigate a bit of fox baiting towards the very large urban fox on my street who recently chased my [ admittedly quite camp] terrier down the street - i suspect he would be grateful as his street cred is at a low ebb at the moment

Click to expand...

 Gosh ,our poisonous little lakeland would just be the job for that,he`d think all his Christmases had come at once! Reggie`s your man..but he`s poisonous enough to give your terrier an even lower opinion of himself ,being so bloomin` macho


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 June 2011)

Dobiegirl said:



			What are you lot like. You are like a lot of kids deprived of their ball.

You wont be happy until he comes back.

Click to expand...

so where is the gutless wonder,making patta cakes-bless?


----------



## EAST KENT (30 June 2011)

Gone to ground..which is where my terriers come into the  picture I think.


----------



## TJP (30 June 2011)

Thepinkpony PaulT would have been welcome to come see the mess foxy left in my sandschool after what I assume must have been a 'play date' with my hens. No doubt it wasn't his fault 2 are dead. Don't think Paul & I would see eye to eye on this one lol


----------



## Archina (30 June 2011)

Its pretty shameful how rude you lot are and it seems anyone who disagree's with you gets labelled a troll. Its called the Hunting Forum, not the Pro Hunting Forum. The kids i teach to ride are more mature.


----------



## A1fie (30 June 2011)

Archina - not everyone who is anti hunting is labelled a troll.  It's just some posters seem to post inflamatory remarks or ask questions with no real interest in hearing another point of view.  

Most people who are pro-hunting on this forum will take the time to answer any question a poster has and do so politely and thoroughly.  But for example on this thread where it's been explained many times that terrierwork is not fox baiting, why it's not baiting and what terrier work is, it is difficult not to get frustrated when posters accuse hunters of lying about their experience and/or getting a thrill out of it.  

I don't think anyone on here thinks that everyone who is anti-hunting is a troll, but some posters clearly are trolls because they just post comments designed to wind people up.


----------



## Fiagai (30 June 2011)

Archina said:



			Its pretty shameful how rude you lot are and it seems anyone who disagree's with you gets labelled a troll. Its called the Hunting Forum, not the Pro Hunting Forum. The kids i teach to ride are more mature. 

Click to expand...

I somehow very much doubt that Archina.  Its called the hunting forum - because it is for those with an interest in Legal hunting activities. There is no "pro Competition Riders forum" either!  Why should those who have such interests be open targets for every crackpot who wants to sit on their own soapbox?

With regard to "trolls" It is the behaviour of such posters that identifies individuals as trolls and not just refering to them as such.  Being "nice" to such individuals is not going to persuade such posters who are openly being abusive and inflamatory to desist from such behaviour. The quicker such individuals are identified and left to their own devices the better for all concerned.


----------



## EAST KENT (30 June 2011)

Anyway..it`s a HUNTING forum this..and seeing as little fluffy foxes are "out of season"  err sorry illegal.. we`ll have some fun hunting trolls. Back under t`bridge now with you.


----------



## Archina (30 June 2011)

The OP doesn't seem like a troll to me, specially since he did debate with you all on the topic over a period of time. Ive always been the type of person that likes to know about both sides before making a decision hence why i come on to the hunting forum and yes i am anti but i would never imagine speaking to all of you in the same way you have spoke to the OP. You choose to reply to the post, whatever happened to being the bigger man? 

Fiagai - You also dont have to be a competition rider to post in that forum either and i highly doubt H&H is going to create an illegal hunting forum are they? (though i suspect it would be the most popular!) The hunting forum is an open forum where anyone can come, read and comment. I would also like to hope the 'anti's' have an interest in all hunting, not just illegal. You make yourself a target by responding in such a rude/offensive manner. A soap box is not much use without a crowd. Ive read through the entire thread and i cant see were the OP is being abusive? Also, he wasnt really left to his 'own devices' was he? If he had been then i very much doubt the thread would have reached 12 pages long.

I am not to sure who i agree with as i dont have a lot of experience with terrier work and the entire thread has confused me slightly. In all instances of when a fox goes to ground do you block of every hole and send the terrier down then dig out the fox, or do you leave an exit open so the terrier can flush it out? 
I have worked with birds of prey and been on many a hunt with a few birds and ferrets, is it the same thing?


----------



## Archina (30 June 2011)

EAST KENT said:



 Anyway..it`s a HUNTING forum this..and seeing as little fluffy foxes are "out of season"  err sorry illegal.. we`ll have some fun hunting trolls. Back under t`bridge now with you.
		
Click to expand...

Its that kind of attitude which made me post in the first place. I am not a troll, but i am sure you could be labelled as one, as it seems your only interested in provoking a negative response from me.


----------



## Fiagai (30 June 2011)

Archina said:



			The OP doesn't seem like a troll to me, specially since he did debate with you all on the topic over a period of time. Ive always been the type of person that likes to know about both sides before making a decision hence why i come on to the hunting forum and yes i am anti but i would never imagine speaking to all of you in the same way you have spoke to the OP. You choose to reply to the post, whatever happened to being the bigger man? 

Click to expand...

