# Taking stock



## PaulT (8 June 2011)

It's been more than six years since the Hunting Act came into effect. I know many contributors would like to think repeal is on the horizon, but how realistic is this?

Most people accept that if a vote to repeal was held in the Commons today it would be lost. It looks like a significant minority of Tory MPs either agree with the hunt ban or feel there are far more pressing issues for Parliament to be spending time on. Labour MPs appear pretty solidly behind the ban and most Lib Dem MPs also seem supportive of the 2004 Act.

Having done the maths, hunt supporters seem to be biding their time in the hope the balance will tip in their favour towards the end of this Parliament. Unfortunately for them, there will still be more important issues to deal with in four years time (assuming the coalition lasts that long), as repeal will never feature highly on the list of things to be achieved for some Tory MPs - even if they initially opposed the ban. 

Some hunt supporters are clinging onto Tory promises to deal with the 'Mid Lothian question', so that only English MPs would be able to vote on legislation which affects England. This _could _create a majority of MPs in favour of repeal, but it would open a can of worms; there is considerable doubt the Tories will tackle it. For example, the government has variously promised a commission to investigate the issue 'at the end of 2010', in the (2011) New Year and now later this year. They just don't seem to have the appetite at a time when they're doing all sorts of U turns on their packed agenda of reform.

Not sure what other contributors think, but personally I feel the longer the ban is in place the more difficult it will be to repeal it. As the Deputy Political Editor of the Telegraph argues, Cameron's ability to deliver on his promises of repeal look increasingly in doubt.


----------



## Herne (8 June 2011)

So what is your point? 

Repeal with this coalition is going to be more difficult than it would be with a large Tory majority. We all know that. 

Personally, however, I share neither your assessment of the current balance in the commons (I think it is much closer than you suggest) nor your view of the willingness of the Conservative party to deliver on its commitment.

However, there's nothing we can do about it; those of us that want to achieve repeal (which hopefully is the majority of hunting people with any common sense) are just going to have to keep working at it. If we have to wait until after the Tories win the next election comfortably, then so be it.


I presume that the mid lothian question is a rather more wishy-washy version of the West Lothian Question..?


----------



## PaulT (8 June 2011)

Hello Herne. Yes, the 'West Lothian Question' - geography never was my strong point.

The purpose of my post wasn't so much to make a point, it was to find out what others think and how they have reached their conclusions. My comments were intended to explain the conclusions I've reached.  I find the political shenanigans which have plagued the issue of hunting for the past fifteen years fascinating.

Your alternative interpretation doesn't surprise me, but I am interested in your suggestion that the willingness of the Tories to deliver on their repeated promises to repeal hasn't diminished. Although not part of any publicly-declared promise, there was much pre-election talk about repeal being quickly introduced by the Tories after the election (within the first year, I believe). I suspect, though I don't have evidence at my fingertips, that this was fuelled by leading Tories. They certainly did little to dampen such hopes. 

Dont you think there are parallels with Labour promises to ban hunting pre 1997? Labour issued bold promises, and even having achieved thumping great majorities failed to deliver on them for seven years  only after relentless lobbying from large numbers of backbenchers.  The Tories repeal promises ring a similar bell, but they are in a much weaker position.  They have already had to make concessions to their Lib Dem colleagues in agreeing to hold a vote on whether legislation to repeal should go ahead. Every now and again a leading Tory makes warm noises to keep hunters on side; no doubt firmer assurances are being made in private more regularly. In reality the issue is kicked into the very long grass. 

Your comments about waiting for an outright Tory majority seem to support this theory. Having recognised there is little chance of getting repeal through this Parliament, perhaps the Tories will include a firmer commitment in their manifesto for the next election.  After all, as Labour recognised in the past, hunting is an issue which gets activists knocking on doors during an election campaign.  The Tories will continue to make full use of this (as they did in 2010), but if the coalition lasts the full five years the Hunting Act will have been in place ten years by the time of the next election. 

I agree, no matter how forlorn, theres not much else you can do other than pin your hopes on an outright Tory victory at the next election.  The Tories will need to win many battles if they are to achieve a comfortable majority.  I suspect by that time many will be thinking best keep sleeping dogs lie, if theyre not doing so already. Things move on.


----------



## oakash (8 June 2011)

An interesting discussion. I am one of the disillusioned previously Tory voters and previously a party member. My real sympathies lie with UKIP, as I consider the liaison with Europe as absolute madness. We spend a thousand years getting to a position where we can make our own laws, and then give it away and have to pay at least 45million a day for the 'privelege'. The Tories MUST deliver on their promise THIS parliament - the next will be too late for them to expect a large majority.

I do not agree with the UKIP policy on hunting ; they want to leave it to local referendums. If something is wrong, as the Hunting Act clearly is - then I expect a government to put it right by repeal. So I am saying goodbye to tactical voting. We need to take to the streets again on a massive march, and remind the decent majority that we want ACTION!


----------



## PaulT (9 June 2011)

Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.

I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how its structured.  To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals.  Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding. 

This isnt an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and dont have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.


----------



## combat_claire (9 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Although not part of any publicly-declared promise, there was much pre-election talk about repeal being quickly introduced by the Tories after the election (within the first year, I believe). I suspect, though I don't have evidence at my fingertips, that this was fuelled by leading Tories. They certainly did little to dampen such hopes.
		
Click to expand...

The reason that you have no evidence at your finger tips is that this is complete nonsense. It was made clear that while there was a commitment to repeal, there were many more pressing problems that would occupy the coalition post-election. Thanks to the fine mess that Labour promises have left the country in, the priority always had to be on economic recovery. 



PaulT said:



			Your comments about waiting for an outright Tory majority seem to support this theory. Having recognised there is little chance of getting repeal through this Parliament, perhaps the Tories will include a firmer commitment in their manifesto for the next election.  After all, as Labour recognised in the past, hunting is an issue which gets activists knocking on doors during an election campaign.  The Tories will continue to make full use of this (as they did in 2010), but if the coalition lasts the full five years the Hunting Act will have been in place ten years by the time of the next election.
		
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that actually hunting is an issue for the minority of people in an election campaign both voters and activists. It was hunting that got me involved in political campaigning for the Conservative party, but it wasn't just hunting that kept my weary feet trekking through the streets in 2010. We have the added advantage that for once we have ministers from DEFRA who actually have experience of and understand rural issues, whereas Hillary Benn, Margaret Beckett et al had barely been out of London save the odd holiday. I would also argue that simply because legislation has been in place for a long time it lessens the chance of repeal. After all S28 had been in place for 15yrs when it was repealed in 2003. 



PaulT said:



			I agree, no matter how forlorn, there&#8217;s not much else you can do other than pin your hopes on an outright Tory victory at the next election.  The Tories will need to win many battles if they are to achieve a comfortable majority.  I suspect by that time many will be thinking &#8216;best keep sleeping dogs lie&#8217;, if they&#8217;re not doing so already. Things move on.
		
Click to expand...

You also ignore the fact that the political argument is just one aspect of the battle for repeal. You can paint a picture of hunting folk hunkered down in some hypothetical bunker waiting for the political No Man's Land to become more favourable or you can acknowledge that as well as working at by-elections and canvassing sitting MPs to get our views heard there will also be hard work at promoting hunting and the role country sports of all types play within a thriving countryside.

I need to get lunch now, but I will tackle the other issues you posed later.


----------



## Fiagai (9 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.
		
Click to expand...

The Hunting Act was nothing about banning hunting - it was more a kneejerk reaction in favour of self interest groups who's lobbying were at best based on raw emotion, percieved class bias and notable lack of objective thought.



PaulT said:



			I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how it&#8217;s structured.  To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals.  Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding.
		
Click to expand...

Well that is an opinion - your opinion.  Anti hunting types are very quick to label hunting as "sport".   Hunting has a purpose. (On this forum we have posters who are experiencing increasing predation of livestock since the ban). What you are also missing here is the importance of hunting in rural society. Hunting helps support local economies in a myriad of ways.  Yes people involved in hunting do enjoy the chase but that does not make it a "sport" like football - there are no opposing teams and there isnt a score board.  There are many activities that could be argued "to cause unecessary suffering" even the slaughter process could be identified as such using this logic.  However this argument is purely subjective.  I personally prefer the quick clean kill of hounds than a fox crawling away to die unless shot by a good marksman (these are much less common than the anti fraternity seem to imagine or care).  Do you propose that we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent.  Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?




PaulT said:



			This isn&#8217;t an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and don&#8217;t have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.
		
Click to expand...

Not very a very useful argument - and can be likened to attempting to stick a jelly with a pitchfork. Such subjectivity can never be a logical basis for legislation.


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

combat_claire said:



			The reason that you have no evidence at your finger tips is that this is complete nonsense. It was made clear that while there was a commitment to repeal, there were many more pressing problems that would occupy the coalition post-election. Thanks to the fine mess that Labour promises have left the country in, the priority always had to be on economic recovery.
		
Click to expand...

Hi CC. As far back as Feb 2006 the Tories were promoting the idea they would immediately reverse the ban (Telegraph, 18/2/06). More recently, Nick Herbert, then Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, argued that: 'Allowing the new Parliament an early opportunity to revisit a discredited law will not be a distraction from our wider agenda: it will simply be the right thing to do.' (Telegraph, 17/10/09). In the same month Tory party sources were putting it about that a repeal vote would be held 'in the first few months of a Conservative administration' (Daily Mail, 7/10/09). In the run up to last year's election Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski argued the Tories credibility would be 'shot to pieces' if they failed to introduce an early repeal vote. 

I'm sure there are plenty more examples but you get the drift of it. It appears my suspicion was well founded.




combat_claire said:



			I would hazard a guess that actually hunting is an issue for the minority of people in an election campaign both voters and activists. It was hunting that got me involved in political campaigning for the Conservative party, but it wasn't just hunting that kept my weary feet trekking through the streets in 2010. We have the added advantage that for once we have ministers from DEFRA who actually have experience of and understand rural issues, whereas Hillary Benn, Margaret Beckett et al had barely been out of London save the odd holiday. I would also argue that simply because legislation has been in place for a long time it lessens the chance of repeal. After all S28 had been in place for 15yrs when it was repealed in 2003.
		
Click to expand...

Its interesting you mention section 28 as I would be hard pushed to find a parallel more unlike the hunting example. Reversing the ban on schools and other public bodies from promoting homosexuality was a progressive measure supported by a majority of the public. No prosecutions had been brought under the legislation in the fifteen years of its existence. On the other hand, repeal of the Hunting Act would be a hugely regressive step supported by a tiny minority of the public. At the last count, the total number of convictions under the Hunting Act (in less than half the period of time section 28 existed) was over 150. 

To develop my political argument a bit further, the evidence referred to above suggests that many of your Tory 'friends in Parliament are first and foremost politicians. They may claim to sympathise with your pro-hunt views, some may even hunt themselves, but don't confuse this with necessarily being prepared to 'do the right thing'. Many view the issue of hunting in pragmatic, even mercenary, terms - fully prepared to accept help during election campaigning but, heaven forbid, unexpectedly busy should a repeal vote ever happen. I believe at least one Tory MP has already been accused of using pro-hunt campaigners in this way - I predict more will follow. Stranger things have happened - it's what many politicians do.

Of course groups like the Countryside Alliance need cheerleaders like you to keep supporters' morale up. It's perfectly understandable, but if the situation is anything like the anti-hunt campaign in the early years of the first Labour government, many hunt supporters will be wondering what's happening.


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			The Hunting Act was nothing about banning hunting - it was more a kneejerk reaction in favour of self interest groups who's lobbying were at best based on raw emotion, percieved class bias and notable lack of objective thought.
		
Click to expand...


Morning Fiagai. You sound very bitter, if you dont mind me saying so. 



Fiagai said:



			Well that is an opinion - your opinion.  Anti hunting types are very quick to label hunting as "sport".   Hunting has a purpose. (On this forum we have posters who are experiencing increasing predation of livestock since the ban). What you are also missing here is the importance of hunting in rural society. Hunting helps support local economies in a myriad of ways.  Yes people involved in hunting do enjoy the chase but that does not make it a "sport" like football - there are no opposing teams and there isnt a score board.  There are many activities that could be argued "to cause unecessary suffering" even the slaughter process could be identified as such using this logic.  However this argument is purely subjective.  I personally prefer the quick clean kill of hounds than a fox crawling away to die unless shot by a good marksman (these are much less common than the anti fraternity seem to imagine or care).  Do you propose that we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent.  Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?
		
Click to expand...

I thought the forerunner of the Countryside Alliance was the British Field *Sports* Society  bit of a giveaway in the title. 

Am I correct in thinking you are opposed to the basis of animal welfare legislation in the UK for well over 100 years? The legal concept of unnecessary suffering certainly isnt new. I have long suspected that many of the more vocal supporters of hunting have a philosophical aversion to animals being legally protected from cruelty, believing animal cruelty to be a private matter (much like the issue of wife beating was not too long ago, rather shockingly).


----------



## combat_claire (10 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.
		
Click to expand...

This is bad law, where the premise of breaking it is somebody's intention as they leave kennels on a morning. How on earth can a prosecution hinge on such a concept when no lawmaker can possibly say for definite what the intention was on that hunting day. This law puts enormous pressure on hunt staff, masters and police resources due to the complicated nature of the law that resulted from endless compromises. If this wasn't bad enough, the law was forced through by use of the Parliament Act, something which many legal commentators believe make the Hunting Act ultra vires. Finally the law is arbitrary in the way it was written and full of contradictions - why is it banned to hunt hares, fox, stag, mink etc but be okay to hunt rats or rabbits?; why is it okay to use terriers to protect game birds whilst a livestock farmer is forbidden from using the same method to protect his lambs? These are three excellent reasons for why the only answer is to repeal this law. 



PaulT said:



			I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how its structured.  To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals.  Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding.
		
Click to expand...

As Fiagai has already pointed out this is not a black and white issue of someone getting a thrill from chasing an animal. The aim of quarry hunting was always based on population management and not extermination.  Hunting managed this excellently by using the only method that was based firmly on the principles of natural selection. By banning hunting you condemn more foxes to worse deaths, that in many cases do not guarantee there to be no wounding; whilst not keeping the population at a healthy optimum. 
You also have to look at the wider picture - hunts manage thousands of acres of woodland, plant and manage many more miles of hedges than the LACS ever will and look after several sites of SSSI designation. That is before you even consider the social and economic importance of hunting and country sports to rural communities both as employer and in supporting the businesses that rely on winter funding from hunting tourism to bolster fragile incomes. Therefore in my mind any legislation which fails to take into account all relevant factors is unacceptable legislation, before you even consider the fact that there are serious concerns about the so called animal welfare priorities of the Hunting Act. 



PaulT said:



			This isnt an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and dont have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.
		
Click to expand...

