# Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

To all of those who hunt, justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life? 
Thank you


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (20 December 2012)

Survival of the Fittest


----------



## Doug (20 December 2012)

That's a lovely baiting post.


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

In what way 'Survival of the fittest?'
 It has nothing to do with aiding Natural Selection either for Natural Selection is for a start a 'natural' process whereby an organism may be geographically isolated from the rest of its species thus to adapt will breed from the better alleles which help survival chances.


----------



## noobs31 (20 December 2012)

Personally, I justify it as, they will be exterminated anyway, most likely by horrid means.  If I had a choice and could decree it, I'd choose lamping with a sound marksman.


----------



## Countryman (20 December 2012)

Humane wildlife management, with specific pest control, made into a pillar of the rural community, a social focus and a thrilling sport.


----------



## noobs31 (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Natural Selection is for a start a 'natural' process whereby an organism may be geographically isolated from the rest of its species thus to adapt will breed from the better alleles which help survival chances.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  And this happens not by magic, but by the strongest, youngest, wiliest fox outsmarting the hounds.  Did you imagine it meant, the rubbish ones just keel over and die?


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

That is not a reason.
 'What gives anyone the right to deny any animal its life?'
was the question asked. Go ahead and justify hunting and assist the peril of humanity.


----------



## noobs31 (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			That is not a reason.
 'What gives anyone the right to deny any animal its life?'
was the question asked. Go ahead and justify hunting and assist the peril of humanity.
		
Click to expand...

Don't ask here.  Go see the farmers who want them exterminated.


----------



## TarwinBate (20 December 2012)

Exactly, farmers and such want them gone, and whilst hunting with dogs may cause suffering, controlling fox numbers by other means is even more cruel. For example, shooting foxes can cause either an instant kill, or lengthy periods of agony for wounded animals which can die of the trauma within hours, or of secondary infection over a period of days or weeks.


----------



## maccachic (20 December 2012)

Hahaha I hope you don't use leather horse gear, shoes etc you know leather comes form a dead animal right??  Also are you a veggie?  humans can live without meat so if you are going to take the moral high ground better make sure you are squeaky clean.

Personally I don't like the kill would be just as happy without it and am always happy when the animal gets away but there are plenty of people who like killing animals for sport and I stick to my beliefs and leave them to thiers.  I enjoy heading out running and jumping and the kill will happen with or without me regardless.

Gee its xmas go shopping.


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

I somehow cannot recall mentioning magic? 
It is not 100 percent instinct when it comes to dogs attacking foxes. It is brought on by humans too. Why should other animal populations be controlled? When the fact is the biggest parasite on this planet is the homosapien. Humans consume more food and drink than is needed. We also exploit the earths resources to such an extent we have caused its decay. Global warming? Humans. Excessive CO2 emissions? Humans. Destruction of habitats? Humans. The list goes on. Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not for no reason kill other species. Now ask yourself ' Since the existence of mankind what have we done to benefit the earth, without replacing or improving something we have already ruined?'


----------



## Countryman (20 December 2012)

We have a duty of care to manage our fox population. If we did not, the countryside would be over run with foxes. While it may be true that at certain densities, foxes may limit their numbers, the sheer amount of foxes in our countryside by that time would be utterly unsustainable - both for man and the foxes. Man has created and shaped the British countryside, and he now has a duty to manage it for the good of all wildlife as well as his own benefit. Hunting is part of fulfilling that duty.


----------



## Nicnac (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			When the fact is the biggest parasite on this planet is the homosapien. Humans consume more food and drink than is needed. We also exploit the earths resources to such an extent we have caused its decay. Global warming? Humans. Excessive CO2 emissions? Humans. Destruction of habitats? Humans. The list goes on. Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not for no reason kill other species. Now ask yourself ' Since the existence of mankind what have we done to benefit the earth, without replacing or improving something we have already ruined?'
		
Click to expand...

Don't sweat - it's the end of the world tomorrow so all homosapiens will be wiped off the earth and your worries will be no more


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

Ok, Farmers would rather not have foxes around? So you and others act upon their wish and do the deed? Farmer wants you to jump off a cliff? Do you? Using leather and other products is a different ball game all together. Eating meat is natural. So once an animal has been killed for meat using its skin is ensuring the animal has not been wasted. This is hunting for survival. Like me mentioning prior to this consuming as much as needed. Yet why if we already have a mass production of meats do people still hunt? It is unnecessary.


----------



## Molasses (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Ok, Farmers would rather not have foxes around? So you and others act upon their wish and do the deed?
		
Click to expand...

well Farmers make the food
I wouldn't p*ss them off if i wanted to eat


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

That is not a duty. Why should other animals be sustained when their existence is less damaging than ours? Yes, and we eat the food, if we dont buy it they have no income to grow more crops or raise more livestock.


----------



## TarwinBate (20 December 2012)

Molasses said:



			well Farmers make the food
I wouldn't p*ss them off if i wanted to eat

Click to expand...

^^ this.


----------



## Countryman (20 December 2012)

We have created the landscape and so it is our duty to manage it. Hunting is part of that.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Ok, Farmers would rather not have foxes around? .......

........
		
Click to expand...

Well I farm,  and I like having foxes around.  They're there for my dogs to course. 

Alec.


----------



## Molasses (20 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Why should other animals be sustained when their existence is less damaging than ours?
		
Click to expand...

Ok - lets justify your existence then....for sport 
Are you curing cancer today?
Nope?
Me either


guess we'll be first to the line when the end of the world comes then


----------



## AnaV (20 December 2012)

Humans created the earths crust? Thats a new one!


----------



## Countryman (20 December 2012)

Nobody's ever said that. What I did say, which is true, is that the landscape and habitat in which the English fox lives-is entirely created by man. It has been created and managed by man over the centuries and now bears no resemblance to how England was without Man. Therefore, as we have created this unique countryside, we have a duty to manage it.


----------



## maccachic (21 December 2012)

Interesting you think there shouldn't be hunting because we produce meat etc have you seen the conditions animals are kept in these days in the interest of mass producing food.  The increase in these practices and the processing for food is in direct correlation with increases in health issues.

Personally the hunted food have a much better existance than commercially farmed animals overall.


----------



## DraftLVR (21 December 2012)

Hunting those poor little cute Foxes, how uncivilized

I think you should only hunt what you plan to eat


----------



## Alec Swan (21 December 2012)

DraftLVR said:



			.......

I think you should only hunt what you plan to eat
		
Click to expand...

Well said,  and I agree with you.  In fact,  I'm already ahead of you.  I've found fox a bit on the strong side,  and really only palatable when they're curried. 

Alec.


----------



## DGeventing (21 December 2012)

Because some of us are just nasty people who only care about having a jolly good day out, with people of the same class


----------



## DGeventing (21 December 2012)

DraftLVR said:



			Hunting those poor little cute Foxes, how uncivilized
		
Click to expand...

Personally I think killing 30 of my parents chickens in one night but only taking/eating one carcass is quite uncivilized and not very cute...

Foxes are vermin that need to be controlled. If you don't control numbers, you get a larger population encroaching further on farmers land. While a large scale industrial farm could absorb the costs of loss of animals and damage to land, small farmers can't. That means higher prices or lower sales, contributing to what I view as the demise of farming as a whole.

Yes, there are other methods of control. Trapping, where the animal will starve and dehydrate while it waits for someone to check the trap. And god forbid it be a snare type trap, and the animal starts to gnaw it's leg off... Or you could poison them, and let them linger for days, running the risk that any animal that finds the carcass will also ingest the poison and die too. 

Or yes, there is the novel idea that a group of good shots could go out and just 'stumble' across a fox and shoot it. Yes, that might be less stressful to the animal, but is it likely to work, or will be be a waste of time, with low productivity?

No, we go hunting. My local hunt probably supports the livelihood of 100+ individuals, whether directly or indirectly. It keeps the huntsman, kennel men etc in work, it supports a business in the kennels, local businesses by providing business. It helps people like me, who reschool ex racehorses, get the best out of horses that may otherwise end up being put to sleep. It is closely attached to a pony club - to the extent that they share a name  - setting up hunter trials, team chasing, and xc days for members of both, to help give kids a well rounded introduction to less mainstream equine sports. 

It makes what could be 35 square miles of villages into a community. If I happen to go shopping in the area, I know people. I talk to the store owners, to my hairdresser, to people I see in cafes, all because I know them from hunting. The USA has a big problem with communities being 'segregated', with those who farm and those who work in town having nothing in common - hunting unites us. We've all seen in the last weeks how alienation can have awful consequences, so anything that brings people together is good in my book.


----------



## Toffee44 (21 December 2012)

So what's your view of culling poor little deer???  AvaV


----------



## Toffee44 (21 December 2012)

AnaV


----------



## Toffee44 (21 December 2012)

Or boar?? Or crows?? Or rabbits?? Not just the fox.


----------



## monkeybum13 (21 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Humans created the earths crust? Thats a new one!
		
Click to expand...

I must be blind, I haven't read that anyone said that?