Yes over a period of time where the posts in the main were abusive and inflamtory despite many posters patiently discussing the issue with him!  As stated it is the behaviour of such posters that identifies individuals as trolls and not just refering to them as such.  The regular members of this forum are in the main knowledgeable and pleasant individuals.  But they are not fools.




Archina said:



			Fiagai - You also dont have to be a competition rider to post in that forum either and i highly doubt H&H is going to create an illegal hunting forum are they? (though i suspect it would be the most popular!) The hunting forum is an open forum where anyone can come, read and comment. I would also like to hope the 'anti's' have an interest in all hunting, not just illegal. You make yourself a target by responding in such a rude/offensive manner. A soap box is not much use without a crowd. Ive read through the entire thread and i cant see were the OP is being abusive? Also, he wasnt really left to his 'own devices' was he? If he had been then i very much doubt the thread would have reached 12 pages long.
		
Click to expand...

You are missing the point Archina.  For example I may "hate" competition riders but I am not going to start posting on that forum about how they are abusing their horses causing them "Unnecessary Suffering" and being "Cruel".   I might "dislike" golf courses and believe that they are destroying the planet but I am not going to turn up on a golfing forum and start berating them just because I dont like golf!  If someone who has a genuine question about "legal hunting" then posters are more than happy to reply in a genuine manner but not when an OP is taking the proverbial...
As to the OP not being abusive in your estimation...here is a very very small selection of the type of stuff posted...



			
				PAULT said:
			
		


			Your cack handed attempts to distance so-called terrierwork from the murky world of animal baiting is truly a marvel; 

I really don't think you are mature enough 

After the pasting you've been given

Your latest corker...

Just when I think you can't possibly get any further up your own backside, you surpass yourself.
		
Click to expand...




Archina said:



			I am not to sure who i agree with as i dont have a lot of experience with terrier work and the entire thread has confused me slightly. In all instances of when a fox goes to ground do you block of every hole and send the terrier down then dig out the fox, or do you leave an exit open so the terrier can flush it out? 
I have worked with birds of prey and been on many a hunt with a few birds and ferrets, is it the same thing?
		
Click to expand...

The confusion created was as a direct result of the OP ignoring the large amount information provided by posters.  I believe the best thing at this stage would be to start a new thread on the subject so such confusion does not arise.


----------



## Archina (30 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			For those who would be prepared to discuss such matters with the original poster,  I would suggest that you view his other posts.  He's a troll.  Troll's specialise in pedantic,  pointless and puerile posts,  which are designed to provide them with entertainment.  Nothing more,  or less.  

Coventry.

Alec.

Ets,  and if you doubt me,  then read his last offering!! a.
		
Click to expand...




rosiefronfelen said:



			What are you prattling on about?
		
Click to expand...

Two responding comments to the OP that would get any ones back up, pretty much sets the tone for the entire thread right there. 



Fiagai said:



			You are missing the point Archina.  For example I may "hate" competition riders but I am not going to start posting on that forum about how they are abusing their horses causing them "Unnecessary Suffering" and being "Cruel".   I might "dislike" golf courses and believe that they are destroying the planet but I am not going to turn up on a golfing forum and start berating them just because I dont like golf!  If someone who has a genuine question about "legal hunting" then posters are more than happy to reply in a genuine manner but not when an OP is taking the proverbial...
		
Click to expand...

I dont think i am missing the point tbh. Forums are a place where people are free to post there opinions and ask questions. I do agree with you however that forums are not the place for berating/abusing other posters because you dont agree with them or dislike what they are saying/doing. The majority of us are all adults and capable of reasonable thought and discussion. 

Anyhoo, will take your suggestion about starting a new thread about terrier work. Cheers!


----------



## Fiagai (30 June 2011)

Archina said:



			Two responding comments to the OP that would get any ones back up, pretty much sets the tone for the entire thread right there.
		
Click to expand...

Tbh If posters eventually became fustrated with the repeated behaviour of this poster then it is most surprising that this was the extent of the replies.



Archina said:



			I dont think i am missing the point tbh. Forums are a place where people are free to post there opinions and ask questions. I do agree with you however that forums are not the place for berating/abusing other posters because you dont agree with them or dislike what they are saying/doing. The majority of us are all adults and capable of reasonable thought and discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.  The OP has plenty of forums to post his ideas on his hatred of hunting.  If however he wished to discuss such issues without such behaviour then that is is a different matter entirely.



Archina said:



			Anyhoo, will take your suggestion about starting a new thread about terrier work. Cheers! 

Click to expand...

Archina - A word of concern. Your defence of PaulTs behaviour which many posters  have genuinely found both abusive and inflamatory has already resulted in a number posters no longer taking these "discussions" seriously.  
I do hope that the new thread is not another PaulT type diversion....


----------



## ThePinkPony (1 July 2011)

Archina said:



			Its pretty shameful how rude you lot are and it seems anyone who disagree's with you gets labelled a troll. Its called the Hunting Forum, not the Pro Hunting Forum. The kids i teach to ride are more mature. 

Click to expand...