Unnecessary suffering is of course the crux of the argument for all issues relating to animal welfare. I have no problems with rearing animals for meat and milk - I have worked on dairy and stock farms and seen for myself that conditions are more than satisfactory on UK farms, which is why I will where possible only buy the best British produce I can afford. I would rather starve than eat Danish bacon from stall-reared pigs. However I have serious reservations about halal slaughter houses. 

As far as hunting is concerned, I am convinced that a, foxes and other quarry species have to be controlled for the benefit of a balanced ecosystem and that b, hunting with hounds is the best form of achieving that management goal. No lamper can guarantee they won't wound a moving target shot by night and condemn the quarry to death by gangrene or starvation where the jaw was shot off. Poisoning and gassing although now outlawed are terrible methods of inflicting death on another species and are completely indiscriminate. 

As a final point, I see domestic pets being dragged round the block every day on my way to the office - overweight, unfit, allowed no time to socialise with other dogs, no time to stop and sniff at interesting scents and fed a processed diet of tinned meat. I admit I haven't done a straw poll of these owners but I suspect most of them would classify themselves as animal lovers and most would also feel that hunting with hounds was cruel. I put it to them - that my hounds which are kept as a pack in a natural social order, fed flesh and bones for healthy nutrition, exercised for miles daily with freedom to express their natural behaviours within reason and the law. I pose the question, which of us is truly cruel??


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

combat_claire said:



			This is bad law, where the premise of breaking it is somebody's intention as they leave kennels on a morning.
		
Click to expand...

What a curious thing to say  is this rather like arguing the whole premise of the law against murder is a twisted husbands intention as he seeks out his wife? Surely there needs to be evidence the dirty deed has been committed before any proceedings can begin, and only then will intent be considered? 



combat_claire said:



			How on earth can a prosecution hinge on such a concept when no lawmaker can possibly say for definite what the intention was on that hunting day. This law puts enormous pressure on hunt staff, masters and police resources due to the complicated nature of the law that resulted from endless compromises. If this wasn't bad enough, the law was forced through by use of the Parliament Act, something which many legal commentators believe make the Hunting Act ultra vires. Finally the law is arbitrary in the way it was written and full of contradictions - why is it banned to hunt hares, fox, stag, mink etc but be okay to hunt rats or rabbits?; why is it okay to use terriers to protect game birds whilst a livestock farmer is forbidden from using the same method to protect his lambs? These are three excellent reasons for why the only answer is to repeal this law.
		
Click to expand...

I am not a legal expert and feel insufficiently qualified to comment on the finer points of law. However, your point about the use of the Parliament Act was subject to a number of legal challenges, supported by the hunting lobby, and these ultimately failed. 

Surely perceived inconsistencies in the legislation is more an argument to strengthen it rather than scrap it. After all, we wouldnt be looking to completely do away with legislation to protect the elderly in care homes on the grounds that it doesnt go far enough! I suspect your fundamental objection to the legislation is that you dont want to be stopped doing what you enjoy rather than the legislation doesnt go far enough.



combat_claire said:



			As Fiagai has already pointed out this is not a black and white issue of someone getting a thrill from chasing an animal. The aim of quarry hunting was always based on population management and not extermination.  Hunting managed this excellently by using the only method that was based firmly on the principles of natural selection. By banning hunting you condemn more foxes to worse deaths, that in many cases do not guarantee there to be no wounding; whilst not keeping the population at a healthy optimum.
		
Click to expand...

Youre making an awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here! You claim the aim of hunting was always population management  what do you mean by this, who determines what the correct population level is, and how is this monitored (after all, it must be monitored to enable you to claim it is carried out excellently by hunts)? BTW, if that really were the case, why wasnt the BFSS ever called the British *Wildlife Management *Society?

I havent made any generalisations about people getting enjoyment from chasing an animal (although I suspect some of your fellow hunt supporters do get their enjoyment this way). My point about sport was more to do with the equestrian aspects for the field and watching hounds work for followers on foot and in their cars. I certainly dont subscribe to the idea youre all a bunch of bloodthirsty sadists, but these reasons for going hunting still amount to entertainment.



combat_claire said:



			You also have to look at the wider picture - hunts manage thousands of acres of woodland, plant and manage many more miles of hedges than the LACS ever will and look after several sites of SSSI designation. That is before you even consider the social and economic importance of hunting and country sports to rural communities both as employer and in supporting the businesses that rely on winter funding from hunting tourism to bolster fragile incomes. Therefore in my mind any legislation which fails to take into account all relevant factors is unacceptable legislation, before you even consider the fact that there are serious concerns about the so called animal welfare priorities of the Hunting Act.
		
Click to expand...

CC, even if all of this is true I cant accept cruelty to animals on the grounds that it happens to result in patches of managed woodland, a disputed number of jobs and something to talk about in the local pub at the end of the day.  



combat_claire said:



			Unnecessary suffering is of course the crux of the argument for all issues relating to animal welfare. I have no problems with rearing animals for meat and milk - I have worked on dairy and stock farms and seen for myself that conditions are more than satisfactory on UK farms, which is why I will where possible only buy the best British produce I can afford. I would rather starve than eat Danish bacon from stall-reared pigs. However I have serious reservations about halal slaughter houses.
		
Click to expand...

Im glad we agree on the crux of the argument as Fiagai seems to think all antis are motivated by class war, and Im heartened to see your concern for the welfare of at least some animals.



combat_claire said:



			As far as hunting is concerned, I am convinced that a, foxes and other quarry species have to be controlled for the benefit of a balanced ecosystem and that b, hunting with hounds is the best form of achieving that management goal. No lamper can guarantee they won't wound a moving target shot by night and condemn the quarry to death by gangrene or starvation where the jaw was shot off. Poisoning and gassing although now outlawed are terrible methods of inflicting death on another species and are completely indiscriminate.
		
Click to expand...

Fine, I doubt nothing I say will shift you from that conviction but I hope others will recognise that this is based on a whole series of unsubstantiated assumptions. Perhaps the most significant is the almost arrogant (no offence intended) way in which it apparently goes without saying that fox populations absolutely have to be controlled/managed, and that hunting is the best method of achieving this.



combat_claire said:



			As a final point, I see domestic pets being dragged round the block every day on my way to the office - overweight, unfit, allowed no time to socialise with other dogs, no time to stop and sniff at interesting scents and fed a processed diet of tinned meat. I admit I haven't done a straw poll of these owners but I suspect most of them would classify themselves as animal lovers and most would also feel that hunting with hounds was cruel. I put it to them - that my hounds which are kept as a pack in a natural social order, fed flesh and bones for healthy nutrition, exercised for miles daily with freedom to express their natural behaviours within reason and the law. I pose the question, which of us is truly cruel??
		
Click to expand...

Youre so right about careless pet owners but I believe its a very poor defence indeed to argue that nothing should be done about A because look whats happening to B. We see this tactic adopted time and again in various debates, most recently against intervention in Libya (why intervene in Libya when far worse is happening in Syria etc etc). I happen to oppose our involvement in this latest foreign escapade, but not because of this 'do nothing' argument  the fact that there will always be greater perceived atrocities occurring isnt sufficient justification to leave alone. Anyway, I digress


----------



## Alec Swan (10 June 2011)

combat_claire,

your last post,  in my view,  is one of the best,  that I've yet to read.  

The OP posed the question of repeal.  I can't ever see it happening.  The antis have satisfied their ill-reasoned arguments,  and government has placated them.  Those who are pro-hunting,  though in greater numbers than those who are opposed,  will need a serious level of support from the conservation bodies,  amongst others,  before the terrible wrongs,  are righted.  I wish that the situation was otherwise.

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (10 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Morning Fiagai. You sound very bitter, if you don&#8217;t mind me saying so.
		
Click to expand...

By any chance have you been here before PaulT?
If the facts are bitter to you then you are of course free to say whatever you wish.  Doesnt change the fact that the Hunting Act was nothing whatsover about banning hunting. (The Act still allows hunting albeit in a different manner)



PaulT said:



			I thought the forerunner of the Countryside Alliance was the British Field *Sports* Society &#8211; bit of a giveaway in the title.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong I'm afraid...




			The Countryside Alliance was created in 1997 as a response to the newly elected Labour Government&#8217;s pledge to ban hunting with dogs. *An amalgamation of three organisations:* The Countryside Business Group, the British Field Sports Society and the Countryside Movement, the Countryside Movement
		
Click to expand...

LINK



In my experience the splitting of hairs is not generally a constructive method for discussion. Comparing the activity of  "sport" as an in your statement "hunting for sport is wrong" with the name of the defunct "British field Sports Society" is disingenuous.  The use of the word "sports" is no longer incorporated precisely because of such underhand tactics and wilful misinterpretation.



PaulT said:



			Am I correct in thinking you are opposed to the basis of animal welfare legislation in the UK for well over 100 years? The legal concept of unnecessary suffering certainly isn&#8217;t new. I have long suspected that many of the more vocal supporters of hunting have a philosophical aversion to animals being legally protected from cruelty, believing animal cruelty to be a private matter (much like the issue of wife beating was not too long ago, rather shockingly).
		
Click to expand...


Paul - you didn't answer the question asked previously...



			Should we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent. Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?
		
Click to expand...

Answer this truthfully and then I will match your answer.  In your original post you have neither defined nor given the scope for your statement  




			To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals.
		
Click to expand...

 So your arguement is meaningless.  By the way since you brought it up - when did you stop beating your wife?

Your opinion remains subjective - many human practices may be defined as causing uneccesary suffering - including some slaughter processes and even the farming of animals but that does not mean it is "uneccesary suffering" as defined by law or practice.  The legislation for domestic animals may be useful if we are talking about domestic animals however we are not doing so in this instance. A quick kill by hounds is in my opinion remains a preferable death to many of the methods proposed by sadly misguided anti hunting individuals.


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

Hi Fiagai. If you believe splitting hairs is not constructive, why do it?

Apologies for not having answered your question. I believe it betrays a lack of understanding on your part about my position. Quite simply, I believe causing unnecessary suffering to animals is morally wrong. This has nothing to do with whether animals understand intent or not, and quite frankly I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of your question.

In terms of the issue of meat-eating, as I've said I'm not an animal rightist. I've nothing in principle against eating meat as long as animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane way.

You say my argument is subjective, but that's the nature of moral conundrums. I'm happy of the evidential foundations for the hunt ban but ultimately, like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour. Such judgements will always be regarded as subjective by those affected by them.

Do you have a philosophical objection to animal welfare legislation, Fiagai?

Forgive me for not including quotes from your previous post, but the mobile version of the forum doesn't appear to allow this functionality.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			....... like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour.........
		
Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that "Government",  and specifically the incumbents,  at the time when the act was passed,  were influenced by any degree of morality,  then you sir,  are living in a dream world.

Tell me again that you're being serious!!  

Alec.


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

Alex, I believe the vast majority of MPs who promoted and voted for the Hunting Act were motivated by the belief that hunting causes unnecessary suffering to animals.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Alex, I believe the vast majority of MPs who promoted and voted for the Hunting Act were motivated by the belief that hunting causes unnecessary suffering to animals.
		
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely sorry to bring you to the real world,  but the word _belief_ can have no validity,  what-so-ever,  when applied to those who we employ,  to direct this land or ours.

Alec (with a C!).

As a foot note,  I have no intention of being pedantic,  the opposite,  but those who banned the pursuit,  of live game,  with hounds or dogs,  only had one thought in mind,  and it was little,  or nothing,  to do with animal welfare,  but everything to do with comfortable placation. a.


----------



## PaulT (10 June 2011)

So sorry Alec for getting your name wrong.


----------



## Fiagai (10 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi Fiagai. If you believe splitting hairs is not constructive, why do it?
		
Click to expand...

Repeating my observations doesnt help this discusion. Would you desist from using such obvious asides thanks.



PaulT said:



			Apologies for not having answered your question. I believe it betrays a lack of understanding on your part about my position. Quite simply, I believe causing unnecessary suffering to animals is morally wrong. This has nothing to do with whether animals understand intent or not, and quite frankly I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of your question.
		
Click to expand...

OK you are at a loss.  Start with your first premise and define what you believe is "unnecessary suffering"   Then some details on what morality base you suscribe to - religous, humanist, new age? Then perhaps we can move to a more constructive discusion.



PaulT said:



			In terms of the issue of meat-eating, as I've said I'm not an animal rightist. I've nothing in principle against eating meat as long as animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane way.
		
Click to expand...

The point here is that many activists do not agree with humans raising and slaughtering animals for consumption - they do not consider it *humane*.  The very act of farming is seem by some as an attack on living organisms causeing what they see as unecessary suffering.  Your definition of meat eating is obviously not as extreme but without acknowledging that what is "humane" to you, may not humane to someone else. Without empirical objectivity however this process is simply the thin of the wedge.

Ban hunting, ban keeping farmed / domestic animals, then ban farming. what future then for rural England?  



PaulT said:



			You say my argument is subjective, but that's the nature of moral conundrums. I'm happy of the evidential foundations for the hunt ban but ultimately, like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour. Such judgements will always be regarded as subjective by those affected by them.
		
Click to expand...

No its subjective because you havent given *Your* definition of "unnessary suffering".   "evidential foundations" Errrhhhh? Politics is almost never based on morality or has evidential foundations .  It may be based on a defined concensus covering a wide range of views and opinions 



PaulT said:



			Do you have a philosophical objection to animal welfare legislation, Fiagai?
		
Click to expand...

Redundant use of perverse logic - we are talking here about your expressed opinions on "unecessary Suffering" and your "morality".


----------



## Alec Swan (10 June 2011)

PaulT,

that's no problem,  at all.  I will have no knowledge of how you live your life,  obviously,  but those of us who live a _truly rural existence_,  are finding that our lives are being,  somehow sanitised,  and all so often at the whim,  of those who give us little thought.  

Our public services,  our village schools,  our social services,  our village post offices:  those things which are the fabric of our existence,  have been eroded away,  by successive governments,  regardless of their persuasion.  Hunting,  a valued and valuable cohesive bond,  was something of a final straw.

It goes far deeper than a ban on hunting,  though because hunting is a convenient handle,  that is what's hung on to by the media,  and the one thing which terrifies government,  is the media.

Never run away with the idea that animal rights are in any way,  anything to do with the hunting ban,  such as it is.  The alternative to hounds,  when it's been argued by those who speak with little experience,  the use of snares for instance,  is a barbaric practice,  and I speak with more experience than most.

You may find this a strange statement,  but I can assure you,  that hunting has little to do with the killing of foxes,  or deer,  and I'd also assure you,  that those with the most deep seated understanding and compassion,  for the quarry,  are those who hunt them.

Alec.


----------



## PaulT (11 June 2011)

Fiagai, in my opinion humans should take all reasonable steps to avoid causing suffering to animals. This very much depends on the situation; for example, making sure pets are regularly fed and watered, live in a suitable environment and, where appropriate, regularly exercised. Perhaps it's best explained by owing animals a duty of care when we interact with them. 