----------



## Star_Chaser (21 December 2012)

I agree with Countryman whole heartedly.  We do have a duty of care to our environment and that includes maintaining healthy populations of fox.  Fox decimate other species including your wild song bird population, ground nesting birds many of whom are facing serious issues with reductions in population.  A healthy fox is one that can feed itself, have you ever seen a fox that is pretty much starved to death??  I have purely because it was unable to catch and kill anything to eat and had little or no food available beyond raiding the bins.  That is no life for a fox and you should not wish it on them.  If you want to have other species population success or at least maintaining them at the rate they are then you have to removed SOME of the predator population.  We have no wolves or other predators that would keep the fox in check we destroyed those populations so we have to take on that role - it is a duty.

If you think that all animals have a right to life you are correct they do but they also have a right to a fight for survival which is what they have always done so that they do not go into old age suffering.  A quick death is much more suitable than a slow and painful one.

When you look at the other options available and if YOU ever have to do it you'll find hunting with hounds where the best of the foxes get a chance to live another day is by far the BEST option.  It might not be a pleasant end but it is swift.  I have to mop up other peoples messes when they fail to shoot cleanly and believe me there is nothing more upsetting than seeing a pregnant fox or one with obvious cubs or a young and healthy fox killed because there is no way for the wheat to be sorted from the chaff in the population looking through the end of a gun.  The hunt have the decency to provide a breeding season to avoid killing pregnant or nursing foxes and to allow young the opportunity to mature. The gun has NO breeding season.  

I don't think anyone has the right to make the decision about how an animal should be dispatched to maintain a healthy population unless you are prepared to get out there and do the job YOURSELF so that you can see first hand just how difficult it is to do.  You might not like hunting but believe me its the best thing for the population.  At the rate they are being shot we are decimating yet another wild population whilst leaving the town bin raiders increasing in numbers!  I know what I would rather have a wild healthy fox than a townies bin bandit!


----------



## Molasses (21 December 2012)

Bravo N_S_C
wonderful post and agree with every word


----------



## Star_Chaser (21 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			I somehow cannot recall mentioning magic? 
It is not 100 percent instinct when it comes to dogs attacking foxes. It is brought on by humans too. Why should other animal populations be controlled? When the fact is the biggest parasite on this planet is the homosapien. Humans consume more food and drink than is needed. We also exploit the earths resources to such an extent we have caused its decay. Global warming? Humans. Excessive CO2 emissions? Humans. Destruction of habitats? Humans. The list goes on. Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not for no reason kill other species. Now ask yourself ' Since the existence of mankind what have we done to benefit the earth, without replacing or improving something we have already ruined?'
		
Click to expand...

A couple of things spring to mind.... I take it you are not adding to our population woes by breeding yourself??  Now in the past or in the future producing children.

The second thing is that if you knew ANYTHING about foxes you would know they are indiscriminate killers they will kill, maim, injure whatever they can no matter what the numbers.  Like others I have lost birds to the fox game birds, poultry and sadly ground nesting wild birds.  They don't just kill what they will eat they will kill everything then take what they can carry.  For an example... 150 polish chickens in less than two hours, 2 turkeys who heads it bit off leaving the body behind and the heads a short distance away.  My worst for foxes were new born foals... YES I SAID FOALS!!  We had a line of foxes that over years taught themselves to wait whilst the mare birthed and then took it before it had a chance to stand and whilst the mare was in no condition to defend it.  

If you want to change the human population then do you bit don;t breed, don't use a car, grow your own food, don't use modern technology (like for an example YOUR PC) because of its impact on the planet.


----------



## Star_Chaser (21 December 2012)

DraftLVR said:



			Hunting those poor little cute Foxes, how uncivilized

I think you should only hunt what you plan to eat
		
Click to expand...

If your desperate for a taste (Alec you are FAR braver than me!) you could try Clarissa's recipe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/4853388.stm 

We may not eat them but there are other cultures where they are pretty much on the menu and nothing wasted.

You'll find numerous fox recipes on the net... http://www.wildmanwildfood.co.uk/pages/recipes.htm#fox


----------



## Dry Rot (21 December 2012)

It worries me that people are always so keen to protect animals that are cute and furry but seem quite happy to discriminate against the less attractive ones. Animals should be entitled to equal rights.

Personally, I am in favour of putting the endangered Black Rat on the protected list. These fascinating rodents were once common in our domestic houses but got bad press after The Black Death. That disease is easily controlled in the modern world by the use of antibiotics. 

Conservationists should be the first to offer this dear little native creature a home. But do they? The heck they do!


----------



## wench (21 December 2012)

Yum yum...


----------



## burge (21 December 2012)

Dry Rot said:



			It worries me that people are always so keen to protect animals that are cute and furry but seem quite happy to discriminate against the less attractive ones. Animals should be entitled to equal rights.

Personally, I am in favour of putting the endangered Black Rat on the protected list. These fascinating rodents were once common in our domestic houses but got bad press after The Black Death. That disease is easily controlled in the modern world by the use of antibiotics. 

Conservationists should be the first to offer this dear little native creature a home. But do they? The heck they do!

Click to expand...

I've always said if foxes were ugly no-one would give a *****!


----------



## minesadouble (21 December 2012)

burge said:



			I've always said if foxes were ugly no-one would give a *****!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! I have always said that if a fox resembled a dog sized cockroach there would be far less antis about.


----------



## happyhunter123 (21 December 2012)

This is boring. We've been round this _hundreds_ of times before . You can read the same old arguments on old threads. 
As for the question 'justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life?', that clearly goes a lot, lot further than hunting and covers many of the things people do with animals.

Come on, the hunting argument has been played out far too often, and has been going on for years. You've heard all these points made before,and you've heard anti points made before. Why bother???


----------



## Kenzo (22 December 2012)

''Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not for no reason kill other species''

Foxes do.


----------



## AnaV (22 December 2012)

DGeventing said:



			Because some of us are just nasty people who only care about having a jolly good day out, with people of the same class 

Click to expand...

Bravo ol' girl you managed to sum it up in one sentence.
Now America's segregation has nothing to do with its town and country folk failing to embark on a jolly murdering session. Racial segregation has occcured for a long time and is down to the nature of humans. Our race if not struck by curiousity has a barrier where when we do not understand something we become afraid and even inferior. 

If you wish to go gallop with fellow acquaintances, go ahead and do so, find a field which has preferbly not been allocated by farmers to grow crops on and potter across it. There is no need to have to kill anything to do so.


----------



## AnaV (22 December 2012)

The behaviour 'Molasses' projects for instance is one which appears inferior. For one flaw is they tend to flip the conversation around in situations where they cannot handle a civilised debate/discussion and say 'So what about you then' despite it having no concern on the matter of the topic.

'Rudolp_bum' -
If you are failing to find the remark made by so called 'Country man' I shall explain.
He told me that man created the landscapes. I found this rather amusing for I am settled on scientists big bang theory whereby the earth was created shortly after it around 4.5 billion years ago. At this point humans did not exist therefore consequently, had no effect on its Lithosphere. 


I disagree with the culling of any animal whether it be deer, badger (or even toad). For how can we consider any other animal a pest when we are the most parasitic organism on earth. I believe the views of hunting are based solely on people mentality. Whereby if you value human life above everything else, you will most likely not oppose hunting. With myself I see animal life equal to human life. Just because we are at the top of the food chain and have a high IQ should not justify us the right to slay other creatures needlessly.


----------



## DollyDolls (22 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			If you wish to go gallop with fellow acquaintances, go ahead and do so, find a field which has preferbly not been allocated by farmers to grow crops on and potter across it. There is no need to have to kill anything to do so.
		
Click to expand...

I thought this is exactly what we now get up to given the Hunting Act......?

So really, we dont have to justify it, as there is no more hunting as you're refering to. -They all get shot instead.


----------



## Copperpot (22 December 2012)

Cos it's the most fun you can have on a horse


----------



## AnaV (22 December 2012)

Clearly you have not seen enough hunts. It happens very frequently where when a fox has been sighted the so called 'Masters' have allowed the hounds to chase the fox instead of shooting it. Only the other week when the Grove and Rufford Hunts were about they sighted a fox and a friend of mine witnessed the fox along with them run through not one but two open fields which were not occupied by any livestock so open range in which perfect to shoot it and they let the hounds chase it as not one gunshot went off.  The dog got away however, it shows even if you have a list of reason for killing foxes because you believe they are pests you follow around low life people who totter around to see hounds rip foxes to shreds.

As for it being the most fun you can have on a horse? You clearly have a wild imagination of your own there if you think of hunting being the most fun you can have on a horse. It is sad how truth is many of you do go on hunts and dont actually take into consideration what goes on.


----------



## SO1 (23 December 2012)

I would say to Ava point above about not shooting the fox you have to be a very skilled marksman to be able to shoot to kill an small animal that is running especially if you are also riding a horse at the sametime, in this case you might miss and the fox may get injured but not die straight away and then suffer.

As a child I hunted and I did enjoy it but I don't think I really understood what was going on beyond having a good time galloping about and jumping things. I never set out thinking oh goody I might get to see fox ripped apart by dogs isnt that fun and I doubt many if any people who hunt would be interested in paying to just see a fox being killed without the riding part. 

I think in the same way that lots of people enjoy eating a steak or other meat they don't connect the meat with the actual killing of an animal as they have not seen it happen. 