TROLL!!!

sorry, couldnt help it. promise to grow up now


----------



## Archina (1 July 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Tbh If posters eventually became fustrated with the repeated behaviour of this poster then it is most surprising that this was the extent of the replies.

*Those quotes were said to the OP before he replied with any inflammatory remarks so I don't think you can blame him for throwing in a few of his own in answer. So is it not possible that, if those first two comments hadn't been said this thread could of been a reasonable debate without any insults being thrown either way? *

Archina - A word of concern. Your defence of PaulTs behaviour which many posters  have genuinely found both abusive and inflamatory has already resulted in a number posters no longer taking these "discussions" seriously.  
I do hope that the new thread is not another PaulT type diversion....
		
Click to expand...

My post wasn't in defence of PaulT alone, was more for anyone who receives this type of response without any justifiable reason, myself included. 

I can totally understand that people get emotional and upset when someone slates something they deeply care for. I constantly have to defend Equine Rescue and Rehoming because certain people think they are a dealers and yes, it can be difficult at times when people make inflammatory or abusive remarks to hold your tongue but we are all capable of behaving decently. You dont have to be polite but you don't have to be abusive either. 

I am actually genuinely interested in what terrier work entails. If its the same as ferreting then I cant exactly turn around and say 'nah, that's cruel, ban it!' without being called a hypocrite! lol 

P.S. Thankyou Fiagai and A1Fie for your civil responses.


----------



## Naryafluffy (1 July 2011)

It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.

By this comment there seems to be a lot of unreasonable people on here and only one reasonable person. Hmmm what's the common factor here.

Think everyone should just ignore all posts from this user, no responses he'll have to find another forum other than the one on Horse and HOUND


----------



## Fiagai (1 July 2011)

Naryafluffy said:



			It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity
		
Click to expand...




I will requote that.  From your other comments I am presuming that you meant...

It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are *NOT* one and the same activity


----------



## Fiagai (1 July 2011)

Archina said:



			My post wasn't in defence of PaulT alone, was more for anyone who receives this type of response without any justifiable reason, myself included.
		
Click to expand...

From what was posted in the thread by the OP the response that followed was both understandable and justified in my opinion.  The majority of posters here are very more than willing to share their knowledge of hunting where they are able.  However repeated "baiting" by those who have a hatred of any hunting interests or activities means that increasingly they are wary of answering any such posts - your follow up  included.  Unfortuantely sincere or otherwise opting for the OPs defence will ultimly result in forum members (rightly or wrongly) doubting the sencerity of such statements




Archina said:



			I can totally understand that people get emotional and upset when someone slates something they deeply care for. I constantly have to defend Equine Rescue and Rehoming because certain people think they are a dealers and yes, it can be difficult at times when people make inflammatory or abusive remarks to hold your tongue but we are all capable of behaving decently. You dont have to be polite but you don't have to be abusive either.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortuantely repeated occurances of such behaviour have strained normal polite behaviour to a thread




Archina said:



			I am actually genuinely interested in what terrier work entails. If its the same as ferreting then I cant exactly turn around and say 'nah, that's cruel, ban it!' without being called a hypocrite! lol 
P.S. Thankyou Fiagai and A1Fie for your civil responses. 

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I personally cant help you there as our hunt does not use terriers.  best of luck in your search for information...


----------



## EAST KENT (1 July 2011)

Ooops ..we`ve changed quarry .....or someone has yet another identity.


----------



## EAST KENT (1 July 2011)

Archina said:



			Its that kind of attitude which made me post in the first place. I am not a troll, but i am sure you could be labelled as one, as it seems your only interested in provoking a negative response from me.
		
Click to expand...

 Noooo, we want NO RESPONSE from you or your mates.Please oblige.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (2 July 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Noooo, we want NO RESPONSE from you or your mates.Please oblige.
		
Click to expand...

quite so, no more trolls please, the bridge is over run already.


----------



## mymare (2 July 2011)

Ooh!!  Can't WAIT to get a terrier!!


----------



## Princecharming (2 July 2011)

Jake10 said:



			If that is actual footage that hasn't been edited/tampered with then  is how I feel. Why not humanely (or as close as possible) dispatch the fox while in the sack??? Was there any need to release the fox to be far from humanely dispatched by a pack of dogs?? 

Click to expand...

That's absolutely disgraceful! People like this want locking up end of. Sick. This is not culling, this is getting kicks out cruelty. No need whatsoever.


----------



## Archina (3 July 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Noooo, we want NO RESPONSE from you or your mates.Please oblige.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry...no can do. Freedom of speech and all that!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (3 July 2011)

Archina said:



			Sorry...no can do. Freedom of speech and all that! 

Click to expand...

Thats fine, but expect only nonsense from here on in---


----------



## Archina (4 July 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Thats fine, but expect only nonsense from here on in---
		
Click to expand...

Why exactly?


----------



## Fiagai (4 July 2011)

Archina said:



			Why exactly?
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine because the "garbage in - garbage out" end result. The thread was clearly set  up as a "bait" for forum members (absymally failing in this objective imo) and as the baiter has now vanished its probably best for the pile of manure that resulted be left to molder....


----------