In the case if hunting, I believe hounding them across the countryside for miles on end is intrinsically cruel (not to mention the associated activity of terrierwork). By definition, this causes unnecessary suffering.

In the legal sense, the issue of what is and isn't humane behaviour is up to the courts to interpret, based on legislation passed by Parliament. I've already indicated my views on the subject.

You mention empirical objectivity but I'm sure you're aware there's a whole debate within the social sciences whether this can ever be achieved. Putting these wider philosophical discussions to one side, I'm satisfied there is sufficient evidence that a) wild animals experience pain and fear, and b) hunting is intrinsically cruel because the act of hounding wild animals for miles on end causes unnecessary suffering.

Opinion polls suggest a large majority of the public share this view, as did a large majority of MPs during 2004.

I'm sorry you feel animal welfare legislation is based on 'redundant use of perverse logic'. As I suspected, your comments suggest a deep suspicion of the whole concept of animal welfare, let alone it's place in the legislative sphere. I wonder how many other hunt supporters share these marginal views?


----------



## PaulT (11 June 2011)

Oh, I've just noticed another little gem you've posted, Fiagai. How on earth can you seriously claim that politics is 'almost never based on morality'? The philosophical foundations of modern political theory are grounded in moral judgements. 

That fact aside, what's wrong with politicians reaching moral conclusions based on their experiences and the evidence that's available?


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			.......Opinion polls suggest a large majority of the public share this view, as did a large majority of MPs during 2004........
		
Click to expand...

Opinion polls rely upon the wording of the questions.  As an example,  and if previously asked;
A/  Do you believe hunting with hounds,  to be unjustifiable?

B/  Do you think it wrong,  that a load of upper class,  and wealthy land owners,  who contribute nothing to society,  should be allowed to ride about where they please,  whilst encouraging their dogs,  to rip wild animals to pieces,  whilst the spectacle is enjoyed by the above,  and supposed dilettantes? 

Tell me,  what do you think would be the general response from the general public?  When the question is worded,  as B,  then we both know the answer to that one,  don't we?

A point which you've previously made,  and with the contention that it's wrong for animals to feel fear,  because of man;  have you ever walked very quietly,  through a wood,  on a sunny morning,  and found a fox,  lying in the sun and asleep,  as I have?  Has the fox then bolted in fear?  Had you not been in the wood,  then  perhaps,  you wouldn't have disturbed the poor panic stricken creature.  Perhaps you shouldn't have put yourself in the position,  where you've created fear.  Have you ever bumped deer,  which have been resting on open moorland,  or woodland,  and watched them gallop away?  

All animals live with fear.  It's part of their make up.  If you are so convinced of your argument,  could you explain to me how you would see numbers controlled,  and kept within reasonable bounds,  or are you of the belief,  that every living creature should be entirely free,  from death,  at the hands of man?

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (11 June 2011)

Absolute sense Alec ,in my view experience counts for an awful lot. That is why I too regard snares as barbaric ,and no better than gin traps.
   The other evening I met a released town fox..how did I know? Well it allowed me and a dog to walk directly up to it,and only moved casually when we were 20 feet from it.I hope the releaser is ashamed,it will starve here with no hunting knowledge ,far kinder to have shot it. Our foxes,like all proper country ones,on spotting a human movement put at least a field between it and you,and quickly too.
  Observing our local foxes is a matter of stealth,wind direction and remaining completely still in their sight.


----------



## PaulT (11 June 2011)

Alec, go on, admit it, you made those questions up, didn't you?

You accused me of not being part of the real world; meanwhile, in the real world, reputable polling companies go to great lengths to protect their reputations by making questions as unbiased as possible.

It goes without saying there is a world of difference between the momentary fear felt by wild animals as they sense the presence if man, and the trauma experienced by being chased by a pack of hounds. Your attempt to trivialise the suffering involved in hunting is telling, and it does your credibility no favours at all. 

Yes, animals live with fear. They also live with pain and suffering. You seem to be implying this somehow justifies cruel treatment if them - if not, I don't understand your point in the context of our discussion.


----------



## EAST KENT (11 June 2011)

Trouble is PaulT,these questions are always loaded to get the response required,and asked of people with absolutely no knowledge of wildlife at all.Foxes DO NOT feel fear at the start of a hunt,in fact they often sit and scratch a flea before making off,fear is only felt at the end,when he feels he may after all ,be in danger.Foxes are not hunted close up like that more than once,and have no anecdotal thoughts on pain or death.In fact I have watched many an unhunted fox trot casually off,and look back to the covert where hounds are in insolent disbelieve,completely unworried.
    That is precisely why snares and traps are so cruel..they bring prolonged fear.I guess the best way of control is either "calling" to a rifle,or  flushing with a terrier to an accurate shot,both ways fear would be minimal.
   Those methods and hounds are acceptable ,but none create prolonged fear which is just plain cruel.


----------



## PaulT (11 June 2011)

Hi East Kent. You say polling questions are always loaded. What's loaded about the following question: "To what extent would you support or oppose the legalisation of hunting foxes, stags and hares under the regulation of a governing body?"

You also claim the public, who are being polled, are ignorant of the issues. In my opinion, they are only too aware that hunting involves cruelty, and that's the problem for the hunting lobby. Underestimate most people's concern for animal welfare at your peril.

BTW, I fully support your opposition to snaring. It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			.......BTW, I fully support your opposition to snaring. It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.
		
Click to expand...

Are we to assume that you have an alternative means of fox control?

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			.......BTW,.......It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.
		
Click to expand...

In the event that hunting,  in its purest form is now banned,  perhaps you'd be kind enough,  to suggest an alternative.  I have experience of all the currently "acceptable" systems which are in place,  and will willingly debate with you,  the rights and wrongs of each,  assuming that is,  that you can also speak with a degree of experience,  rather than hypothesis. 

Alec.


----------



## PaulT (11 June 2011)

Alec, you will notice in my previous posts I question the assumption that the fox population needs to be controlled. Sorry if it's an inconvenience, but I'm not prepared to accept this just to make your argument easier. 

I'm still waiting for answers to my previous questions in relation to this. Perhaps one of you would care to provide independent evidence that a) fox populations need to be controlled, and b) hunting is an effective method of doing this?

I really don't mean to be picky but this is rather fundamental to the whole defence of hunting.


----------



## Fiagai (11 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Fiagai, in my opinion humans should take all reasonable steps to avoid causing suffering to animals. This very much depends on the situation; for example, making sure pets are regularly fed and watered, live in a suitable environment and, where appropriate, regularly exercised. Perhaps it's best explained by owing animals a duty of care when we interact with them.
		
Click to expand...

As humans "own" domestic pets whom are relient for food and shelter this scenario does not need any explanation.  There are many misguided individuals who dont have a clue about looking after an animal - this is where humans require legislation to make sure they undertake such duties of care.  This legislation is enacted for humans and not the animals who in their natural state are more than capable of looking after themselves with regard to food, shelter, etc.



PaulT said:



			In the case if hunting, I believe hounding them across the countryside for miles on end is intrinsically cruel (not to mention the associated activity of terrierwork). By definition, this causes unnecessary suffering.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion on this.  I will take it that you are referering to "fox Hunting" and have excluded all other forms of hunting?  In my experience Fox hunting is the most quick and efficient method of control.  



PaulT said:



			In the legal sense, the issue of what is and isn't humane behaviour is up to the courts to interpret, based on legislation passed by Parliament. I've already indicated my views on the subject..
		
Click to expand...

No its not - you said that you believed that "humane" killing methods were acceptable.  You did not mention current allowed methods (which by the way allows controversial halal slaughtering) My point is that whay you believe to be humane more often than not does not match other opinions on the matter.  Just because its your opinion doesnt mean it is so.



PaulT said:



			You mention empirical objectivity but I'm sure you're aware there's a whole debate within the social sciences whether this can ever be achieved. Putting these wider philosophical discussions to one side, I'm satisfied there is sufficient evidence that a) wild animals experience pain and fear, and b) hunting is intrinsically cruel because the act of hounding wild animals for miles on end causes unnecessary suffering.
		
Click to expand...

Yet it is remains the best tool for achieving logical concensus on such important matters.  And to counter your own opinion I am satisfied that all animals (including humans) have fight or flight responses to stimuli.  This is part of an animals instinct.  Hunting is natural - even foxes do it.  Do you think that the act of a hare being persued by a fox is intrinsically cruel because chasing the hare across fields causes unnecessary suffering?  Should we ban hare chasing by foxes perhaps?



PaulT said:



			Opinion polls suggest a large majority of the public share this view, as did a large majority of MPs during 2004.
		
Click to expand...

Could you give the sources for these Opinion Polls?  Most of them as Alec pointed out were undertaken by self interest groups and made up with leading questions on the subject.



PaulT said:



			I'm sorry you feel animal welfare legislation is based on 'redundant use of perverse logic'. As I suspected, your comments suggest a deep suspicion of the whole concept of animal welfare, let alone it's place in the legislative sphere. I wonder how many other hunt supporters share these marginal views?
		
Click to expand...

Tut tut - you are doing it again PaulT.  As previously stated *you* are the one in engaging in the redundant use of perverse logic.  As I have stated Animal welfare legislation is enacted for the benefit of well meaning but often misguided individuals.  Ascribing your thoughts or opinions to others is devisive and as I stated does nothing to progress a logical discussion.


----------



## Fiagai (11 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Oh, I've just noticed another little gem you've posted, Fiagai. How on earth can you seriously claim that politics is 'almost never based on morality'? The philosophical foundations of modern political theory are grounded in moral judgements. 

That fact aside, what's wrong with politicians reaching moral conclusions based on their experiences and the evidence that's available?
		
Click to expand...

My deat PaulT

Theory and practice almost never share the same bed....


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2011)

Would you agree that for any species to develop and progress,  then the weakest,  the oldest,  the _least_ likely,  to promote their own species,  should be allowed a dignified end?  Read the works of the serious anthropologists,  and then tell me,  how any species of animal can develop,  without predation.

Hunting has,  over the centuries,  provided a stock of foxes,  which through the killing of those which would fail to promote their own species,  for all the reasons which are in the above paragraph,  and we've previously arrived in our hitherto happy state.  The snare,  and I agree with you,  an evil engine,  and the gun,  are totally indiscriminate.  The young and healthy,  will die,  as easily as the old and infirm.  Nobody who ignores this fact,  has any right to claim that they have the best interest of the European Red Fox at heart.

If you truly believe that no animal should have a natural predator,  then you and I,  will never reach agreement,  and that would be a shame,  I think.

Alec.


----------



## JenHunt (11 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			combat_claire - your last post,  in my view,  is one of the best,  that I've yet to read.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree Alec. CC - well said.



PaulT said:



			Alex, I believe the vast majority of MPs who promoted and voted for the Hunting Act were motivated by the belief that hunting causes unnecessary suffering to animals.
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid PaulT that, rarely, if ever, are politicians motivated by their own belief(s). My understanding is that they are motivated by the needs and wants of their party.



PaulT said:



			It goes without saying there is a world of difference between the momentary fear felt by wild animals as they sense the presence if man, and the trauma experienced by being chased by a pack of hounds. Your attempt to trivialise the suffering involved in hunting is telling, and it does your credibility no favours at all. 

Yes, animals live with fear. They also live with pain and suffering. You seem to be implying this somehow justifies cruel treatment if them - if not, I don't understand your point in the context of our discussion.
		
Click to expand...

"Fear" in animals is a physiological response - a raised heart rate, the body prepares for the flight or fight response and releases Adrenaline. What humans define as 'fear' is a partly physiological and partly psychological response - and I think that people get the 2 confused and are anthropomorphising the fear response into what they understand it is to be frightened of something. This is not the same as the wild fox's natural inclination to avoid interaction with humans, hounds or indeed even a small domestic dog.



Alec Swan said:



			Would you agree that for any species to develop and progress,  then the weakest,  the oldest,  the _least_ likely,  to promote their own species,  should be allowed a dignified end?  Read the works of the serious anthropologists,  and then tell me,  how any species of animal can develop,  without predation.
		
Click to expand...

PaulT  - in response to your question about why the fox population "needs" to be controlled... please speak to a farmer who raises lambs, chickens or other small stock. The fox has no natural predator in the wild in the UK since the extinction of the wolf (and this is where (the whole of) Alec's quote above comes in). If we do not remove the weakest, oldest or least likely to promote the species from the population, then there will be insufficient food available in the environment to support the population, which is when the older/weaker foxes predate upon lambs, chickens, cats, and other domestic pets. The reason for controlling the population of foxes is therefore 2 fold... 
A) to make sure that the population is healthy and viable
B) to protect a farmer's livelihood, without which they would be likely living on the taxpayers generosity and the face of the UK's rural areas would be totally different.


----------



## JenHunt (12 June 2011)

This is JenHunt's OH here, hijacking her ID as I don't have my own on here.

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but having read all of the above I feel I do have a little to contribute to the discussion. 

I prefer to deal in facts as much as possible, and it is tricky in the Hunting Act debate as _both_ sides of the debate tend to get very emotional and (in my opinion) generally miss what should be the more salient points. I did do some research in to the matter (as a student), prior to living the more rural lifestyle that I do now, prior to ever experiencing Hunting, and prior to having any firm opinion on the matter. I wanted to come to my own conclusions. It was over 10 years ago now but I still try to keep my eye out for any new evidence. And in brief, the main points I found were:

Scientifically, the best way to confirm whether or not an animal experiences 'fear' is to test for raised levels of stress hormones in the blood (taken immediately after the event - which is often of course death). In deer, there was very clear evidence of high levels of stress hormone in blood taken from deer tracked by hounds and then dispatched by rifle, suggesting that they were extremely 'afraid'. At the time I was researching it, no-one had found such similar raised levels in foxes hunted and killed by hounds. The suggestion from the scientific community was that prey animals (which essentially means herbivores) suffer 'fear' when being chased, as part of their genetic make-up, whereas predators (carnivores) did not experience the same 'fear'. The fact that foxes do still 'flee' when chased is the fight-or-flight instinct that _all_ animals (humans included) possess. I search online from time to time for any more evidence on this matter, but have yet to find anything to contradict the above. This was an eye-opener, to learn that not all animals experience 'fear' as such.

The second main point (the research I was conducting was in to the potential effects on animal welfare, foxes in particular, of the Protection of Wild Mammals Act, Scotland - which became law well before the Hunting Act in Westminster), was that none of the alternatives to hunting with hounds was considered more humane by various experts in the field of animal welfare. The main alternatives at the time were snaring, poisoning, and shooting. I hope that the welfare issues surrounding the first two are fairly obvious - indiscriminate, and not an immediate death. Shooting on the other hand _could_ be more humane, but required exceptional skill from the marksman, and was still 'indiscriminate' in the sense that the marksman doesn't distinguish between the old/weak/infirm of the population and the young, fit and healthy. This last point does of course assume (and I don't particularly like assumptions) that the purpose of the activity is to manage the population, rather than completely exterminate it.