Now I am older and wiser I have realised that if I do not feel comfortable with the idea of seeing a fox killed by dogs up close, it would be hypocritical to hunt so I don't.

I think if people are aware of what goes on and don't mind that they might see a fox being killed up close then that is their decision. However I am not sure children should go hunting if there is a risk that they might see a fox being killed as it might be upsetting for them if they don't quite understand what might happen.


----------



## Littlelegs (23 December 2012)

We are on the outskirts of a town, mainly we get town foxes. Not too long ago we had an old injured dog fox turned up, a definite country fox from the size. One I suspect from our location would have been an easy kill for the hunt pre ban. Instead, thin, old & limping it turned up at the farm we keep the horses at. Too nervous of towns to bin raid, it decimated the chickens & geese, killed one of the cats, several other local cats went missing at the same time. Then with remaining birds kept safe, neighbours cats kept in, & our remaining semi feral cat glued to the side of a horse 24/7, it lived on the odd bit of spilt horse feed, livestock feed, bird food etc. By the time a good shot was able to kill it, poor thing was emaciated. We had the right to kill it for two reasons. Firstly, the birds, our cat, & the neighbours pets many lives are more important. Secondly, a swift death for the fox is far kinder than starving to death naturally. And the hounds when the fox first started struggling to feed itself would have been quicker still.
   Also you may want to look up the different meanings of 'landscape' as opposed to 'the earth' or 'earths crust'. I think you will find they have very different meanings.


----------



## AnaV (23 December 2012)

Thats ok then SO1? the fox should be caught instead by the pack of 50 odd dogs and tossed around like a rag doll? Thats perfectly alright is it? It 

Foxes hunt for survival. They will not just kill a brood of chickens for no reason. The way foxes feed is once they find a food source they will try and kill as much of it as they can. They will then eat one or two and bury the rest so they can return to it when need be. Do we not do the same? We raise cattle for ourselves, its planned out feeding. We know there will food tomorrow, the day after and the day after that. 

With the brains we have we should look for ways around foxes getting poultry such as improving chicken runs, hen houses.


----------



## Countryman (23 December 2012)

I dont understand the preoccupation you have with what the hounds do to the body of the fox. The fox is dead. Whether or not the hound's eat it and pull it around is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## AnaV (23 December 2012)

Instead of attempting to prolong its life by say leaving it a few scraps you instantly would rather shoot it. So it was beyond help was it? A friend of mine had 14 cats in the country who all went out and there were foxes where they lived not once were they harmed by them. Foxes are nocturnal thus active at night, to avoid harsh natural processes like such perhaps keeping your pet cat(s) indoors during night?


----------



## Countryman (23 December 2012)

One could equally argue that hunting foxes is just as much a harsh natural process that should be allowed to happen as foxes hunting for food is.


----------



## AnaV (23 December 2012)

Would you like to die being pulled apart alive or after suffering heart attack (after a pack of hounds or such commotion puts a strain on you weak heart)? I wouldnt and I couldnt imagine any other animal would like to.


----------



## Countryman (23 December 2012)

We all know foxes are killed almost instantly. The precise method of death is brutal yes, but quick and humane. By the way, do you have any evidence whatsoever for suggesting hunted foxes die from heart attacks?


----------



## AnaV (23 December 2012)

One could not use that as an excuse because in the way of the human hunting nowadays it is not hunting for food but for sport.


----------



## AnaV (23 December 2012)

I do not but peaceful death is not one which comes to mind as your tossed in the air then pulled one way then the other.


----------



## EAST KENT (23 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			I do not but peaceful death is not one which comes to mind as your tossed in the air then pulled one way then the other.
		
Click to expand...

Bet it is bloody painful being cremated then.Have a good Christmas.


----------



## Hunters (23 December 2012)

Just read the posts:

If you've ever seen a fox killed out hunting & not that many have, then you will know that it is a quick death, much like when my terrier kills a rat. 

Simples...

The 'sport' of hunting was not in the 'kill' but the 'chase'.


----------



## Carefreegirl (23 December 2012)

I wish I'd taken a picture of the large mange (sp?) ridden fox that walked in front of my car the other week. Pitiful creature that would of been glorious if in a good healthy condition. 
It stopped in the middle of the road and scratched for a good few seconds then stood back up and walked over to the other side and then stood there looking at me. I wish I'd been in OH's 4x4 as it needed putting out its misery. As I drove off I thought about him and knew that one more cold night or one more fight will give him a long slow painful death.

(excuse any typo's, on phone)


----------



## Littlelegs (23 December 2012)

Nobody has told the foxes near us they only kill at night. They quite happily kill by day too. And I'm not prepared to feed old injured foxes, what would you do? Capture it & take it to rolfs animal rescue to see why it couldn't bear weight on one leg? And even putting that aside, its clear from your suggestion of feeding them you have no concept of how animals live & interact. Do you really see the stronger, healthier foxes saying 'no my friend, go & eat your fill, I'm healthy enough to hunt a rabbit for dinner'? It's not farthing wood, its reality. Or should I gain its trust & feed it in my presence? Great idea, then it will start approaching humans for food on housing estates & end up having that trust misplaced when someone objects. However, if its beyond you to comprehend the basic concept I am trying to explain, something my small child can understand, further debate is rather pointless. 
  I actually know & respect someone who lives by the rule humans have no right to kill animals. She lives by that principle to extremes. She is vegan, uses nothing that is commercially produced, & even refuses any medicines. So I respect her, despite our differing views because she is not a hypocrite. And for the record, she has always found people who buy factory farmed meat in tescos far more cruel than those who hunt. And she is as respectful of my view as I of hers. But, even she agrees with humans taking animals lives to end suffering.


----------



## Shutterbug (23 December 2012)

I am by no means anti hunting or pro hunting for that matter - I have been hunting (post ban) and had a great time chasing the scent laid down by the runner.  However, I have read things which lead me to believe that some of the comments on here are not entirely the truth.  For example foxes do not kill for pleasure, the entire hen coop being killed by one fox is a by product of the foxes natural instinct to kill more than it needs in order to store the rest in the event of a bad hunting night or two - if we were not keeping 20 chickens in one coop, foxes would not kill them all, they would kill what they could catch. eat some and store the remainder - the fact we have numerous chickens in a coop means the fox can get to them all as they have nowhere to run to - foxes do not kill for fun, they dont have the capacity to do so.  Also, the statements about hunting keeping fox numbers down, I do believe that the figures following a study before the ban showed that hunts were responsible for less than 5% of the mortality of foxes, with most of them being cubs.  As the cub mortality in foxes is quite high anyway, this is not a lot of foxes so I fail to see how hunts can be claiming to be helping a great deal keeping fox numbers down. Prior to the foot and mouth disease break out, a study was carried out that counted fox droppings in a particular area (I forget which one now) to count the number of foxes in the area - a hunting ban was in place during the break out, after which a further count was carried out and the number of droppings had not increased - they deduced from this that lack of a hunt would not mean more foxes. I have also read on these very forums, a pro hunter stating that they" don't kill that many foxes anyway"

As I said I'm not pro or anti, I'm on the fence and always have been but I cant ignore facts and statistics that I have come across over the years and everything I have seen points to hunting not being a particularly effective way of controlling fox numbers and this is something that always crops up in these discussions so I think the numbers are important - and no I didn't get them from an anti hunting website, I tend to avoid those.  What I cant get my head around, and the thing that always stopped me hunting pre ban, is why do we have to make it a sport?  Why is it this big social event?  If hunting with dogs keeps fox numbers down and gets rid of foxes for farmers, why not just have one or two guys on horseback, with dogs out hunting them - why do we have to have a gathering of horse riders running behind the pack all excited and laughing? Wouldn't we catch and kill more foxes if we did it a bit quieter?  I think this is what most people  have an issue with - its not the fact that animals are needing to be culled for numbers to be kept in line, its the making it a sport while you do it that sits uncomfortably with most folk.


----------



## Alec Swan (23 December 2012)

T_a_l,  that was an excellent post.

AnaV,  read the post above,  and then continue to read it,  until it sinks in. 

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (23 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			Just read the posts:

If you've ever seen a fox killed out hunting & not that many have, then you will know that it is a quick death, much like when my terrier kills a rat. 

Simples...

The 'sport' of hunting was not in the 'kill' but the 'chase'.
		
Click to expand...

Precisely-I have always said this and this is a point that must always be made. For some reason, antis can't seem to grasp this fact. If we simply wanted to kill foxes for fun, we *would be perfectly happy with the Hunting Act*. It, after all still allows foxes to be killed out hunting, and sometimes in a more brutal manner (shooting a running fox, or using a bird of prey is often slower and more bloody!)
If it was all about killing foxes for fun, we'd be perfectly happy for hounds to chop a fox. Or we would use sight hounds to bring the fox down within seconds. Understand? 

And I have never heard any anti actually deny that the kill is slow. The faster death occurs, the better. The pain is almost certainly nulled by the effects of the hormone adrenaline-you might know this if you've ever had a scary accident.


----------



## Carefreegirl (23 December 2012)

^^^^ agree with this. Years ago I spent 2 seasons working in a hunt yard (private owner not actual Hunt) and went out twice a week from the start of Cubbing til the end of the season and only ever saw two actual dispatches. The first time I was surprised how quick it actually was and quite glad as well. 

Asides from anything else I think a day out hunting is the best education for horse and rider and will always try to get a few days out with different packs each season.


----------



## Star_Chaser (23 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Clearly you have not seen enough hunts. It happens very frequently where when a fox has been sighted the so called 'Masters' have allowed the hounds to chase the fox instead of shooting it. Only the other week when the Grove and Rufford Hunts were about they sighted a fox and a friend of mine witnessed the fox along with them run through not one but two open fields which were not occupied by any livestock so open range in which perfect to shoot it and they let the hounds chase it as not one gunshot went off.  The dog got away however, it shows even if you have a list of reason for killing foxes because you believe they are pests you follow around low life people who totter around to see hounds rip foxes to shreds.

As for it being the most fun you can have on a horse? You clearly have a wild imagination of your own there if you think of hunting being the most fun you can have on a horse. It is sad how truth is many of you do go on hunts and dont actually take into consideration what goes on.
		
Click to expand...

I do find the first part of your argument interesting... the distance of a man with a rifle or shotgun is relatively limited, the distance of wondering hounds in front of the huntsman with the gun, the horses and the riders some of whom maybe children and unused to the sound of a gun going off would make it DANGEROUS to actually shot the fox from a distance and leave the poor animal unlikely to be dead it would be more likely to be seriously injured leaving it at risk. It wouldn't be safe to take that shot for the fox or for the people and hounds around.  It is certainly not easy to control a group of dogs the huntsmen do an admirable job but are not infallible. Then of course their is the ability of the person with the gun... NONE of us are a perfect shot.

I always find it fascinating the arguments for and against I actually did a whole years study into this at university and I must ask one question of you as this is YOUR debate on the topic so here goes:

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR SOLUTION TO MAINTAINING A HEALTHY FOX POPULATION? 

given that feeding them only increases numbers as they will breed out of season.  That animals not healthy cannot survive without human intervention or they suffer prior to death (usually from starvation).  Survival of the fittest is the best way to cull inferior animals from a population.

Being enlightened in this matter I await your response with curiosity and am of course prepared to change my view if you are able to provide a suitable alternative. It really is very easy to be in the No Kill camp but few are able to offer a real and viable alternative when pressed.


----------



## Angelbones (23 December 2012)

Kenzo said:



			''Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not *for no reason* kill other species''

Foxes do.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, so does my terrier who occasionally fancies the odd cat or two. He does it for fun but if doing it for fun is a reason and that's ok then I guess we are all off the hook


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 December 2012)

Hevs said:



			Also, the statements about hunting keeping fox numbers down, I do believe that the figures following a study before the ban showed that hunts were responsible for less than 5% of the mortality of foxes, with most of them being cubs.  As the cub mortality in foxes is quite high anyway, this is not a lot of foxes so I fail to see how hunts can be claiming to be helping a great deal keeping fox numbers down.
		
Click to expand...

That particular figure is a national one - i.e. hunts kill 5% of the national fox population.  It was a pretty dubious figure - but assuming it's true - consider the large areas in which there is NO foxhunting - but plenty of foxes!!  A much more precise and careful study was carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust about 10 years before the ban which showed that in big shooting areas, the % of foxes killed by hunts was small - and in other areas - particularly hill countries where shooting/snaring etc were more problematic, it was up to 70% of the fox cull being done by hounds.

But hunting's primary aim is not to 'control numbers' (what equation would you use?) but to manage the fox population in a set area to the satisfaction of the local farmers and landowners!  Many hunts who are 'trail-hunting' for the paying customers are still carrying out fox control for the farmers - by legal means - because that is the trade off hunts have with farmers.  The hunt controls the foxes and takes the deadstock and the farmer lets the mounted followers ride over his land. 




			Why is it this big social event?  If hunting with dogs keeps fox numbers down and gets rid of foxes for farmers, why not just have one or two guys on horseback, with dogs out hunting them - why do we have to have a gathering of horse riders running behind the pack all excited and laughing? Wouldn't we catch and kill more foxes if we did it a bit quieter?
		
Click to expand...

To hunt foxes effectively (pre-ban of course) you needed at least 15-20 couple of hounds.  They're big hungry animals who need a LOT of food and a LOT of exercise!  The average hunt kennels employs at least 2 people full-time to look after hounds and run the flesh house.  A SMALL hunt costs at least £60,000 a year to run.  Without the followers, who would pay for it???


----------



## VoR (24 December 2012)

No need to, the OED does it for us!
Definition of sport
noun
    [mass noun, usually with adjective] success or pleasure derived from an activity such as *hunting* or *fishing*: I have heard there is good sport to be had in Buttermere


----------



## Littlelegs (24 December 2012)

Thankyou I_s_s. And for the record, shooting Santa is fine, just don't let your dogs kill him!
  I see your point hevs re it being the followers people take issue with, I do think you are probably right. Especially as they are commonly thought of as 'toffs on horses'. But imo the antis sitting down to a turkey on xmas day are no different to those that hunt boxing day. Humans do not need meat to survive, & even if we did, from the pov of not killing animals, slaughtering a cow provides more food than a bird. Yet most are quite happy for a turkey to die for their enjoyment of xmas dinner. Or a chicken for sunday lunch etc. It's an animals death for our pleasure in how it tastes. Pre ban hunt followers the pleasure was the chase, rather than the culinary enjoyment. And the big difference is, hunt followers or not, the fox would need culling anyway, so there isn't an extra death just for the followers enjoyment, which there is in food production. And the fox has a far better life & death than factory farmed animals do. However Mr & Mrs working class with their factory farmed turkey, halal slaughtered kfc bucket, factory farmed Bacon & ham aren't as easy to hate as Mr & Mrs upper class with the big house & horses. What about the average little old lady who's pet cat kills rodents & birds needlessly? Is it the fact most people understand the enjoyment of having a pet cat, or because rodents aren't as cute as foxes, or because cat owners aren't perceived as toffs, that makes hunting cruel & cat owners acceptable? The amusing thing is, hunting ime is hardly just the upper classes. I've witnessed more snobbery at the school gates than out hunting.


----------



## bubbilygum (24 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			I agree with Countryman whole heartedly.  We do have a duty of care to our environment and that includes maintaining healthy populations of fox.  Fox decimate other species including your wild song bird population, ground nesting birds many of whom are facing serious issues with reductions in population.  A healthy fox is one that can feed itself, have you ever seen a fox that is pretty much starved to death??  I have purely because it was unable to catch and kill anything to eat and had little or no food available beyond raiding the bins.  That is no life for a fox and you should not wish it on them.  If you want to have other species population success or at least maintaining them at the rate they are then you have to removed SOME of the predator population.  We have no wolves or other predators that would keep the fox in check we destroyed those populations so we have to take on that role - it is a duty.

If you think that all animals have a right to life you are correct they do but they also have a right to a fight for survival which is what they have always done so that they do not go into old age suffering.  A quick death is much more suitable than a slow and painful one.

When you look at the other options available and if YOU ever have to do it you'll find hunting with hounds where the best of the foxes get a chance to live another day is by far the BEST option.  It might not be a pleasant end but it is swift.  I have to mop up other peoples messes when they fail to shoot cleanly and believe me there is nothing more upsetting than seeing a pregnant fox or one with obvious cubs or a young and healthy fox killed because there is no way for the wheat to be sorted from the chaff in the population looking through the end of a gun.  The hunt have the decency to provide a breeding season to avoid killing pregnant or nursing foxes and to allow young the opportunity to mature. The gun has NO breeding season.  

I don't think anyone has the right to make the decision about how an animal should be dispatched to maintain a healthy population unless you are prepared to get out there and do the job YOURSELF so that you can see first hand just how difficult it is to do.  You might not like hunting but believe me its the best thing for the population.  At the rate they are being shot we are decimating yet another wild population whilst leaving the town bin raiders increasing in numbers!  I know what I would rather have a wild healthy fox than a townies bin bandit!
		
Click to expand...

NSC, I am very much on the fence when it comes to hunting (I don't dislike it enough to protest, nor to I agree with it enough to support it), but your post made a lot of sense to me, and this is possibly one of the most valid and coherent reasonings for hunting I have heard.

My only question is regarding the bin raider foxes - if we continue to hunt foxes "in the wild" won't urban foxes become the stronger, dominant strain of fox? To an extent, by killing foxes that are still able to hunt other species for food rather than the scavengers, aren't we WEAKENING the fox population?


----------



## Littlelegs (24 December 2012)

Bubbily gum- years ago I worked on a yard not far from the kennels. So we regularly had hounds past. Also somewhere very close by, from the regularity he was spotted, a dog fox lived. He was a huge healthy specimen in the prime of life. In the years I was there, although the hounds must have scented him every time they passed, they never got close to getting him. It was not uncommon to see Mr fox calmly trotting through our fields 30mins after the hunt had passed. There was no way a cumbersome hunt was going to catch him. Yet I never saw mangy, thin old foxes regularly. The young healthy male had no need to bin raid, he could hunt. Whereas the old or injured, if the hunt didn't get them were spotted bin raiding at the local villages.