So those were the 'facts', on which I began to base my opinion of Hunting.

After that, what I know and believe is based on experience - valid, but worth qualifying as subject to what I have experienced, and gleaned from that experience!

From my contact with farmers in our area, I believe that fox populations need to be controlled in order to minimise the predation of their livestock, which I understand to be the reason that fox hunting exists. They appreciate that the fox population should be managed, rather than completely exterminated, on the basis that they still form part of the ecosystem - their main prey is vermin such as rats and rabbits (which farmers also like to see controlled). Foxes generally prey on livestock when there are either too many foxes in the area (resulting in greater pressure on their usual prey stocks, and also competition for space among themselves), or when they are old, weak or infirm - which means that they are less able to catch their usual prey. Livestock then becomes more attractive as an easy meal as they tend to be unable to flee (as we keep them in fields etc!), which overrides the risks involved in attempting to catch and kill an animal in a herd, and the foxes innate aversion to man and his accoutrements. It is always worth noting that foxes are officially a pest species in this country too, in case anyone is in any further doubt as to why they are hunted (in any fashion).

And finally, I now know that when foxes are caught, the idea that they are ripped limb from limb while still alive is incorrect, a misconception. The reality is that hounds are BIG, with very powerful jaws, and that their instinct upon catching a fox is to grab it by the neck and break it instantly. Well disciplined hounds will then leave the fox alone. It is simple and clinical, which perhaps shouldn't be as surprising as I found it, as the natural world often does things in the most simple and effective way!

If it's ok with anyone reading this, I'm not looking for responses to this, and don't intend to respond to any comments about it - mainly as it is not my account, I am just the OH, and I therefore don't see these forums very often. I do however hope that the above, particularly the initial facts, add something valuable to the discussion.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2011)

I would hope,  that having read,  certainly the last two posts,  that PaulT is giving further thoughts to his beliefs.

I would also hope,  that he's coming to an understanding,  that those who hunt,  genuinely have the well being of their quarry at heart,  and that importantly,  the generally happy state of our wildlife,  is because of those,  who for centuries,  have taken on-board,  the responsibilities of wild life management.

The wildlife of today,  is not to do with as we please.  We have it in trust,  and must account for it to those who come after.  That's a quote from another.  It may well be that the management of the last few centuries,  has been entirely wrong,  and it may well be that the comparatively modern thinking of others,  is correct,  but going by the last 10 years,  or so,  I have my doubts.

Have you given further thought to your views,  PaulT?

Alec.


----------



## combat_claire (13 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi CC. As far back as Feb 2006 the Tories were promoting the idea they would immediately reverse the ban (Telegraph, 18/2/06). More recently, Nick Herbert, then Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, argued that: 'Allowing the new Parliament an early opportunity to revisit a discredited law will not be a distraction from our wider agenda: it will simply be the right thing to do.' (Telegraph, 17/10/09). In the same month Tory party sources were putting it about that a repeal vote would be held 'in the first few months of a Conservative administration' (Daily Mail, 7/10/09). In the run up to last year's election Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski argued the Tories&#8217; credibility would be 'shot to pieces' if they failed to introduce an early repeal vote. 

I'm sure there are plenty more examples but you get the drift of it. It appears my suspicion was well founded.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone could have predicted just how bad the books were until they actually got sight of the documents of Labour maladministration that combined with the Coalition government made a straight out early repeal vote impossible. If a repeal vote has to go on the back burner until the sorry mess of Labour cock up and coalition government is sorted out then so be it. 




PaulT said:



			It&#8217;s interesting you mention section 28 as I would be hard pushed to find a parallel more unlike the hunting example. Reversing the ban on schools and other public bodies from promoting homosexuality was a progressive measure supported by a majority of the public. No prosecutions had been brought under the legislation in the fifteen years of its existence. On the other hand, repeal of the Hunting Act would be a hugely regressive step supported by a tiny minority of the public. At the last count, the total number of convictions under the Hunting Act (in less than half the period of time section 28 existed) was over 150.
		
Click to expand...

You asked for any Act that had been repealed after a long time on the Statute books, I pointed out that S28 was repealed after 15 years, which illustrated my point perfectly that simply by effluxion of time an Act does not become more likely to remain as law. 

It is interesting that you quote the statistic of 150 convictions. The 2010 figures have now been released by the Ministry of Justice which brings the total convictions under the Act to 181; of those just 6 of those relate to registered packs of hounds. That means 97% of the convictions are for poaching offences, which were already illegal under existing legislation. 



PaulT said:



			To develop my political argument a bit further, the evidence referred to above suggests that many of your Tory 'friends&#8217; in Parliament are first and foremost politicians. They may claim to sympathise with your pro-hunt views, some may even hunt themselves, but don't confuse this with necessarily being prepared to 'do the right thing'. Many view the issue of hunting in pragmatic, even mercenary, terms - fully prepared to accept help during election campaigning but, heaven forbid, unexpectedly busy should a repeal vote ever happen. I believe at least one Tory MP has already been accused of using pro-hunt campaigners in this way - I predict more will follow. Stranger things have happened - it's what many politicians do.
		
Click to expand...

That is as maybe, I am no lover of politicians; but if there was an issue that you felt strongly about would you not do everything you could to try and influence governmental policy through lobbying, campaigning etc? If so then you can hardly blame us for trying the same. 



PaulT said:



			Of course groups like the Countryside Alliance need cheerleaders like you to keep supporters' morale up. It's perfectly understandable, but if the situation is anything like the anti-hunt campaign in the early years of the first Labour government, many hunt supporters will be wondering what's happening.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not an official cheerleader for any countryside group (I haven't even been issued any unofficial pom poms) but I can only speak as I see it. Thank you for your concern but I can assure you that hunt supporters are kept well informed as to the current position.


----------



## combat_claire (13 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			What a curious thing to say &#8211; is this rather like arguing the whole premise of the law against murder is a twisted husband&#8217;s intention as he seeks out his wife? Surely there needs to be evidence the dirty deed has been committed before any proceedings can begin, and only then will intent be considered?
		
Click to expand...

This is what a logical, right thinking individual would think the law would say. However the Hunting Act until the High Court when considering the Tony Wright case overturned the appeal in which the CPS argued that the burden of proof should fall on the defendant to prove that he was hunting LEGALLY rather than on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was hunting ILLEGALLY. The whole case hinged on the intention of Mr. Wright upon leaving the kennels that morning. The Hunting Act is so confusing that even the monitors don't seem to understand the finer points of the law unless of course they get a perverse pleasure from making spurious allegations. 





PaulT said:



			I am not a legal expert and feel insufficiently qualified to comment on the finer points of law. However, your point about the use of the Parliament Act was subject to a number of legal challenges, supported by the hunting lobby, and these ultimately failed.
		
Click to expand...

I would refer you to an issue of the New Law Journal (8 October 2004 page 1466 - 1467) in which the arguments for the Act being Ultra Vires are summarised well. The ramifications of declaring the Hunting Act ultra vires and thus all legislation made under the Parliament Act also ultra vires including the War Crimes Act 1991,  European Elections Act 1999 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 were so severe that there was no way the appeal would have found in favour of the hunting lobby's argument. 



PaulT said:



			Surely perceived inconsistencies in the legislation is more an argument to strengthen it rather than scrap it. After all, we wouldn&#8217;t be looking to completely do away with legislation to protect the elderly in care homes on the grounds that it doesn&#8217;t go far enough! I suspect your fundamental objection to the legislation is that you don&#8217;t want to be stopped doing what you enjoy rather than the legislation doesn&#8217;t go far enough.
		
Click to expand...

My concern is that there was never a demonstrable need to legislate against hunting with dogs. if this act was indeed about issues of welfare then why is the Act (and I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the same from cover to cover) silent on what measures will take the place of hunting with hounds. The inconsistencies regarding the protection of game birds v protection of other livestock may seem trivial to yourself but are hugely important in determining the intentions of those who made the law. This is spiteful legislation that has not improved the lot of a single fox, mink, stag or hare. In many cases condemning them to a far more painful or lingering death. After all where is the logic in continuing to insist that the Deer Casualty Service on Exmoor, which is run by the Staghounds can only use 2 hounds to find the injured deer to despatch it with a shot, when it is quicker to pick up blood trails with more hounds. You may poke fun at my interest in the welfare of farm animals as you are already convinced that I am a bloodthirsty killer wrapped up in my own pleasures of the chase - however I would argue that someone who has not fully thought through the welfare implications of the Act is far more cruel than anyone who goes hunting. 


[



PaulT said:



			You&#8217;re making an awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here! You claim the aim of hunting was always population management &#8211; what do you mean by this, who determines what the &#8216;correct&#8217; population level is, and how is this monitored (after all, it must be monitored to enable you to claim it is carried out excellently by hunts)? BTW, if that really were the case, why wasn&#8217;t the BFSS ever called the British *Wildlife Management *Society?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not certain why you seem to be surprised that hunting with hounds has based its arguments on population management. The correct population level is a sustainable one, where pest species such as rabbits and slugs are kept down by foxes, while livestock losses attributed to foxes are kept to a minimum. The entire ecosystem is a delicate balance and as foxes no longer have a top predator to keep numbers in check there has to be some artificial form of population control. I am no ecologist, but as with the hare and woodcock counts presumably there are already efficient wildlife monitoring schemes in place that could be applied to foxes. As for the name, I don't know I am not old enough to be privy to the reasoning of their name. Possibly and this is another wild assumption they wouldn't have got funding from people who thought this was going to be another RSPCA style charity. 



PaulT said:



			I haven&#8217;t made any generalisations about people getting enjoyment from chasing an animal (although I suspect some of your fellow hunt supporters do get their enjoyment this way). My point about sport was more to do with the equestrian aspects for the field and watching hounds work for followers on foot and in their cars. I certainly don&#8217;t subscribe to the idea you&#8217;re all a bunch of bloodthirsty sadists, but these reasons for going hunting still amount to entertainment.
		
Click to expand...

I see wild assumptions aren't limited to my postings then. You suspect that some people get enjoyment from chasing an animal (but with absolutely no factual evidence for this). Most people I know hunt for a variety of reasons - the watching of hound work, the ride/foot following but also there is the knowledge that we are helping to preserve the countryside and doing a job of work. 




PaulT said:



			CC, even if all of this is true I can&#8217;t accept cruelty to animals on the grounds that it happens to result in patches of managed woodland, a disputed number of jobs and something to talk about in the local pub at the end of the day.
		
Click to expand...

The managed areas of woodland are something more than patches. You can read the academic reports on the topic here:

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

The Burns Report & Richard Matson's study have all analysed how many jobs are directly and indirectly related to hunting and country sports. 

However where our opinions differ most is that I do not consider hunting to be cruel, my reasons for supporting this method of fox control have been detailed in previous postings on this thread. If you cannot accept that fox control is necessary, then a discussion regarding the utility of the various methods is pointless. 




PaulT said:



			Fine, I doubt nothing I say will shift you from that conviction but I hope others will recognise that this is based on a whole series of unsubstantiated assumptions.
		
Click to expand...

On the contrary I have attempted to back up the majority of what I have said with academic argument. Where it is my personal opinion I have clearly stated that. 




PaulT said:



			You&#8217;re so right about careless pet owners but I believe it&#8217;s a very poor defence indeed to argue that nothing should be done about A because look what&#8217;s happening to B. We see this tactic adopted time and again in various debates, most recently against intervention in Libya (why intervene in Libya when far worse is happening in Syria etc etc). I happen to oppose our involvement in this latest foreign escapade, but not because of this 'do nothing' argument &#8211; the fact that there will always be greater perceived atrocities occurring isn&#8217;t sufficient justification to leave alone. Anyway, I digress&#8230;
		
Click to expand...

I am not saying that something shouldn't be done about A because B is also happening. My posting was to illustrate the sheer hypocrisy of the anti-hunting lobby compared with the benefits that hunting has. Incidentally the Baronsdown 'Reserve' is well documented to have serious flaws in its deer management. The supplementary feeding led to unsustainable levels of deer on such a small area. There has also been horrific footage of the way the deer had been culled. If that is how the anti-hunting lobby would see all of the countryside managed then God help our wildlife.


----------



## combat_claire (13 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Alec, go on, admit it, you made those questions up, didn't you?

You accused me of not being part of the real world; meanwhile, in the real world, reputable polling companies go to great lengths to protect their reputations by making questions as unbiased as possible.
		
Click to expand...

That may have been a made-up question, however I was asked to take part in a Yougov Poll commissioned by the LACS. This asked me to tick which activities I thought were morally right - they listed fox hunting alongside badger baiting & cock fighting. Hardly an unbiased question.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Alec, go on, admit it, you made those questions up, didn't you?.......
		
Click to expand...

Of course they were made up questions,  but they were made,  to make a point.

Do you honestly believe,  that the likes the the LACS, _actually allow_ those who are conducting the surveys,  which _they are paying for_,  and permit a questionnaire,  without their prior approval? 

Well,  do you?

Alec.


----------



## Paddydou (13 June 2011)

Hi Paul T and welcome to our community!

I thought that you may like to hear my views. I was an anti had all the posters up on my walls as a child and then as a teenager I grew into what could be called a very part time activist. I attended one, and only one, anti hunt demonstration. At this demonstration I saw hunting folk act with decorum and dignity while we were all encouraged to harm people, hounds and horses - anything and in any way possible. Because of this I realised that I had not given both sides of the argument proper care and attention. I backed off and returned to the cars not even having pulled my balaclava down over my face. In short I was a failure at causing anarchy and mayhem. Having investigated and come to my own conclusion I will *never* play a part in any anti hunt demonstration again and I was present on every one of the Marches. I went on to work with many hunters as a freelance groom and am still in touch with many of them 20 years on. Should there be another march or pro hunt demonstration that does not lead to violence I will be there. Simsar is actually my hero for her hand cuff incident but I doubt I could be so brave.

Why the change of heart? What animal lover would maim and not swiftly dispatch? The anti as I found out... I was disgusted by the behaviour and what I was being asked and encouraged to do. No law abiding person would engage in such acts and I felt that it really was not for me to try and hurt others or degrade others while hiding behind a mask. "Others" includes animals as well as humans - including Mr Fox!

Sadly this world is not perfect. Humans are over populating it and in truth we are the worst of all the vermin there are. Because of this there is not the room for nature as we would hope and in order to preserve the vast diversity of species it requires careful management to ensure that we as human can survive, that the rest of our flora, forna and indeed native creatures have enough space and food to co exisit alongside our stock of domesticated animals.

Trapping - as all other hunters have said are dispicable. No true animal lover nor lover of the rural way would ever use such a terrible contraption. They are dangerous for all species and should never have been invented. 