----------



## bubbilygum (24 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Bubbily gum- years ago I worked on a yard not far from the kennels. So we regularly had hounds past. Also somewhere very close by, from the regularity he was spotted, a dog fox lived. He was a huge healthy specimen in the prime of life. In the years I was there, although the hounds must have scented him every time they passed, they never got close to getting him. It was not uncommon to see Mr fox calmly trotting through our fields 30mins after the hunt had passed. There was no way a cumbersome hunt was going to catch him. Yet I never saw mangy, thin old foxes regularly. The young healthy male had no need to bin raid, he could hunt. Whereas the old or injured, if the hunt didn't get them were spotted bin raiding at the local villages.
		
Click to expand...

This works well in the countryside but what about inner cities? I lived in Cardiff for a few years and saw manky, scraggy foxes raiding bins everywhere. Of course it isn't practical to hunt these in the traditional sense (although that could be interesting!) but if we continue to hunt only those that survive in the wild, won't the bin raiders become the stronger fox? They aren't being hunted, have a food source and will breed more generations of bin raiders! Wild fox populations will continue to be controlled whilst urban fox populations will increase.


----------



## Littlelegs (24 December 2012)

Yes, I see your point regarding urban foxes. I'm not sure what the solution is, except for making sure the old or injured country foxes don't get chance to make it to towns & add to the existing problems. Although I am loving the idea of a traditional hunt through a town, that would be rather fun!


----------



## Jake10 (24 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			That is not a reason.
 'What gives anyone the right to deny any animal its life?'
was the question asked. Go ahead and justify hunting and assist the peril of humanity.
		
Click to expand...

You could always ask a far more interesting question like:

Why humans feel they have the right to use animals in scientific research when they could use a computer simulation or another human if the end product is aimed at humans? 

Or why are yellow cars so manky? And why do kids feel the need to hit each other when they see one 

Fox out smarts hounds = better genes passed on = better quality of fox cubs


----------



## irish_only (24 December 2012)

Oh I know this has been done to death but it still makes good reading 

Anthropomorphism................?

Oh - just thought. Why are rabbits allowed to be kept in cages until death from boredom?


----------



## Star_Chaser (24 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			My only question is regarding the bin raider foxes - if we continue to hunt foxes "in the wild" won't urban foxes become the stronger, dominant strain of fox? To an extent, by killing foxes that are still able to hunt other species for food rather than the scavengers, aren't we WEAKENING the fox population?
		
Click to expand...

Its a difficult question and a valid one.  In some respects better to look at them as two different subjects they face different problems and so do we in managing them.  

The rural fox faces the issue of reduced food source due to our farming methods, traffic increase and current management policy.  But as mentioned above a healthy dog fox in his prime is rarely dispatched by the hunt.  Number will never be as significant as those in the town because of the food source available.  Their management requirement is to maintain a healthy sustainable population.  Take out the weak, injured, old, diseased. 

The Urban fox faces no true issue on food source, although there maybe issue on territory, we throw out enough and often feed them so that they can now reproduce several times a year and not just in one season.  They have significantly increased numbers which creates a pest problem for us and given their location and proximity to people also creates conflict and an issue on how to manage them safely.  They do face other problems including health, injury etc.  Potentially disease transmission.  This is a good example of that conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10363646 it is a rare incident but increase the numbers in population and so too will our conflict with them increase.

It was interesting that in both areas there was a baying for blood on the local fox populations they changed from being angel to devil overnight.  We are VERY fickle.  

Like others I've seen urban foxes that would otherwise have died in pain, not the beautiful specimens that I see from the urban foxes in their prime.  I prefer the latter no matter where they are.  The hunt is a preferred method for me purely because it gives a good evaluation of the health of the animal.  We just cannot do that with the other methods available to us.  The fact that we dress for the occasion with all the pomp that goes with a days hunting may appear to be just a day out for the toffs but I prefer to see it as a form of appreciate for an adversary.


----------



## Bryndu (24 December 2012)

It is not 100 percent instinct when it comes to dogs attacking foxes

Nobody told my working collie this when he shot off after the fox screaming his head off...hackles up from head to tail....
He has never....ever chased another living thing...but I worry if he had caught up with Mr Fox...I would be at the vet right now having stitches in my boy

Bryndu


----------



## Star_Chaser (24 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			That particular figure is a national one - i.e. hunts kill 5% of the national fox population.  It was a pretty dubious figure - but assuming it's true - consider the large areas in which there is NO foxhunting - but plenty of foxes!!  A much more precise and careful study was carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust about 10 years before the ban which showed that in big shooting areas, the % of foxes killed by hunts was small - and in other areas - particularly hill countries where shooting/snaring etc were more problematic, it was up to 70% of the fox cull being done by hounds.

But hunting's primary aim is not to 'control numbers' (what equation would you use?) but to manage the fox population in a set area to the satisfaction of the local farmers and landowners!  Many hunts who are 'trail-hunting' for the paying customers are still carrying out fox control for the farmers - by legal means - because that is the trade off hunts have with farmers.  The hunt controls the foxes and takes the deadstock and the farmer lets the mounted followers ride over his land. 

To hunt foxes effectively (pre-ban of course) you needed at least 15-20 couple of hounds.  They're big hungry animals who need a LOT of food and a LOT of exercise!  The average hunt kennels employs at least 2 people full-time to look after hounds and run the flesh house.  A SMALL hunt costs at least £60,000 a year to run.  Without the followers, who would pay for it???
		
Click to expand...

An excellent response.


----------



## Star_Chaser (24 December 2012)

CarefreeCrimbo said:



			I wish I'd taken a picture of the large mange (sp?) ridden fox that walked in front of my car the other week. Pitiful creature that would of been glorious if in a good healthy condition. 
It stopped in the middle of the road and scratched for a good few seconds then stood back up and walked over to the other side and then stood there looking at me. I wish I'd been in OH's 4x4 as it needed putting out its misery. As I drove off I thought about him and knew that one more cold night or one more fight will give him a long slow painful death.

(excuse any typo's, on phone)
		
Click to expand...

Thats what I can't bare an animal that in its prime is a beautiful thing but left to suffer is tragic, you never see someone whose anti hunting there doing what needs to be done.


----------



## AnaV (26 December 2012)

Putting an animal out of its pain (whereby it is the last resort) is alright if it is done humanely by a person or two should no help be available. Not a whole crowd of every other punter wanting to go along for an afternoon. There are charities which aim to capture wild animals and release them back into the wilderness around Britain. Want to raise money for something good organize fun rides to raise money for them. I'm sure you could all twist a leg here and there with your farmer friends. 

I disagree with culling. Would you cull old, ill pensioners? I don't think so.
You find a starving fox? You can ring a wildlife sanctuary to capture it and take it back into the wild and you could have a heart to give it a few scraps for he journey. I do not see foxes, badgers and so on as pests however, if there was to be an alternative it would have to be to someone with only the best intentions and some bullets. 

Those of you still trying to justify it, please save your time for if I wanted to reread any repeal acts I would have. I was curious as to how those of you immoral, heartless beings wanted to worm your way out of what you have made yourself to be.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2012)

AnaV,

not that I can speak from experience,  but just a thought;  Have you ever tried "Mumsnet"?  It'd be far more to your style,  I'd have thought. 

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (26 December 2012)

Alec you know you should be a comedian.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Alec you know you should be a comedian.
		
Click to expand...

There's a very fine line between the "Comic" and the "Concerned".   You've obviously failed to grasp the distinction.

Alec.


----------



## Nicnac (26 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Would you cull old, ill pensioners?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I would actually having watched my grandmother breathe for the last 4 months culminating in her death on Christmas Eve.  

That's not living - we wouldn't allow our animals to endure such indignity - so yes, I would have 'culled' her.


----------



## AnaV (26 December 2012)

Sorry to hear that. 
I failed to specify 'those ill and old who could still be helped' ...not 'in pain and on their death bed where it may be of kind heart to step in'.


----------



## AnaV (26 December 2012)

You have obviously failed to grasp the concept of face icons whereby a 'Wink' face instigates humor or suggestion.


----------



## Star_Chaser (26 December 2012)

AnaV do you get the concept of WILD animal?? See a starving fox and call a rescue, honestly do you know nothing about wildlife??  A starving fox is starving for a reason usually ill health or serious injury, how are you planning to catch it?? By the time you've called this rescue the poor creature will be long gone.  These are not pets and that is what you are making them.

It really is depressing that there are people like you out there who have absolutely no working concept of animal management.

Release back into the Wilderness... totally and utter madness.  We have no wilderness unless you count certain parts of scotland and there is no food sustainable food source there.  Rescue foxes are 'released' after they have become dependent on people for food, they are 'released' back into areas more often than not where there is no place for them either with their own kind who are territorial or by the people who live or manage the locations they released in.  Your living in lala land if you think more than a small % survive after release.. and those numbers are not calculated.

Why do you feel the need to bring in the old and infirm in people to justify you argument for a wild animal and its management???  You lost your credibility doing that, keep to topic.


----------



## Star_Chaser (26 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			I do not see foxes, badgers and so on as pests however, if there was to be an alternative it would have to be to someone with only the best intentions and some bullets.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV do you shoot?  Have you ever used a rifle or a shotgun? 