Poisoning - again far too dangerous and hap-hazard could cause irepairable damage and should be discarded as an option with out even considering it.

Shooting - While there are many fantastic guns out there they will tell you how very difficult it is to actually kill a fox with out being close. To get close to a wild fox is a rare event (as it should remain so they are after all supposed to live in the wilds and not in the streets of our towns) so the likelihood of the kill being clean is not high enough in my opinion. 

Hunting (at its most terrible) - The hunts will never catch a heathy fit fox. They are far too bright to allow a bunch of horses and hounds to sneak up on them. Any hunting folk will tell you this. The fox is a bright creature that can easilly "out fox" a group seeking to bring about its end. An older, more fragile or ill fox (also the ones that are far more likely to worry stock and that would if nature took its cause would be the first to go to allow room for the others anyway) will be easier to catch and dispatch. The end may not have always been pretty in the past but it was quick and effective. To my mind this is a far better way.

I had to put down one of my chooks a week or so ago. After fiddling trying to get the needle in to do the job I decided it would be much quicker, less painful and far better for the old girl if we just broke her neck. We did, it was swift and much easier on the lass than if we had faffed about poking needles into her. The end was not pretty but it was much more humane. Hunting is to my mind alone these same lines. 

Life is not perfect and we often have to do or accept things that we would rather not if we didn't we would actually be causing far greater suffering than if we took action.

Read any reports on the hunts by the hunters and you will find the most exciting chases are always the one that got away not the one that was caught. Hunters are not a breed of man who are blood thirsty, rich villans (I also doubt that many have white cats and expect Mr Bond to die either) but mere mortals who have accepted that life is not perfect and it is up to *someone* to try and protect and preserve what we have left for the future. It is a dirty job and while I would never wish to be up front when it happens I am grateful to the people who are. 

I prefer not to club the rabbits that my dogs catch while they are out and about but if it means that they do not suffer then I am duty bound to do so. Same principles apply. 

I have, since looking into it for myself, never regarded hunting as a mere "sport". To my mind it is not. Yes the "sporting" element is there but not in the way of other occupations in the clasification of "sport" and the word itself is used in a very different context when discussing hunting. Certainly not enough to my mind to classify it as such and only a fool would do so. Hunting is many things, its education, social, population control, it is a group of people who raise enormous amounts for charities, people who club together to be a part of a wider team to look after what little of the countryside we have left, it is volunteering... I could go on and on... It is so very much more than the vast majority of anti hunt folk see.

I congratulate you for trying to open your eyes and questioning our beliefs. You will find that the hunting community is a very strong one full of a wide and diverse group of people who really do truly love the countryside around them. We really do want the very best and seek to do that not just for us but for the generations that follow. Its very easy to demonise a group who kill animals who do look pretty and cute but that is far from the reality of the hunts work. We are not revolutionaries and we are not extreemists. Just every day folk trying to preserve many things in one go.

Sadly in my experience those who have stood up against hunting have done so with very little thought or consideration. I have found that the majority are not very nice to be around and not the sort of people I would like to be near. Alec's examples of the loaded questions are not very far off of the mark. How on earth do you think so much anger was drummed up? its called propoganda and while I hate to catagorise the Nazis used it very well back in the 40's. If you word it correctly and shout it passionatly enough fools will follow. Many of those fools are also bullys. Just because we are in the minority and we have no intention of being untruthful or of goading and pressurising folk into having the same opinion as ours doesn't mean that we do not have a valid point to make.

I hope that much of this has made sense to you. I am a known waffler. Claire and Alec are fantastic at explaining these matters in far better ways than I can as do East Kent and Janet George. Judgemental does sometimes go a bit over the top but his heart is in the right place. Rosie and Simsar will gladly help and guide you and will try not to judge you. In short all the people on this board will welcome you and guide you without judgement nor ridicule (they may get a bit frustraited and short tempered at times but don't we all). Try to imagine a group of anti hunt people being like that... It wouldn't happen...


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

I leave the forum for a couple of days and look what happens . I will try to answer as many of your points as I can but I don't have the luxury of being able to spend hours on end at my PC every day. 

Fiagai, you argue that because humans own domestic animals, they are reliant on us for food and shelter. Quite true, but when we interact with wild animals don't we also owe them a duty of care? Or do you believe that just because they are wild, they don't deserve to be protected from acts of cruelty?

You have a habit of asking what I think and when you get an answer you claim it's just my subjective judgement - of course it is, my opinion is by definition subjective judgement!  However, speaking for myself, I prefer to base my judgements as far as possible on as much independent evidence that is available. As a result I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that hunting causes unnecessary suffering, although it doesn't surprise me that you have reached a different conclusion.

You mentioned the need to reach logical consensus - what about those issues where consensus is extremely elusive, possibly even a pipe dream? Parliament has wrestled with, and formed judgements on, such issues for hundreds of years (despite your strange comment about politics almost never being based on morality) . According to your logic, perhaps those who voted for the abolition of slavery during the nineteenth century should have kept their subjective moral judgements to themselves.

Your comment that 'hunting is natural, even foxes do it' concerns me, as it is really saying it's ok for humans to behave like foxes. It takes me back to one of my original points - humans have the ability to empathise, foxes (as far as I know) don't. It is because we are able to understand the consequences of our actions that we have a responsibility to avoid the unnecessary suffering we have been discussing.

You ask about the source of the opinion poll data. The poll I referred to in my discussion with Alec was carried out by YouGov between 8th and 10th December. As no one appears to have raised objections about the wording of the question, I assume everyone is content that it wasnt biased in the way Alec originally described.

Do you not think animal welfare legislation is enacted for the benefit of the animals it seeks to protect?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Would you agree that for any species to develop and progress,  then the weakest,  the oldest,  the _least_ likely,  to promote their own species,  should be allowed a dignified end?  Read the works of the serious anthropologists,  and then tell me,  how any species of animal can develop,  without predation.

Hunting has,  over the centuries,  provided a stock of foxes,  which through the killing of those which would fail to promote their own species,  for all the reasons which are in the above paragraph,  and we've previously arrived in our hitherto happy state.  The snare,  and I agree with you,  an evil engine,  and the gun,  are totally indiscriminate.  The young and healthy,  will die,  as easily as the old and infirm.  Nobody who ignores this fact,  has any right to claim that they have the best interest of the European Red Fox at heart.

If you truly believe that no animal should have a natural predator,  then you and I,  will never reach agreement,  and that would be a shame,  I think.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

PaulT,

It's with a degree of embarrassment that I'm re-quoting myself,  but before we discuss the morality of our existence,  or our own sense of being,  could you address the questions which I've posed?

I suppose that what I'm actually getting at,  is do you consider that there should be no predation,  upon foxes,  at all,  and if as I suspect,  and from your previous statements,  you feel that there shouldn't be,  do you have any answer,  as to how the elderly,  the sick and those who will compete for an existence,  within a species,  support the well being,  and promotion,  of that species?

It is not my intention,  to in anyway trip you up,  I would however,  be interested to hear your thoughts.

Alec.


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Hi JenHunt's OH. Many thanks for your input as I believe you are the first pro-hunter on this thread to refer to evidence, which is refreshing. Yes, Alec, the comments provided certainly have made me think again about my views.

JenHunts OH, you base your comments on the research carried out for the Scottish Parliament. Below are a few conclusions from the report completed specifically for the Scottish Parliament (Scottish Rural Development Committee 10th Report 2001. Stage 1 Report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, Volume 1) - all highlighting is mine:

"The mounted hunt, attended by hunt followers, *does not appear to be a very necessary activity: it is a form of entertainment, an inefficient means of controlling fox numbers and there are alternative methods available*...

Turning to the question of suffering, the Committee found that the spectator, or sporting element of mounted hunting relates to the chase, and not the kill, which few people actually witness. There is a mass of conflicting evidence on whether or not the chase imposes stress or suffering, or compromises the welfare of the fox. *On the basis, however, that the chase may be protracted to ensure good sport, the Committee reflected that foxes probably do suffer stress when chased by mounted hunts*...

The Committee agrees that the Bill will have an impact, more so in the Borders and in isolated communities which depend on shooting for game... The Committee concluded that, as long as individual circumstances are taken into account when the detail of this Bill is considered, these economic factors alone are not enough to justify unnecessary suffering...

The question of biodiversity was also raised in written evidence, explaining that foxes caught by the hounds are usually old, infirm or previously injured, which helps to conserve the species. However, that argument also led the Committee to consider that it allowed the most active predators to escape...

There appears, however, to be a distinct and separate group of terrier owners who take pride in the abuse of the terriers' ability to fight. Mike Watson has referred in his final statement to the magazine "Earth Dog Running Dog", which has published boasts of owners that the scars on their dogs are treated as badges of honour... 

The Committee makes clear that it abhors any such form of "fox-baiting", whether carried out using dogs or otherwise and we are concerned that the animal welfare agencies have been unable so far to secure any prosecution under existing legislation. The law as it stands provides little protection and the Committee recommends that this issue be examined by the Scottish Executive if this Bill does not proceed beyond stage 1...

The MLURI report showed that mounted hunts account for a small proportion of the foxes killed in Scotland. The Committee wanted to establish how effective this form of hunting was if it was to be considered as a means of pest control. Mr Gilmour suggested that mounted hunts kill about 1 in every 10 foxes that are flushed out by the hounds... 

The Committee found that the presence of spectators, the relatively small numbers of foxes killed by mounted hunts, and the fact that the worst predators often escape brought into question the effectiveness of mounted hunts as a means of pest control, and therefore their necessity."

You appear to base your assumption that foxes need to be controlled on the views of farmers. I would certainly question farmers abilities to accurately assess levels of foxes on their land, let alone levels of fox predation and the efficiency of hunting as a method of population control:

...*farmers appear to over-estimate the density of foxes by 5-18 times*, possibly as a consequence of a single litter of cubs being split, giving the misleading appearance of two litters instead of one or because the same litter of cubs has been moved from one den to another. (Management of the Population of Foxes, Deer, Hares and Mink and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs.  Piran White ,Philip Baker,Geraldine Newton Cross  , James Smart, Rebecca Moberly , Graeme McLaren ,Rachel Ansell , and Stephen Harris, Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO1 5DD, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG,Myerscough College, Bilsborrow, Preston, Lancashire PR3 ORY (Research Report to the Burns Committee))

it is worth noting that farmers consistently over-estimate the number of foxes killed by foxhunts on their land, as these estimates can be compared with the records of the hunts themselves... For example, Baines et al. (1995) stated that the culling intensity quoted by farmers for hunts (0.47 foxes/km2/year; Table A2.6) was actually four times as high as the value quoted by the hunts themselves (0.11 foxes/km2/year). Similarly, in the study of Heydon & Reynolds (2000) farmers over-estimated kills made by hunts on their land by six to 11 fold. (White et al)

There was a five-fold difference between Wiltshire farmers estimates of the density of foxes killed by the hunt (averaging 0.46 foxes per km2) and figures provided by the hunt Masters (which revealed that in fact just 0.09 foxes were killed per km2). It is almost certain that farmers estimates of the number of foxes killed by the hunt on their land includes some double counting, possibly resulting from uncertainty regarding the fate of a fox which, at some stage of the chase, crossed their land. (Management and Control of Populations of Foxes, Deer, Hares, and Mink in England and Wales, and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs.  Macdonald, D.W., Tattersall, F.H. ,Johnson, P.J.,Carbone, C., Reynolds, J.C., Langbein, J., Rushton, S.P. and Shirley, M.D.F. ,Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Dept. of Zoology, South Parks Rd., Oxford, OX1 3PS; The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF; Wildlife Research Consultant, "Greenleas", Chapel Cleeve, Minehead, Somerset TA24 6HY; Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Porter Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU (Research Report to the Burns Committee).

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

*Despite the widespread belief that foxes are serious predators of livestock, there is evidence to suggest that their importance is generally over-estimated* and that, in fact, they are responsible for only a minor percentage of losses and that they are substantially less important than other forms of mortality (White et al)

Sorry to provide so many quotes but I think this research, carried out for the Burns Inquiry, specifically addresses the point which JenHunts OH raises. How on earth can farmers properly assess whether foxes need to be controlled by hunts if they havent a clue about the number of foxes on their land, levels of predation and the effectiveness of hunts? As MacDonald et al observed:

Whether or not a species really causes the damage it is accused of is central to the validity of any control programme. *If the species is not, in fact, the cause of the damage, then a programme to control its population will be misplaced at best, and counterproductive at worst, as resources will be directed away from the real source of the problem*.


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

JenHunt said:



			PaulT  - in response to your question about why the fox population "needs" to be controlled... please speak to a farmer who raises lambs, chickens or other small stock.
		
Click to expand...

Hi JenHunt. According to the research reports commissioned by Burns:

"Therefore, farmers appear to greatly over-estimate [sheep] losses to foxes. Potential explanations for this include incorrectly assigning carcasses found to foxes (including lambs that have been killed and those that have been scavenged) and assuming that missing lambs have been killed by foxes when they may have died from other causes. Both of these are likely to occur. 

...as with lambs, the impact of foxes on commercial poultry production is significantly less than popularly supposed. And predation by foxes can easily be prevented by adequate housing" (White et al - see previous post for full reference).


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I don't think anyone could have predicted just how bad the books were until they actually got sight of the documents of Labour maladministration that combined with the Coalition government made a straight out early repeal vote impossible. If a repeal vote has to go on the back burner until the sorry mess of Labour cock up and coalition government is sorted out then so be it.
		
Click to expand...

 
CC, you originally referred to my suspicion that leading Tories made promises of early repeal as nonsense. I provided evidence that this actually was the case - are you willing to admit you were mistaken?




combat_claire said:



			You asked for any Act that had been repealed after a long time on the Statute books, I pointed out that S28 was repealed after 15 years, which illustrated my point perfectly that simply by effluxion of time an Act does not become more likely to remain as law.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for examples of Acts which had been repealed after a long time. My comments relating to the length of time the Act will have been in place by the time of the next election were specific to the Hunting Act. I agree that even if a regressive piece if legislation, which is opposed by a majority of the public and has been in place for many years, it is still likely to be repealed. However, as I pointed out, this isn't the case with the Hunting Act.



combat_claire said:



			It is interesting that you quote the statistic of 150 convictions. The 2010 figures have now been released by the Ministry of Justice which brings the total convictions under the Act to 181; of those just 6 of those relate to registered packs of hounds. That means 97% of the convictions are for poaching offences, which were already illegal under existing legislation.
		
Click to expand...


As I've already explained, I'm not a legal expert so could well be wrong but I thought the concept of poaching was more to do with issues of trespass and lack of permission from landowners over whose land animals are killed - doesn't separate legislation already exist to deal with this? The Hunting Act addresses issues of cruelty, whether perpetrated by mounted hunts or the local village yob. As such the conviction rates clearly show the Act is working; if there were no convictions you would be pointing to this as evidence the Act wasn't working.

In any case, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice recently said in a written answer:

"It is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations". 

Therefore we only have the Countryside Alliance's interpretation of how many individuals convicted under the Act were associated with registered hunts.




combat_claire said:



			That is as maybe, I am no lover of politicians; but if there was an issue that you felt strongly about would you not do everything you could to try and influence governmental policy through lobbying, campaigning etc? If so then you can hardly blame us for trying the same.
		
Click to expand...

Of course not, even if that means keeping morale up amongst the troops by 'glossing over' certain inconvenient facts.


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			PaulT,

It's with a degree of embarrassment that I'm re-quoting myself,  but before we discuss the morality of our existence,  or our own sense of being,  could you address the questions which I've posed?

I suppose that what I'm actually getting at,  is do you consider that there should be no predation,  upon foxes,  at all,  and if as I suspect,  and from your previous statements,  you feel that there shouldn't be,  do you have any answer,  as to how the elderly,  the sick and those who will compete for an existence,  within a species,  support the well being,  and promotion,  of that species?
		
Click to expand...

Hi Alec. In terms of 'population management' I believe killing foxes is futile:

" culling does not necessarily produce a proportional decrease in abundance or damage: for example, other animals may move into vacant territory or birth rates may increase in response to lower population density; and damage may be caused by particular individuals. It is therefore important to distinguish between attempted and achieved population control, and to bear in mind that a reduction in population does not necessarily translate into a pro rata reduction in a perceived problem." (Burns Report, 2000)

In terms of the implication that hunts only kill the weak, elderly and sick foxes:

"The question of biodiversity was also raised in written evidence, explaining that foxes caught by the hounds are usually old, infirm or previously injured, which helps to conserve the species. However, that argument also led the Committee to consider that it allowed the most active predators to escape." (Scottish Rural Affairs Committee Report, see previous post for reference). Do you really want a system of control which is supposed to let the most active predators roam free?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			.......Do you really want a system of control which is supposed to let the most active predators roam free?

Click to expand...

Well done!! *YES* that's exactly what we want.  Those are the foxes which will reproduce,  survive the rearing process,  and produce the strongest of cubs,  ensuring a future generation,  and it's worked like that since hunting began.  Correction:  until 2006.

I have perhaps more experience of coursing,  than hunting.  During the early year meets,  when the lead up weather has been exceptionally wet,  the slipper will view the first few courses with a keen eye.  Should the first few hares,  through the mews,  be killed all to easily,  then the next will be offered a greater degree of law.  I have seen a coursing meeting abandoned,  voluntarily,  because the sport was non existent.  The idea of coursing,  is to test a pair of greyhounds,  it is not the death of a hare.  

If every time that hounds met,  foxes died,  or if every time that greyhounds are in the slips,  then hares died,  it would no longer be sport,  and would be anathema,  to those who care.

Whilst you may well find this hard to accept,  your undoubted level of care,  for wildlife,  is neither more,  nor less,  than those with whom you argue.  Think about it.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			In terms of the implication that hunts only kill the weak, elderly and sick foxes:

"The question of biodiversity was also raised in written evidence, explaining that foxes caught by the hounds are usually old, infirm or previously injured, which helps to conserve the species. However, that argument also led the Committee to consider that it allowed the most active predators to escape." (Scottish Rural Affairs Committee Report, see previous post for reference). Do you really want a system of control which is supposed to let the most active predators roam free?

Click to expand...

Hi PaulT

In terms of the killing of weak, elderly and sick foxes:

MANY years ago I worked on a sheep station in Oz where killing foxes was taken VERY seriously.  The owner - who'd farmed the 12,000+ acres for more than 50 years - was very strict on who shot foxes; when I arrived I was 'allowed' to shoot rabbits only until he was convinced I was a good shot.  He only allowed foxes to be shot with .303s - because he believed nothing less could guarantee an outright kill!!  Was he humane??  Not particularly!  He KNEW - from many years experience - that it was weaker and injured foxes who chose the 'easy pickings' of the lambing paddocks!

Now given that NO snares and no shotguns were used on that 12,000+ acres, it was interesting that more than 70% of the foxes shot on that station had shotgun wounds - or were wearing wire!  They travelled quite big distances to get to the lambing fields!  Of course sometimes they just took afterbirth or dead lambs - but they happily took live lambs too.  It was NOT uncommon to find a headless lamb - the head being 'snatched' while the ewe was giving birth!

Hunting is NOT about killing the greatest number of foxes - a couple of chaps who can shoot well can win hands down on that score - particularly if they can squeak foxes into range.  It is about reducing predation.  That means targetting foxes most likely to seek easy pickings - it also means keeping foxes scared of the smell and sound of dogs!!  Hunting fits both those criteria - and I would argue that it SAVES foxes from unnecessary slaughter in more ways than one!


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Hi Alec. I'm not sure you've fully thought through the implications of supporting a system of control which allows the most active predators to survive. Remember, these are the same predators which are accused of taking lambs, poultry, piglets


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Apologies for incomplete previous post. To continue... and gamebirds. Are you sure hunting is supposed to result in reduced predation if it causes the most active predators to escape?

I accept that hunting isn't about population extermination (never said it was), but are you really sure you would want the most active predators running free?


----------



## PaulT (14 June 2011)

Hi Janet. Given all foxes are opportunistic I'm not so convinced it's only weak and sickly foxes that are more prone to pick on livestock. Are you aware of any independent research which has been carried out into this?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Would you agree that for any species to develop and progress,  then the weakest,  the oldest,  the _least_ likely,  to promote their own species,  should be allowed a dignified end?  Read the works of the serious anthropologists,  and then tell me,  how any species of animal can develop,  without predation.

Hunting has,  over the centuries,  provided a stock of foxes,  which through the killing of those which would fail to promote their own species,  for all the reasons which are in the above paragraph,  and we've previously arrived in our hitherto happy state.  The snare,  and I agree with you,  an evil engine,  and the gun,  are totally indiscriminate.  The young and healthy,  will die,  as easily as the old and infirm.  Nobody who ignores this fact,  has any right to claim that they have the best interest of the European Red Fox at heart.

If you truly believe that no animal should have a natural predator,  then you and I,  will never reach agreement,  and that would be a shame,  I think.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

PaulT,

yet again,  would you care to address the questions which I've asked?  I'm looking to find common ground,  by sensible debate,  but if you insist,  as would be apparent,  upon ignoring those points,  which I've raised,  then I see little point in continuing.

It's a simple fact of life,  I'm sorry to tell you,  that those who rely upon the reports of others,  and cannot speak from experience,  spend their time clutching at straws.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Hi Janet. Given all foxes are opportunistic I'm not so convinced it's only weak and sickly foxes that are more prone to pick on livestock. Are you aware of any independent research which has been carried out into this?
		
Click to expand...

It's not ONLY - as you say, foxes are opportunistic predators: a cast ewe is a good takeaway; as is a calving cow!  And I think it would be almost impossible to design a research project that would work!  As I said: on 12,000+ acres where NO foxes were shot with shotguns or snares, 70% of the foxes shot around the lambing paddocks were either carrying lead or wearing wire - that suggests SOMETHING does it not??

Research projects areoften flawed:  I remember one done by MAFF - they dumped new-born lambs in icey water!  Guess what - a lot of them died.  ANY shepherd could have told them the result before they made new-born lambs suffer a nasty death from hypothermia!  But hell, they couldn't listen to people who KNEW - it needed 'research'!!


----------



## Fiagai (14 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Fiagai, you argue that because humans own domestic animals, they are reliant on us for food and shelter. Quite true, but when we interact with wild animals don't we also owe them a duty of care? Or do you believe that just because they are wild, they don't deserve to be protected from acts of cruelty?
		
Click to expand...

It goes without argument that humans have control of domestic animals and they are by default relient on us.  Wild animals live outside this sphere of human dependancy. They retain their wild instincts and are not depenadnt on humans for food and shelter.  However we have so modified the natural environment that we have removed their natural predators and provided easy prey in the form of domestic animals whose instict for survival has been modified.  In my experience the controling of foxes who predate on domestic animals (these foxes are more often the old, infirm and sick individuals) by hounds is far less "cruel" than all the other methods suggested as alternatives such as wire and inexpert shooting.  Are you suggesting that the hare chased by the fox should be rescued because "we" deem it to be cruel?  What you think of being "cruel" is actually a necessary and quick method of control.  To repeat myself once again - Just because you think it cruel does not make it so



PaulT said:



			You have a habit of asking what I think and when you get an answer you claim it's just my subjective judgement - of course it is, my opinion is by definition subjective judgement!  However, speaking for myself, I prefer to base my judgements as far as possible on as much independent evidence that is available. As a result I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that hunting causes unnecessary suffering, although it doesn't surprise me that you have reached a different conclusion.
		
Click to expand...

This is because opinion is based on perception, it is just that - subjective. I prefer not to base my own opinion on the evidence or hyperbole of self interest groups but to draw my experience from first hand experience. In my experience other methods of control cause more suffering precisely because the fox will often crawl away to die - slowly and agonisingly.



PaulT said:



			You mentioned the need to reach logical consensus - what about those issues where consensus is extremely elusive, possibly even a pipe dream? Parliament has wrestled with, and formed judgements on, such issues for hundreds of years (despite your strange comment about politics almost never being based on morality) . According to your logic, perhaps those who voted for the abolition of slavery during the nineteenth century should have kept their subjective moral judgements to themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Modern politics processes are more often than not based on a balance of power and biased lobbying - there are good laws and bad laws (the Hunting Act).  I believe he Hunting Act has been demonstrated unequivically to be a bad law.  I would prefer legislation to ensure that hunting methods for predator control are both efficient and quick.  In my experience hunting with hounds fulfil both these criteria.

PaulT - you have made use of some quite twisted and bizare analogies such as wife beating and slavery when attempting to defend your argument.  These analogies do not add validty but simply make a nonsense of progressing a logical argument.



PaulT said:



			Your comment that 'hunting is natural, even foxes do it' concerns me, as it is really saying it's ok for humans to behave like foxes. It takes me back to one of my original points - humans have the ability to empathise, foxes (as far as I know) don't. It is because we are able to understand the consequences of our actions that we have a responsibility to avoid the unnecessary suffering we have been discussing.
		
Click to expand...

This is a common mistake of people who project their feelings onto animals - believing that because they feel in a certain way - the animal must do as well.  This had led to some very unfortunate incidents where people attempt to hug bears and climb into lion enclosures with inevitable results.  Again it is your "opinion" that it is unecessary suffering.  Would you prefer to round up all wild predators just because you understand the consequence of their actions but they dont and it therefore becomes incumbent because of your ability to reason on you to reducate or redirect them?



PaulT said:



			You ask about the source of the opinion poll data. The poll I referred to in my discussion with Alec was carried out by YouGov between 8th and 10th December. As no one appears to have raised objections about the wording of the question, I assume everyone is content that it wasn&#8217;t biased in the way Alec originally described.
		
Click to expand...

I took it you were refering to a range of polls?  Pehaps providing relevant quotes would allow posters to refer relevant comments on individual polls.



PaulT said:



			Do you not think animal welfare legislation is enacted for the benefit of the animals it seeks to protect? 

Click to expand...

As I have stated animal welfare legislation has been enacted for humans and not the animals who in their natural state are more than capable of looking after themselves with regard to food, shelter.


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			PaulT,

yet again,  would you care to address the questions which I've asked?  I'm looking to find common ground,  by sensible debate,  but if you insist,  as would be apparent,  upon ignoring those points,  which I've raised,  then I see little point in continuing.

It's a simple fact of life,  I'm sorry to tell you,  that those who rely upon the reports of others,  and cannot speak from experience,  spend their time clutching at straws.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Alec.  I'm extremely disappointed at your tetchy response and aversion to independent scientific research. Your willingness to dismiss these scientific studies, which show the danger of relying on gut feeling and so called 'experience', and instead rely on the say so of your pro-hunting friends does you a disservice. 

You claim I failed to answer your questions but I dealt with the bit where you said I suppose that what I'm actually getting at, is do you consider that there should be no predation, upon foxes, at all, although accept I overlooked the second part of your question, for which I apologise.



Alec Swan said:



			and if as I suspect, and from your previous statements, you feel that there shouldn't be, do you have any answer, as to how the elderly, the sick and those who will compete for an existence, within a species, support the well being, and promotion, of that species?
		
Click to expand...

In the context of hunting, this rather presupposes that hunting targets the weak and sickly foxes and yet I havent seen any evidence of this (yes, were back to having to substantiate points with the use of evidence, a concept widely accepted outside the realms of this forum). Given that approximately one thirds of foxes killed by MFHA hunts are dug out (according to Burns), there is no evidence that the majority of these are likely to be weak or sickly  a healthy fox is just as likely to go to ground as a weak one.

Research conducted by Baker & Harris (1997) suggests that hunting, in common with most other forms of fox control, takes place in the autumn and the winter and mainly selects immature males who are seeking out new territories. They conclude that killing these foxes will have little overall effect on the size of the breeding population in the spring. Indeed, Baker, Harris & White (2006) conclude:

There are widespread claims that hunts only killed sick or weak foxes. There are no data to support such assertions. Furthermore, it was highly unlikely that practices such as cub hunting, where woods were surrounded and the foxes prevented from escaping, blocking earths to prevent hunted foxes going to ground, and digging out any animals that did manage to escape, could have been in any way selective.

The notion of only killing weak and sickly animals is lovely in theory (designed, I suspect, to appeal to the pet owning masses ) but Ive yet to see evidence that any method of killing is able to target these animals in practice. Meanwhile, in the evidence-free world you inhabit, where only weak and sickly foxes are supposed to be killed by hunts, the most active predators run free!


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			It goes without argument that humans have control of domestic animals and they are by default relient on us.  Wild animals live outside this sphere of human dependancy. They retain their wild instincts and are not depenadnt on humans for food and shelter.  However we have so modified the natural environment that we have removed their natural predators and provided easy prey in the form of domestic animals whose instict for survival has been modified.  In my experience the controling of foxes who predate on domestic animals (these foxes are more often the old, infirm and sick individuals) by hounds is far less "cruel" than all the other methods suggested as alternatives such as wire and inexpert shooting.  Are you suggesting that the hare chased by the fox should be rescued because "we" deem it to be cruel?  What you think of being "cruel" is actually a necessary and quick method of control.  To repeat myself once again - Just because you think it cruel does not make it so
		
Click to expand...

Im fully aware of the difference between domestic and wild animals, but you still havent said whether you feel humans owe a duty of care to wild animals when we interact with them. Ive stated my views because you asked for them, and Ive provided evidence in other posts which counter the assumptions implicit in your posts. Like a number of other contributors to this forum, you expect me to unquestionably accept your assertions despite the fact that evidence suggests the opposite.