If you do not and have not then I would like to issue you with a challenge, a new years resolution if you like for yourself... and I say this as an anti that went away and DID this myself... there are various shooting schools around the country they do a taster lessons at most go and book yourself a lesson and have a go, then go and spend the day with someone who has to dispatch these creatures as part of their job (any gamekeeper, pest controller or even someone with the RSPCA or RSPB can offer you a days work experience) and then when you have seen and TRIED yourself all the possible options come back and revisit this question.  Based on fact and experience not based on some wishful thinking easy option of man with a gun who will never be 100%


----------



## bubbilygum (26 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			To all of those who hunt, justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life? 
Thank you
		
Click to expand...




AnaV said:



			Those of you still trying to justify it, please save your time for if I wanted to reread any repeal acts I would have.
		
Click to expand...



It is ironic that the only thing that really makes me feel like supporting hunting is antis...!


----------



## Littlelegs (26 December 2012)

Pmsl anaV. So when you've captured the starving wild fox, pretending for a moment that's easier than it is, & rang a wildlife charity who agree to come out, how do they prevent the fox just starving elsewhere? Healthy foxes don't starve, they can hunt or scavenge. So when the old/ill/injured fox is released it will just starve somewhere else. 
  Good intentions & a gun aren't the only requirements, being an excellent shot is the important one. Death from gangrene is horrible, & being good enough to kill outright isn't a skill the majority have. Perhaps instead of following the hunt, if sabs actually wanted to do some good, they could train with guns till they are able to kill at a distance first shot, & they could volunteer to sit up several nights in a row to take out the unhealthy or old foxes. 
  Feeding country foxes is quite the most stupid idea I've ever heard. Do you have any concept of a wild animal? I imagine not. Pensioners are different in that we have state pensions, afaik we don't provide that for wild animals. 
  Also Pmsl at the idea of getting a charity out, unless you have a camera crew in situ. Early one morning I found what was left of a vixen & cub in the middle of a main road, in a town. Clearly an rta, problem was my car scared away the remaining live cubs from their dead mother. They sat at the roadside crying, clearly far too young to survive even a life of bin raiding without a mother. And not too fussed about a human & a parked car with barking dogs in. They wouldn't have starved, if they hadn't been hit by speeding traffic in a few hours, then they were fact enough to get killed by a pet dog. Guess what the animal charities said? Leave them, they will be fine. Eventually rspca came when I threatened to ring the local paper. 
  Anyway op, hope you enjoyed your vegan xmas dinner.


----------



## Shutterbug (26 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:





It is ironic that the only thing that really makes me feel like supporting hunting is antis...!
		
Click to expand...

Same - I'm usually pretty much on the fence and have posted at length on these kinds of posts and discussed both sides with lots of people on these very forums, (and never a cross word have I received) in order to better understand both sides - but nothing is going to push me over the fence and into the pro camp like an anti who cant form a reasonable well worded argument for their side and who resorts to name calling

anaV I suggest you learn a/ some manners and b/ how to put your opinion across in a civilized and mature manner


----------



## sophiebailey (26 December 2012)

LOL-ed at many of these posts, all of these anti-hunting eejits spouting crud about mother nature have obviously never had their lives blighted by vermin such as the fox/rats/mice etc. If you had vermin causing havoc in your home would you put down rat poison or feed the poor little thing some cheese and let it stay?! Hypocrisy!! If you had ants in your living room would you put down powder or put down some sugar for them? If you had a wasps nest would you spray it or put some orange juice in a bowl for them? Have you never in your life swatted a fly? What gave YOU the right to end the life of that fly by splatting its guts up a window?! 

The food chain has existed since the dawn of time. Those higher in the food chain kill those lower in the food chain. The method is irrelevant. 

There have been numerous studies done on predators such as lions/polar bears/tigers whereby they have killed for sport and then left their catch for other animals to scavenge. Watched a documentary on it a few days ago on sky!

This is all irrelevant anyway, foxes don't die anymore as a result of the ban. So what's happened now? The countryside is over run and foxes are forced into the cities - running around peoples houses biting babies. 

All this new age eco s**t winds me up. You use electricity, you drive a car, you read books + newspapers and wipe you bum on loo roll made of paper made from trees, you use leather products, you eat meat. What is worse, a fox quickly killed by the hounds or the horrific life of the battery hen that laid the egg you ate for your breakfast?! 

Cut out the holier than thou cr** and bore off. You're just as guilty as everyone else for polluting this planet. 

#ignorant #townie


----------



## Littlelegs (27 December 2012)

Just before hunting was banned, I recall seeing a pair of antis (festooned in 'ban the hunt' stuff) cheerfully buying value eggs in Tesco. I wonder if op is exactly the same type of hypocrite? Ditto poison or traps for rats or mice. Poison is a horrid slow way to go, but rats aren't as cute as foxes, so that's ok.


----------



## Moomin1 (27 December 2012)

sophiebailey said:



			LOL-ed at many of these posts, all of these anti-hunting eejits spouting crud about mother nature have obviously never had their lives blighted by vermin such as the fox/rats/mice etc. If you had vermin causing havoc in your home would you put down rat poison or feed the poor little thing some cheese and let it stay?! Hypocrisy!! If you had ants in your living room would you put down powder or put down some sugar for them? If you had a wasps nest would you spray it or put some orange juice in a bowl for them? Have you never in your life swatted a fly? What gave YOU the right to end the life of that fly by splatting its guts up a window?! 

The food chain has existed since the dawn of time. Those higher in the food chain kill those lower in the food chain. The method is irrelevant. 

There have been numerous studies done on predators such as lions/polar bears/tigers whereby they have killed for sport and then left their catch for other animals to scavenge. Watched a documentary on it a few days ago on sky!

This is all irrelevant anyway, foxes don't die anymore as a result of the ban. So what's happened now? The countryside is over run and foxes are forced into the cities - running around peoples houses biting babies. 

All this new age eco s**t winds me up. You use electricity, you drive a car, you read books + newspapers and wipe you bum on loo roll made of paper made from trees, you use leather products, you eat meat. What is worse, a fox quickly killed by the hounds or the horrific life of the battery hen that laid the egg you ate for your breakfast?! 

Cut out the holier than thou cr** and bore off. You're just as guilty as everyone else for polluting this planet. 

#ignorant #townie
		
Click to expand...

Ha ha!! Do you really think that foxes have only just appeared in cities because of the ban?

Bless.


----------



## sophiebailey (27 December 2012)

Hiya Moomince, no I don't think it's the only reason they're in the cities, but I also don't think that it's a coincidence that post ban the number of urban foxes has increased. The number of reported incidents where urban foxes have attacked domestic pets and occasionally children has increased, especially in the last two years, and the amount of work pest control companies in cities undertake with relation to foxes has also increased.

Whilst I don't believe the ban is the SOLE reason for this increase, it seems logical to think that if the rural population is so high at the moment and with foxes being quite territorial, if there's no space for them in the countryside they'll be forced to look further afield for hunting/scavenging grounds.  

The hunt used to keep our farm fox free pre 2005, now the only method for my grandad to control the fox population is to pay to hire a shooter, who often misses the target and leaves the foxes on the fields half dead. Although this goes some way to controlling the population, he's still trying to find ways to stop the foxes from entering the calf pens and nipping at their legs, which they have done on numerous occasions. Once one even went into the barn and bit a cow that was lying down on the end of the nose! They're brave little ******'s!! 

I'd like to apologise for name calling in my previous post, I was tired when I posted and the OP made me angry, as I'm fed up of being told that I'm the reason the world is suffering because I don't oppose fox hunting. I hate people with closed minded attitudes, rational debate is all well and good and I always accept opinions differ, but why start such a debate if you're not intending to listen to the other arguments?!


----------



## bubbilygum (27 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Just before hunting was banned, I recall seeing a pair of antis (festooned in 'ban the hunt' stuff) cheerfully buying value eggs in Tesco. I wonder if op is exactly the same type of hypocrite? Ditto poison or traps for rats or mice. Poison is a horrid slow way to go, but rats aren't as cute as foxes, so that's ok.
		
Click to expand...

It's not unknown for 'animal rights' protesters/hunt sabs to chase the hounds into roads/railways either, or terrify the horses and endanger their lives and the riders...


----------



## Littlelegs (27 December 2012)

No, I agree, antis have done some acts of cruelty for 'the cause'.  I once had a housemate call me cruel for letting my terrier go ratting, & for hunting pre ban. Her cupboard load of cosmetics that had all been tested on animals were ok though. I think for some, animal rights are just a handy cause for anarchy. If they'd been born in houses with religion, they'd be committing horrid acts in the name of a god instead.


----------



## Mossi (27 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			To all of those who hunt, justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life? 
Thank you
		
Click to expand...

Some of us know where you are coming from Ana.  Don't expect sympathy from farmers and so called sport hunters though, afterall, farmers send baby cattle, pigs and lambs to be murdered for consumption, when we humans don't actually need to eat them to survive.  Humans are probably the largest set of vermin on the earth.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2012)

Mossi said:



			.......

Humans are probably the largest set of vermin on the earth.
		
Click to expand...