You spend much of your time questioning the notion of animal welfare and the concept of cruelty without actually explaining whether you think any animal deserves protection from the excesses of human behaviour. The nearest I can see youve got to acknowledgement that animal welfare legislation of domestic animals has its uses is when you appear to suggest it benefits humans.

Yet again you compare hunting to what wild animals do, as though this justifies our behaviour. In doing so, you fail to grasp the essential difference between humans and other animals, which Ive referred to in other posts. Your argument appears to dismiss this, when in fact I would argue it is central to our discussion.




			This is because opinion is based on perception, it is just that - subjective. I prefer not to base my own opinion on the evidence or hyperbole of self interest groups but to draw my experience from first hand experience. In my experience other methods of control cause more suffering precisely because the fox will often crawl away to die - slowly and agonisingly.
		
Click to expand...

Where have I heard this defence of experience at the expense of evidence before? Oh yes, from Alec, who was equally dismissive of any independent evidence, no matter how substantial, which didnt happen to fit with his world view. Alec has become so upset with my use of quotes he has actually taken to referring to me as a troll in a separate thread  regarding my posts as pointless! Im trying hard not to take it to heart; I guess its a cross I must bear. 




			Modern politics processes are more often than not based on a balance of power and biased lobbying - there are good laws and bad laws (the Hunting Act).  I believe he Hunting Act has been demonstrated unequivically to be a bad law.  I would prefer legislation to ensure that hunting methods for predator control are both efficient and quick.  In my experience hunting with hounds fulfil both these criteria.

PaulT - you have made use of some quite twisted and bizare analogies such as wife beating and slavery when attempting to defend your argument.  These analogies do not add validty but simply make a nonsense of progressing a logical argument.
		
Click to expand...

No Fiagai, these analogies demonstrate the absurdity of your arguments. You suggest change should not be introduced without logical consensus; I merely pointed to the abolition of slavery, where such consensus could not be achieved  it happens all the time. The logical conclusion of your consensual approach is do nothing in relation to hunting - perhaps this should be turned on its head now it's banned, and until we can reach a consensus on a way forward it should stay banned. 




			This is a common mistake of people who project their feelings onto animals - believing that because they feel in a certain way - the animal must do as well.  This had led to some very unfortunate incidents where people attempt to hug bears and climb into lion enclosures with inevitable results.  Again it is your "opinion" that it is unecessary suffering.  Would you prefer to round up all wild predators just because you understand the consequence of their actions but they dont and it therefore becomes incumbent because of your ability to reason on you to reducate or redirect them?
		
Click to expand...

Far from projecting my feelings onto animals, if you read my comments and actually thought about them you would realise I was highlighting an essential difference between humans and other animals. However, Im not so blinkered as to believe they are incapable of suffering.




			I took it you were refering to a range of polls?  Pehaps providing relevant quotes would allow posters to refer relevant comments on individual polls.

As I have stated animal welfare legislation has been enacted for humans and not the animals who in their natural state are more than capable of looking after themselves with regard to food, shelter.
		
Click to expand...

What a strange response! OK, what about animal welfare legislation which covers domestic animals  do you think that is enacted for the benefit of domestic animals?


----------



## Paddydou (15 June 2011)

Hi Paul T

Yep I am back again. The main problem I am getting is that the people carrying out much of the research are not fully aware of the issues or the subject. I use the example where you quote farmers over estimate population... A farmer will tend to his stock and be examining his field on a very regular basis, at least once a day but commonly more. A farmer will know every single inch of his fields, hedgerows, woodland areas etc. It is his life to know. A chap coming in from a town is highly unlikely to be able to recognise the markers that show how many and where certain creatures reside. I can tell you now that every farmer I know really does know exactly what and where everything is on his farm, he can even tell you where the rats are, where they feed and where they reside. It is his job to know and to manage it responsibly. The people who KNOW are the people living it, your game keepers, farmers etc. Not a chap on a jolly with a pair of binos and a volvo that he sits in for a day counting but th folk who get on their wellies and get out and tend EVERY DAY to thier income!

A fit healthy fox has no need to come into close contact with human beings and therefore stock. A fit healthy fox would not take the risk because they are put off by dogs etc. A sick old or weak fox will take the risk for the easier pickings becuase they are sick weak or old and are unable to find food in a more natural way. To put it simply you would not risk crossing a motorway on foot normally unless you had to would you? 

I really do get so very tired of this assumption that hunting folk are blood thirsty. A boxer hits people for a living but it doesn't mean that he is going to pick a fight with everyone he meets now does it? A vet has to put down animals in the course of his duties but (s)he isn't just going to go round bumping off every animall (s)he sees now is (s)he? To target huntmen as people who kill is very unrealistic in the extreeme and ONLY by going out and fully knowing and apriciating what they do ACTUALLY do will anyone ever gain a full understanding of why so many people want a repeal. You should be able to tell from the responses you have gained that actually hunts folk want to look after all species both wild and domestic. It is a very fine and difficult balancing act.

I commend you for trying with your arguments but I find them tiresome simply because you are effectively saying that rural folk have no clue about the countryside! Its akin to saying that no city dwellers know how to use a bus or the underground! Not a very good basis for arguement and one which I am afraid I am loosing patience with!


----------



## PaulT (15 June 2011)

Paddydou said:



			Hi Paul T

Yep I am back again. The main problem I am getting is that the people carrying out much of the research are not fully aware of the issues or the subject. I use the example where you quote farmers over estimate population... A farmer will tend to his stock and be examining his field on a very regular basis, at least once a day but commonly more. A farmer will know every single inch of his fields, hedgerows, woodland areas etc. It is his life to know. A chap coming in from a town is highly unlikely to be able to recognise the markers that show how many and where certain creatures reside. I can tell you now that every farmer I know really does know exactly what and where everything is on his farm, he can even tell you where the rats are, where they feed and where they reside. It is his job to know and to manage it responsibly. The people who KNOW are the people living it, your game keepers, farmers etc. Not a chap on a jolly with a pair of binos and a volvo that he sits in for a day counting but th folk who get on their wellies and get out and tend EVERY DAY to thier income!

A fit healthy fox has no need to come into close contact with human beings and therefore stock. A fit healthy fox would not take the risk because they are put off by dogs etc. A sick old or weak fox will take the risk for the easier pickings becuase they are sick weak or old and are unable to find food in a more natural way. To put it simply you would not risk crossing a motorway on foot normally unless you had to would you? 

I really do get so very tired of this assumption that hunting folk are blood thirsty. A boxer hits people for a living but it doesn't mean that he is going to pick a fight with everyone he meets now does it? A vet has to put down animals in the course of his duties but (s)he isn't just going to go round bumping off every animall (s)he sees now is (s)he? To target huntmen as people who kill is very unrealistic in the extreeme and ONLY by going out and fully knowing and apriciating what they do ACTUALLY do will anyone ever gain a full understanding of why so many people want a repeal. You should be able to tell from the responses you have gained that actually hunts folk want to look after all species both wild and domestic. It is a very fine and difficult balancing act.

I commend you for trying with your arguments but I find them tiresome simply because you are effectively saying that rural folk have no clue about the countryside! Its akin to saying that no city dwellers know how to use a bus or the underground! Not a very good basis for arguement and one which I am afraid I am loosing patience with!
		
Click to expand...

Hi Paddydou. I am not arguing that rural folk don't know about the countryside, and have never thought that.

It's a difficult message for many of you to accept but the research suggests that farmers hopelessly exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, the effectiveness of hunting at killing them and the levels of predation caused by foxes. This isn't to say they are ignorant of the countryside but it is very relevant if you are trying to base an argument on the assumption that farmers know best and everyone else should butt out.

BTW, I have already said that I do not believe all hunters are bloodthirsty sadists - it is extremely simplistic and naive to claim they are. However, I do believe that hunting primarily existed/still exists for entertainment, whether it is the equestrian aspects of enjoyment or foot followers watching the hound work.


----------



## Fiagai (15 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			I&#8217;m fully aware of the difference between domestic and wild animals, but you still haven&#8217;t said whether you feel humans owe a duty of care to wild animals when we interact with them. I&#8217;ve stated my views because you asked for them, and I&#8217;ve provided evidence in other posts which counter the assumptions implicit in your posts. Like a number of other contributors to this forum, you expect me to unquestionably accept your assertions despite the fact that evidence suggests the opposite.
		
Click to expand...

PaulT you stated your views well before I asked for them (ref your first posts).  I'm afraid you have not as yet specifically addressed any of the issues I raised in relation to these - you have simply kept repeating the same views over and over again when clarification has been sought.  You havent given me any "evidence" to my replies.  Maybe you should review the wealth of knowledge that is contained amongst the regular posters of this forum and not be as ready to dismiss their years of experience and knowledge. You have given your "opinion only.  Your opinion is NOT fact.  



PaulT said:



			You spend much of your time questioning the notion of animal welfare and the concept of cruelty without actually explaining whether you think any animal deserves protection from the excesses of human behaviour. The nearest I can see you&#8217;ve got to acknowledgement that animal welfare legislation of domestic animals has its uses is when you appear to suggest it benefits humans.
		
Click to expand...

I have plainy explained that in my opinion such legilsation is for the benefit of humans. Such legislation does not infer any rights on to an animal.  What are your "excesses of human behaviour" - Growing cities?  Human overpopulation? Eating meat?  Please try and make your arguments clear and avoid the use of such useless and vague notions.  As I said previously it really does make a mockery of all rational discussion.



PaulT said:



			Yet again you compare hunting to what wild animals do, as though this justifies our behaviour. In doing so, you fail to grasp the essential difference between humans and other animals, which I&#8217;ve referred to in other posts. Your argument appears to dismiss this, when in fact I would argue it is central to our discussion.
		
Click to expand...

No PaulT that is what is called reality. Humans have interefered with the natural ecosystem to the extent that we are obliged to adopt a stewardship role if we are to maintain a healthy balance between predator and prey.  Hunting is part of nature and not alien to it. Ignore predator overpopulation and it becomes an issue with reperscussions for humans and animals both domestic and wild.



PaulT said:



			Where have I heard this defence of experience at the expense of evidence before? Oh yes, from Alec, who was equally dismissive of any independent evidence, no matter how substantial, which didn&#8217;t happen to fit with his world view. Alec has become so upset with my use of quotes he has actually taken to referring to me as a troll in a separate thread &#8211; regarding my posts as pointless! I&#8217;m trying hard not to take it to heart; I guess it&#8217;s a cross I must bear. 

Click to expand...

Well as far as pointless posts - I can see where Alec is coming from!  You are coming across as typical of the anti ilk.  I will liken it to the self appointed "expert" telling those who have undertaken a task sucessfully for many years how this task should be done "properly".  This Hunting forum has many individuals who have many years of practical experience of wildlife and its management.  The fact that there is a healthy fox population today is testimony to the generations of fox hunters that have gone before us.  I I fear even to begin to imagine
what the state of the fox population will be in the future if those with such twisted notions of rural matters continue to dominate lobby groups.



PaulT said:



			No Fiagai, these analogies demonstrate the absurdity of your arguments. You suggest change should not be introduced without &#8216;logical consensus&#8217;; I merely pointed to the abolition of slavery, where such consensus could not be achieved &#8211; it happens all the time. The logical conclusion of your consensual approach is do nothing in relation to hunting - perhaps this should be turned on its head now it's banned, and until we can reach a consensus on a way forward it should stay banned. 

Click to expand...

No the use of such analogies is simply inflamatory.  I have seen this approach before and you are childlike in your attempts to rile genuine posters.  Luckily I dont think anyone here will fall for the old chesnuts of wife beating and slavery! By the way Paul T the hunting Act didn't actually ban hunting - it changed the balance of the methods of hunting that can be undertaken. Foxes can still be shot, killed with birds of prey etc.  



PaulT said:



			Far from projecting my feelings onto animals, if you read my comments and actually thought about them you would realise I was highlighting an essential difference between humans and other animals. However, I&#8217;m not so blinkered as to believe they are incapable of suffering.
		
Click to expand...

Your logic appears to be based around your preceptions of "uneccesary suffering".    For clarification therefore I have asked and as yet have not been answered by you as to whether a hare chased by the fox should be protected by us because we know it to be cruel and causes unecessary suffering?  




PaulT said:



			What a strange response! OK, what about animal welfare legislation which covers domestic animals &#8211; do you think that is enacted for the benefit of domestic animals?
		
Click to expand...

See previous response I have already answered this...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 June 2011)

Paul T, you need to set aside all this research and get out more to the countryside and you just might learn something worthwhile.


----------



## JenHunt (15 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Im fully aware of the difference between domestic and wild animals, but you still havent said whether you feel humans owe a duty of care to wild animals when we interact with them. Ive stated my views because you asked for them, and Ive provided evidence in other posts which counter the assumptions implicit in your posts. Like a number of other contributors to this forum, you expect me to unquestionably accept your assertions despite the fact that evidence suggests the opposite.

You spend much of your time questioning the notion of animal welfare and the concept of cruelty without actually explaining whether you think any animal deserves protection from the excesses of human behaviour. The nearest I can see youve got to acknowledgement that animal welfare legislation of domestic animals has its uses is when you appear to suggest it benefits humans.
		
Click to expand...

I think PaulT - you have missed the point. As far as I am concerned we should not be trying to "Interact" with wild animals. We should be ensuring that they can survive as a healthy population without needing to prey upon species that a) are not their natural prey and b) not what we want them to be eating (whether that's because we want to eat it, or because we want them to control the population for us is irrelevant).

I also do not think that any of the evidence suggests "the opposite" - I think that there is insufficient evidence to prove anything absolutely conclusively in the way that Newton proved gravity, or medicine has proved a link between smoking and cancer. What it has shown is that there may be cause for some further investigation. For example - OH found 'evidence' that foxes did not show the changed stress hormone levels in the blood that indicate "fear" and yet you seem to have found evidence that they do (I haven't the time to scroll through all the essays to find it now!)

Also, nature is cruel. If not, why would animals and people be able to starve to death, or be poisonous to one another, or why aren't we and all animals all vegetarian?



rosiefronfelen said:



			Paul T, you need to set aside all this research and get out more to the countryside and you just might learn something worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that there is no substitute for getting out there and seeing it, and talking face to face (and rationally, sensibly) with those that are dealing with this complex subject all the time.


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Fiagai said:



			I have plainy explained that in my opinion such legilsation is for the benefit of humans. Such legislation does not infer any rights on to an animal.  What are your "excesses of human behaviour" - Growing cities?  Human overpopulation? Eating meat?  Please try and make your arguments clear and avoid the use of such useless and vague notions.  As I said previously it really does make a mockery of all rational discussion.
		
Click to expand...

And I have plainy explained that I do not support the concept of animal rights. Why do you insist on labelling me as such; could it be that it suits your argument to do so? I have made it abundantly clear that I support the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering, a concept which has formed the basis of animal welfare legislation for well over one hundred years. You ask me to explain what I mean by excesses of human behaviour: when humans interact with animals I believe they owe them a duty of care, and should avoid causing any unnecessary suffering. Clearly it isnt possible to produce an exhaustive list, and some human activities cause more suffering than others, but examples include putting cats in microwave ovens, playing football with hedgehogs, fox baiting etc. Im sure you get the drift even if you refuse to admit so publicly.

Do you believe hunting causes suffering; do you even believe animals are capable of experiencing fear and pain? It concerns me that you think only humans benefit from animal welfare legislation. Do you not think any legislation which protects cats from being microwaved alive has the potential to benefit cats?




			No PaulT that is what is called reality. Humans have interefered with the natural ecosystem to the extent that we are obliged to adopt a stewardship role if we are to maintain a healthy balance between predator and prey.  Hunting is part of nature and not alien to it. Ignore predator overpopulation and it becomes an issue with reperscussions for humans and animals both domestic and wild.
		
Click to expand...

Its heartening to learn that you recognise humans have at least some responsibilities towards animals and their environment, but in doing so you introduce the woolly concept of stewardship. As youve described it, in the context of fox hunting this assumes  hunting maintains a healthy balance (whatever that is). It also assumes that the stewards know: a) how many foxes exist on the land under their stewardship; b) what the correct population should be in order to maintain the healthy balance. As you will appreciate, both a) and b) are needed in order to assess whether the healthy balance is being achieved.

As the scientific research demonstrates, farmers (who presumably you would regard as stewards) consistently over exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, levels of fox predation and the effectiveness of hunts in terms of killing foxes. Not sure where that leaves your notion of effective stewardship.




			Well as far as pointless posts - I can see where Alec is coming from!  You are coming across as typical of the anti ilk.  I will liken it to the self appointed "expert" telling those who have undertaken a task sucessfully for many years how this task should be done "properly".  This Hunting forum has many individuals who have many years of practical experience of wildlife and its management.  The fact that there is a healthy fox population today is testimony to the generations of fox hunters that have gone before us.  I I fear even to begin to imagine
what the state of the fox population will be in the future if those with such twisted notions of rural matters continue to dominate lobby groups.
		
Click to expand...

Its a pity you feel the need to resort to petty insults when confronted with the results of scientific research which dont happen to fit with your world view - a heady mix of  prejudice, gut feeling and homespun mythology passed down through the generations.  Anyone who doesnt share this world view, and questions some of the many assumptions which make it up, is immediately regarded with suspicion and disdain; someone not fit to debate with. They must belong to the anti ilk, and make pointless, twisted and inflamatory  posts simply because they do not accept unquestionably what you deem to be the way of the world.

Its such a shame as the issues Ive raised are very real and very relevant to the hunting debate. Your attempts to close down legitimate debate and marginalise the results of scientific research should appal everyone interested in rational discussion of the issues.





			No the use of such analogies is simply inflamatory.  I have seen this approach before and you are childlike in your attempts to rile genuine posters.
		
Click to expand...

The words pot and kettle immediately come to mind  do you remember posting the following, not so very long ago? 




			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...

Of course, another classic case of dont do as I do, do as I say. 




			Your logic appears to be based around your preceptions of "uneccesary suffering".    For clarification therefore I have asked and as yet have not been answered by you as to whether a hare chased by the fox should be protected by us because we know it to be cruel and causes unecessary suffering?
		
Click to expand...

Fiagai, I rather charitably thought you were deliberately side-stepping my references to empathy, but now I suspect you just dont get it at all. Do you really believe a fox can be cruel to a hare? BTW, for your information, I dont.  Do you not think that the concept of cruelty includes intent and the ability to recognise the consequences of ones actions? If not, do you think objects have the capacity to be cruel?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

JenHunt said:



			I think PaulT - you have missed the point. As far as I am concerned we should not be trying to "Interact" with wild animals. We should be ensuring that they can survive as a healthy population without needing to prey upon species that a) are not their natural prey and b) not what we want them to be eating (whether that's because we want to eat it, or because we want them to control the population for us is irrelevant).

I also do not think that any of the evidence suggests "the opposite" - I think that there is insufficient evidence to prove anything absolutely conclusively in the way that Newton proved gravity, or medicine has proved a link between smoking and cancer. What it has shown is that there may be cause for some further investigation. For example - OH found 'evidence' that foxes did not show the changed stress hormone levels in the blood that indicate "fear" and yet you seem to have found evidence that they do (I haven't the time to scroll through all the essays to find it now!)

Also, nature is cruel. If not, why would animals and people be able to starve to death, or be poisonous to one another, or why aren't we and all animals all vegetarian?



I agree that there is no substitute for getting out there and seeing it, and talking face to face (and rationally, sensibly) with those that are dealing with this complex subject all the time.
		
Click to expand...

Hi JenHunt. Isn't digging a fox out of its earth or shooting a deer when it stands at bay interacting with them?

I can understand that, when confronted with quite damning evidence which undermines the assumptions you've held, there is a tendency to claim the 'jury is out' and there is insufficient evidence to reach absolute certainty. Fine, but let's just say in the absence of any counter evidence from a credible independent source, at the very least the balance of probability is weighed heavily against hunting. It isn't enough simply to say hunting is fine because we say it is, and if you don't agree that's just tough.

It's often said that nature is cruel but I don't think any being incapable of empathy can possibly be cruel.  Plenty of pain and suffering happens in nature, but only humans appear to be able to fully understand the consequences of our actions and be cruel to other animals.


----------



## Paddydou (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			It's a difficult message for many of you to accept but the research suggests that farmers hopelessly exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, the effectiveness of hunting at killing them and the levels of predation caused by foxes. This isn't to say they are ignorant of the countryside but it is very relevant if you are trying to base an argument on the assumption that farmers know best and everyone else should butt out.

BTW, I have already said that I do not believe all hunters are bloodthirsty sadists - it is extremely simplistic and naive to claim they are. However, I do believe that hunting primarily existed/still exists for entertainment, whether it is the equestrian aspects of enjoyment or foot followers watching the hound work.
		
Click to expand...

Paul T - the research that has been quoted has been conducted by people who were unwilling to listen and learn. Not all farmers allow fox hunting on their land and yes they do know! To the point of this is an abandoned badger set, this has x adults living in it. My poor father has spent years and years tending to the hedgerows on his farm to build up the small bird stocks and he also has a particular fondness for barn owls, until DEFRA interfered the numbers of both were growing (and the sparrow hawks etc started to climb as a result of more food being available). DEFRA measured his hedges demanded that he cut them at a particular time of year to particular heights and widths and blow me down it desicrated the small bird population that he had spent years building and looking after. The man was so sad for many months. This is just one example of "experts" interferance! If the expert truly understands and listens then that is not an issue but when they run rough shod to popular demand and "facts" are twisted its really makes a mockery of these reports.

Hunting does exist in part for entertainment. I can think of nothing more fun than riding out across fields with a pack of well looked after hounds. As for the "kill" that comes into a different catagory altogether. As I have said before and will bleat on until my dying breath... HUNTING IS MANY THINGS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CATAGORISE IT.

Well done everyone on your comments (JenHunt wild should be wild and you are so right!).


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			And I have &#8216;plainy&#8217; explained that I do not support the concept of animal rights. Why do you insist on labelling me as such; could it be that it suits your argument to do so? I have made it abundantly clear that I support the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering, a concept which has formed the basis of animal welfare legislation for well over one hundred years. You ask me to explain what I mean by excesses of human behaviour: when humans interact with animals I believe they owe them a duty of care, and should avoid causing any unnecessary suffering. Clearly it isn&#8217;t possible to produce an exhaustive list, and some human activities cause more suffering than others, but examples include putting cats in microwave ovens, playing football with hedgehogs, fox baiting etc. I&#8217;m sure you get the drift even if you refuse to admit so publicly.
		
Click to expand...

You still have not given (and have been asked for in innumerable posts) what is your definition of "unecessary suffering?"  You continue again and again to dance around this issue.  Untill you answer this no meaningful debate can be carried out.  Making up spurious terms such as "fox baiting" and then inserting them in another post this hardly a clever ploy now is it?



PaulT said:



			Do you believe hunting causes suffering; do you even believe animals are capable of experiencing fear and pain? It concerns me that you think only humans benefit from animal welfare legislation. Do you not think any legislation which protects cats from being microwaved alive has the potential to benefit cats?
		
Click to expand...

This has already been discussed.  Numerous posters have replied to your absurd assertions.  I have not changed my view since the last post and I am not wasting other posters time going over your silly attempts to start an argument again.  I suggest you go back and read what has been written previously.  You clearly havn't read what was written.



PaulT said:



			It&#8217;s heartening to learn that you recognise humans have at least some responsibilities towards animals and their environment, but in doing so you introduce the woolly concept of &#8216;stewardship&#8217;. As you&#8217;ve described it, in the context of fox hunting this assumes  hunting maintains a &#8216;healthy balance&#8217; (whatever that is). It also assumes that the &#8216;stewards&#8217; know: a) how many foxes exist on the land under their &#8216;stewardship&#8217;; b) what the correct population should be in order to maintain the &#8216;healthy balance&#8217;. As you will appreciate, both a) and b) are needed in order to assess whether the &#8216;healthy balance&#8217; is being achieved.
		
Click to expand...

What would a city boy like you really know about the countryside and its management ?  Hunts and landowners have worked hand in hand over many generations to maintain a healthy fox population.  Local people know where foxes are and they know how much stock is predated. The fact that a healthy fox population has survived to the eve of the "Hunting Act"  God love the fox population with the fluffy bunny brigade looking after their interest now....



PaulT said:



			As the scientific research demonstrates, farmers (who presumably you would regard as &#8216;stewards&#8217 consistently over exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, levels of fox predation and the effectiveness of hunts in terms of killing foxes. Not sure where that leaves your notion of effective stewardship.
		
Click to expand...

"Scientific research" - one study I'm afraid whose methodology has been severly criticised btw. Why to the eve of the Hunt Act was there such a healthy fox population if the hunts and farmers  were out there over killing foxes?  How did so many who you claim got it so wrong actually get it so right?



PaulT said:



			It&#8217;s a pity you feel the need to resort to petty insults when confronted with the results of scientific research which don&#8217;t happen to fit with your world view - a heady mix of  prejudice, gut feeling and homespun mythology passed down through the generations.  Anyone who doesn&#8217;t share this world view, and questions some of the many assumptions which make it up, is immediately regarded with suspicion and disdain; someone not fit to debate with. They must belong to the &#8216;anti ilk&#8217;, and make &#8216;pointless&#8217;, &#8216;twisted&#8217; and &#8216;inflamatory&#8217;  posts simply because they do not accept unquestionably what you deem to be the way of the world.
		
Click to expand...

PaulT - you are the one that has consistantly introduced insults and asides - if posters reply in kind you can hardly be surprised...



PaulT said:



			It&#8217;s such a shame as the issues I&#8217;ve raised are very real and very relevant to the hunting debate. Your attempts to close down legitimate debate and marginalise the results of scientific research should appal everyone interested in rational discussion of the issues.
		
Click to expand...

According to who? - You! Please dont make us laugh anymore - my sides are splitting already..




PaulT said:



			The words pot and kettle immediately come to mind &#8211; do you remember posting the following, not so very long ago? Of course, another classic case of &#8216;don&#8217;t do as I do, do as I say&#8217;.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are mixing your threads PaulT- A nonsense rhyme was I believe a valid response to an obviously nonsensical post.

And yes if you post nonsense, you will get nonsense back.



PaulT said:



			Fiagai, I rather charitably thought you were deliberately side-stepping my references to empathy, but now I suspect you just don&#8217;t get it at all. Do you really believe a fox can be cruel to a hare? BTW, for your information, I don&#8217;t.  Do you not think that the concept of cruelty includes intent and the ability to recognise the consequences of one&#8217;s actions? If not, do you think objects have the capacity to be cruel?
		
Click to expand...

So you believe that we should not cause "unecessary suffering" whatever that is an insist that because we know that  chasing a fox is cruel we should not do so, then surely it in incumbrent on us to stop the fox being cruel to the hare as well if we know it causes "unecessary suffering".  This is the logical progression of your absurd argument.  In this imaginary world do hares not feel pain?  Do hares not feel fear?


----------



## PaulT (16 June 2011)

Fiagai, I have discovered during the course of the last few days that the lucidity of your posts has diminished considerably as the debate has progressed, although I've always detected a strong undercurrent of bitterness in your posts. It won't do you any good in the long run.

Look, you clearly have an aversion to the whole concept of
animal welfare, and are quite obviously prepared to argue night is day in order to defend the indefensible. You aren't even prepared to agree that an evidence-based approach is the way forward for a mature debate. Your posts are up for all to see; any sensible and honest reader who is prepared to adopt such an approach will draw their own conclusions.

I'm tempted to conclude they broke the mould when they made you but sadly, judging some of the contributions from others, unfortunately this may not be the case.


----------



## Fiagai (16 June 2011)

PaulT said:



			Fiagai, I have discovered during the course of the last few days that the lucidity of your posts has diminished considerably as the debate has progressed, although I've always detected a strong undercurrent of bitterness in your posts. It won't do you any good in the long run.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute Tripe my dear PaulT...

(lucidity!) Oh no "It wont do me any good in the long run".  Are you for serious?  What age you? Six, seven maybe I'm guessing.   PaulT you remain in your position of hiding behind personal swipes, hyperbole and misinformation from third hand sources and references.   



PaulT said:



			Look, you clearly have an aversion to the whole concept of animal welfare, and are quite obviously prepared to argue night is day in order to defend the indefensible. You aren't even prepared to agree that an evidence-based approach is the way forward for a mature debate. Your posts are up for all to see; any sensible and honest reader who is prepared to adopt such an approach will draw their own conclusions.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute tosh....

Your posts continue to contain rather nasty little allegations with reference to other posters you are attempting to denigrate. Todate despite repeated requests you still have not provided any explanation of your favourite catch phrases. Any sensible and honest reader would run a mile from your rabid postings



PaulT said:



			I'm tempted to conclude they broke the mould when they made you but sadly, judging some of the contributions from others, unfortunately this may not be the case.
		
Click to expand...

Erhhhhh PaulT - just in case you havn't noticed you are the odd one out here.  You have also failed to acknowledge  the wealth of experience of wealth and knowledge amongst the contributors of this forum, sticking to Anti propaganda with inevitable results...


----------



## Ahunter (17 June 2011)

Hi PaulT

 ...farmers appear to over-estimate the density of foxes by 5-18 times"

 And with the above information to hand when discussing it at the Burns inquiry Prof Harris still said "its up to landowners and farmers to decide how many foxes they want on their land". Simply because as noted by Prof Macdonald, its impossible to know exactly how many foxes are on any individuals land at any given time as populations and territory sizes will change throught the year.

They usually forget to tell you that bit at the anti hunt brigades school of propaganda.


----------