Could I,  perhaps,  remind you of your species,  as in "Human"?  It isn't how I feel about myself,  but I'm pleased to see just how contrite you are. 

Alec.


----------



## Littlelegs (27 December 2012)

Pmsl I_s_s.


----------



## AnaV (27 December 2012)

I am aware of the concept 'Wild' animal and animal care if anything more so than most of you.

I did not directly insult anyone. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said-"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. - some of you must have a guilty consciousness to find what I have said offensive. 

When I mentioned animal charities I did not have the RSPCA in mind for I am not keen on their way of dealing with abused/neglected animal cases.My thread here was to ponder why many of you thought it was okay to kill other defenseless creatures so if you cannot handle the pressure of answering and resort to swearing you must not be worthy of doing the deed you 'have' to do. 
I see not the issues of killing for necessary consumption for it is part of this reality called 'survival' but where the problem arises for me is when some of you make a game of killing for pleasure/sport. 

If you wish to discuss my knowledge of animals or how I choose to live send me a separate message because in relevance to this post it has none you are simply making yourself look foolish by trying to question me. It gives off as inferior behavior when one cannot answer a question given such as why they do or have done something they say 'so what about you then?'

It strikes me with some hilarity how a proportion of you act as though you see eye to eye with farmers whilst many others of you are 'neck and neck' with them in debates of which parts of their land you can drag your horses around on.


----------



## Littlelegs (27 December 2012)

In what way is killing animals for consumption necessary for survival in the uk? Nobody in advanced countries eats meat for survival, its purely for pleasure. I'm simply pointing out that those who support bloodsports are hardly the first group you should be pointing the finger at if you have a problem with taking an animals life. I think your lifestyle is actually very relevant op, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. As I said earlier, I can respect the opinion that humans have no right to take animal life if they are not a hypocrite & live 100% to that rule. 
  Which animal rights groups were you thinking of, the ALF?


----------



## Nancykitt (27 December 2012)

To me, the 'sport' is not to do with killing - I have never been on a live hunt, but I would still say that drag hunting / trail hunting are sport. It isn't competitive sport, but a lot of sports aren't necessarily competitive. I used to go rock climbing - I never competed, but I still considered it a sport. When hunting, I challenge myself to ride as well as I can. I did not ever see hunting as a competitive sport as described by so many antis - ie, a bunch of toffs v. a poor harmless defenceless fluffy animal. There is a skill to riding across country and a skill to working hounds, but we do need to establish a definition of 'sport' for the original question to be properly addressed.
I don't believe the original question was about 'sport' though - it was, really, a rhetorical question. OP does not believe in culling and is opposed to fox hunting. That's about it really. OP has not answered the question posed earlier about the best way to maintain a healthy fox population and I would have more respect for such people if they came up with an informed argument.


----------



## Littlelegs (27 December 2012)

Oops, freudian slip, not animal rights, animal charities. Make that the ALF & PETA.


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

In the sense that if you do not have a balanced diet consisting of protein you are of ill health?


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

Erm, no, meat is hardly the only source of protein available, nor the richest. Plenty of healthy vegetarians around, & people like myself who eat little meat. In my case due to the expense of buying meat raised & killed to decent standards. Humans don't need meat, we eat it for pleasure alone. Unlike hunting, which also serves a purpose. I realise you have little knowledge of wild animals, but surely you should have a basic idea of the human dietary requirements?


----------



## {100649} (28 December 2012)

sophiebailey said:



			LOL-ed at many of these posts, all of these anti-hunting eejits spouting crud about mother nature have obviously never had their lives blighted by vermin such as the fox/rats/mice etc. If you had vermin causing havoc in your home would you put down rat poison or feed the poor little thing some cheese and let it stay?! Hypocrisy!! If you had ants in your living room would you put down powder or put down some sugar for them? If you had a wasps nest would you spray it or put some orange juice in a bowl for them? Have you never in your life swatted a fly? What gave YOU the right to end the life of that fly by splatting its guts up a window?! 

The food chain has existed since the dawn of time. Those higher in the food chain kill those lower in the food chain. The method is irrelevant. 

There have been numerous studies done on predators such as lions/polar bears/tigers whereby they have killed for sport and then left their catch for other animals to scavenge. Watched a documentary on it a few days ago on sky!

This is all irrelevant anyway, foxes don't die anymore as a result of the ban. So what's happened now? The countryside is over run and foxes are forced into the cities - running around peoples houses biting babies. 

All this new age eco s**t winds me up. You use electricity, you drive a car, you read books + newspapers and wipe you bum on loo roll made of paper made from trees, you use leather products, you eat meat. What is worse, a fox quickly killed by the hounds or the horrific life of the battery hen that laid the egg you ate for your breakfast?! 

Cut out the holier than thou cr** and bore off. You're just as guilty as everyone else for polluting this planet. 

#ignorant #townie
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree!


----------



## {100649} (28 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			I do find the first part of your argument interesting... the distance of a man with a rifle or shotgun is relatively limited, the distance of wondering hounds in front of the huntsman with the gun, the horses and the riders some of whom maybe children and unused to the sound of a gun going off would make it DANGEROUS to actually shot the fox from a distance and leave the poor animal unlikely to be dead it would be more likely to be seriously injured leaving it at risk. It wouldn't be safe to take that shot for the fox or for the people and hounds around.  It is certainly not easy to control a group of dogs the huntsmen do an admirable job but are not infallible. Then of course their is the ability of the person with the gun... NONE of us are a perfect shot.

I always find it fascinating the arguments for and against I actually did a whole years study into this at university and I must ask one question of you as this is YOUR debate on the topic so here goes:

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR SOLUTION TO MAINTAINING A HEALTHY FOX POPULATION? 

given that feeding them only increases numbers as they will breed out of season.  That animals not healthy cannot survive without human intervention or they suffer prior to death (usually from starvation).  Survival of the fittest is the best way to cull inferior animals from a population.

Being enlightened in this matter I await your response with curiosity and am of course prepared to change my view if you are able to provide a suitable alternative. It really is very easy to be in the No Kill camp but few are able to offer a real and viable alternative when pressed.
		
Click to expand...


What is your solution then Ana V?


----------



## sophiebailey (28 December 2012)

ffosffin said:



			What is your solution then Ana V?
		
Click to expand...

The fox population doesn't need maintaining, they're all such fluffy cute little critters and it's a joy to see them all running free in the towns and villages!


----------



## dianchi (28 December 2012)

Troll hunting is an alternative


----------



## Star_Chaser (28 December 2012)

AnaV it is interesting you quote Eleanor Roosevelt her father was a 'sportsman' known for his big game hunting. 

I do think if you are going to raise a topic such as this which is bound to be controversial then you should have the decency not to slate with poor argument off topic others views.  Healthy debate is one thing but if you cannot justify your own position then you do the topic no favours.

Personally I do not think it is the Anti's that gave the Hunting Ban its legality I think it is those of the population that fail to have an interest in the topic and an understanding of what it entails.

AnaV you would be wise to research your topic in future and at least have a workable alternative.  I would still be interested in your solution.


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

I do not think there should be an alternative. It is undeniably a sport just for mans pleasure which entails unecessary murder as I have once said before. You are prepared to pay £40-£60 to hunt wrongly believing you 'have' to in order to maintain a healthy animal population when you do not. It is not humans responsibility to kill off other animals. Foxes die off naturally from territorial dispute. Even if they prove pests to you here goes the phrase 'deal with it' by perhaps digging fences into the ground to protect your chickens/poultry.


----------



## It's Me Megan (28 December 2012)

sophiebailey said:



			The fox population doesn't need maintaining, they're all such fluffy cute little critters and it's a joy to see them all running free in the towns and villages!  

Click to expand...

I saw a particularly large urban fox yesterday whilst I was driving in the middle of middle of a housing estate... I confess to doing a double take because originally I thought it was a loose dog


----------



## Simsar (28 December 2012)

To all of those who hunt, justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life?*Thank you

AnaV if you are truely here for a reasoned debate, and you stand by you original question then you are also questioning modern vet practise, the problem with your question comes in the 'anyone'.

I was going to explain my view point having been a typically spoon fed towny anti, however I feel it will fall on deaf ears and do not wish to waste my breath!
Simon


----------



## bubbilygum (28 December 2012)

If humans don't have the right to kill animals, then what right do we have to interfere by 'helping' dying ones by taking them to wildlife rescue centres like you helpfully suggested?

I'm not particularly pro or anti hunting but I am anti-hypocrisy.


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

Actually, anaV does suggest an alternative, starvation or from wounds inflicted by another fox in fights. How pleasant.


----------



## Moomin1 (28 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			If humans don't have the right to kill animals, then what right do we have to interfere by 'helping' dying ones by taking them to wildlife rescue centres like you helpfully suggested?

I'm not particularly pro or anti hunting but I am anti-hypocrisy.
		
Click to expand...

I am not getting involved in this thread to any more of an extent than this post, but I think the point in the whole 'helping dying animals and euthanasia or treatment at a centre' is that you are alleviating suffering and doing it humanely.  The whole debate around hunting with hounds etc etc is that it is not considered humane and it is considered to inflict suffering.  

Your point is a bit silly really, because that's like saying if people don't have the right to murder one another, then what right do they have to treat one in a hospital, or resuscitate.


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

As Moomince Pie has said I think you are all starting to sound silly and pedantic.


----------



## arizonahoney (28 December 2012)

You're overlooking a crucial point, AnaV. This is a hunting forum, not an _anti_-hunting forum. 

Now go take your pouting elsewhere, there's a duck


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

Thus why I am arising the controversial issue with these hunting supporters and partakers here on the Horse and Hound forum.


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

I really don't mind if someone with no knowledge of wildlife & even less ability to have reasonable debate considers me silly & pedantic. That's preferable to actually being stupid & misinformed.


----------



## arizonahoney (28 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Thus why I am arising the controversial issue with these hunting supporters and partakers here on the Horse and Hound forum.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to be pedantic, but that's not even grammatical...


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Ah, right, so fox control isn't necessary as it seems that the fox population is 'self regulating'. 
And it seems that those of us who have livestock have to 'deal with it' by building the equivalent of Alcatraz for our chickens.
What about other livestock? And what about my pet cat, killed by a fox a few years ago?
Or presumably I should only let me cats out in a pen because they have less of a right to live than the foxes? What about lambs? Or should we start penning our sheep too, just so that the foxes can have the run of the countryside? 

What about other wildlife? What about ground-nesting birds, some of which have to be protected from foxes (by various means) as their numbers are getting dangerously low? Or do they have less of a right to live than the fox? 

One year the local foxes had a very particularly successful breeding season. They fed from the bins on the neighbouring housing estate, and then there were the idiots that were feeding them. The result was that we were overrun with foxes - it was almost impossible to go down the lane without seeing at least one, even in broad daylight. They caused huge problems. The lampers went out one night and shot a record number. None of them were particularly healthy and most were emaciated. Is this really acceptable?
Please do not tell me that foxes do not need controlling as my own experience tells me otherwise. Self-regulating fox populations? Oh please....


----------



## bubbilygum (28 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Your point is a bit silly really, because that's like saying if people don't have the right to murder one another, then what right do they have to treat one in a hospital, or resuscitate.
		
Click to expand...

Oh god, there is a whole different debate there: abortion, euthanasia, DNRs, life support machines... 

Animals and people aren't one of the same. People kill animals for many reasons. Equally animals don't have any understanding of compassionate care and will kill the weak themselves or accept a predator will. It is perfectly natural for an animal to be killed by another animal higher up the food chain. We have killed the foxes only natural predators.

My point was that everyone draws the line somewhere at how much we interfere with wild animals. Is it any more cruel to kill a weak fox with dogs than to rehabilitate it only for it to become weak again due to it being unable to fend for itself? Of course that isn't always the case but who is to know?


----------



## bubbilygum (28 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Actually, anaV does suggest an alternative, starvation or from wounds inflicted by another fox in fights. How pleasant.
		
Click to expand...

No! If you find a starving or injured fox you must take it to a wildlife rescue ASAP!


----------



## {100649} (28 December 2012)

Well said Nancykitt


----------



## Moomin1 (28 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			Oh god, there is a whole different debate there: abortion, euthanasia, DNRs, life support machines... 

Animals and people aren't one of the same. People kill animals for many reasons. Equally animals don't have any understanding of compassionate care and will kill the weak themselves or accept a predator will. It is perfectly natural for an animal to be killed by another animal higher up the food chain. We have killed the foxes only natural predators.

My point was that everyone draws the line somewhere at how much we interfere with wild animals. Is it any more cruel to kill a weak fox with dogs than to rehabilitate it only for it to become weak again due to it being unable to fend for itself? Of course that isn't always the case but who is to know?
		
Click to expand...

Any reasonable wildlife rehabilitation centre has wildlife vets who make that decision as to whether each individual animal will be capable of fending for itself succesfully once again.  Otherwise they are pts.  Of course you get these ramshackle make shift god awful 'rescue centres' who take anything in and 'rehabilitate it for release' (often with no vet involved).  

With regard the killing debate, ie food chain, I was not debating the killing of animals.  The 'killing' of animals is necessary in many cases.  It is how it's done that should be considered.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Some lampers were telling us that one night they were asked by a farmer to go out into a particular area where a lot of foxes had been seen. Within minutes, a fox appeared and was shot. Then another, then another. The lampers said that these foxes weren't behaving like 'normal' wild foxes. They found out the next day that all of these foxes were injured/sick animals that had been taken to centres to be treated and then re-released - only to be shot dead. 
How on earth can it be compassionate to put a wild animal through the stress of being handled and kept in captivity, then to be released and shot? Absolute madness.


----------



## Moomin1 (28 December 2012)

Nancykitt said:



			Some lampers were telling us that one night they were asked by a farmer to go out into a particular area where a lot of foxes had been seen. Within minutes, a fox appeared and was shot. Then another, then another. The lampers said that these foxes weren't behaving like 'normal' wild foxes. They found out the next day that all of these foxes were injured/sick animals that had been taken to centres to be treated and then re-released - only to be shot dead. 
How on earth can it be compassionate to put a wild animal through the stress of being handled and kept in captivity, then to be released and shot? Absolute madness.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, as if that story isn't going to be warped and bias!

Anyway, that is why, like I say, any REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE wildlife centre has wildlife vets who make the decision as to whether they are suitable for release and to thrive after captivity.  There are certain species of animals that are known not to do well in that area.  Also, any decent centre will have extensive and well designed facilities to ensure the most minimal handling and human contact with the wild animal as possible.


----------



## Molasses (28 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			Even if they prove pests to you here goes the phrase 'deal with it' by perhaps digging fences into the ground to protect your chickens/poultry.
		
Click to expand...

Hey AnaV
People hunt
Deal with it


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

It's quite simple Nancy kitt. It's called turning a blind eye. Taking the poor injured/ill fox to a rescue or feeding it makes you feel all fluffy inside, & you can ignore reality, & feel like a much better person than the person who actually has the decency to put the poor thing out of its misery. As to the problem of foxes versus farm animals, for plenty of antis it isn't one. Ime the majority couldn't care less how their food was raised, so if everything was intensively farmed foxes wouldn't be an issue for farmers.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Molasses said:



			Hey AnaV
People hunt
Deal with it 

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

As for my supposedly biased account of the lampers shooting the 'rescue' foxes - shooting foxes is perfectly legal. Therefore, any person or organisation who treats a fox and re-releases it must know that there is a definite chance that it will be killed by some means or other. However much care is taken to prevent a wild animal becoming stressed, it will be impossible to prevent this. I therefore question the practice of treating a sick wild animal that stands a chance of being culled soon afterwards - or even worse, according to the OP, dying at the claws and teeth of its own species!

You are right, T_a_l, most of the antis I'm sure would rather see all farm animals raised indoors in totally unnatural  - and sometimes inhumane - conditions, just so that the foxes could have total freedom. Let's get our priorities right, shall we?


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

So by killing the weaker, less witty foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, more intelligent ones to attack your poultry and livestock?


----------



## Countryman (28 December 2012)

It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull that are most likely to go for the easy prey such as poultry! Face it, hunting is the only selective way of managing the fox population - not culling as many as possible, but taking out the weak and old.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull that are most likely to go for the easy prey such as poultry! Face it, hunting is the only selective way of managing the fox population - not culling as many as possible, but taking out the weak and old.
		
Click to expand...

Take note, OP, this has definitely been my experience.


----------



## Molasses (28 December 2012)

AnaV said:



			So by killing the weaker, less witty foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, more intelligent ones to attack your poultry and livestock?
		
Click to expand...

Oh my dear you are missing the greater point. 
Hunts folk no matter their means or target love the countryside for that is their domain. We love the early misty morning, we love the sight of healthy stock, wild life and peace for that is where hunting flourishes. Of course we want to see a healthy population of any animal. For we love nature, hard that that might be for you to understand. That is the magic of it. If you have ever looked down the gun sight at a deer through the mist or given chase to a hare or fox, then you will know what is to be alive and celebrate the balance and know that all things pass but all things are connected. I wish I had a way with words to explain it, until then I recommend you try otherwise you are just judging


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

As I've said earlier, the stronger, healthier foxes were never much of an issue. They can find ample food without risking daylight raids on hen coops etc. A starving fox will though. Our now departed emaciated fox would dart into the barn when we were turning out every am, & exit as we returned. Only a starving fox would risk that for the chance of spilt pony nuts, & a bowl of dry cat food. Especially with a large dog on the loose.


----------



## Countryman (28 December 2012)

As Molasses says, hunting people ultimately want the best for the countryside and their quarry species. I still get a thrill when I see a fox hunting a young rabbit, or cubs crossing a field. I'm as much a nature lover as any anti. But part of the idea of needing to care for nature includes the need to ensure that there is a healthy population.


----------



## Moomin1 (28 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			As I've said earlier, the stronger, healthier foxes were never much of an issue. They can find ample food without risking daylight raids on hen coops etc. A starving fox will though. Our now departed emaciated fox would dart into the barn when we were turning out every am, & exit as we returned. Only a starving fox would risk that for the chance of spilt pony nuts, & a bowl of dry cat food. Especially with a large dog on the loose.
		
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but how about not just supplying some food for the fox then?  In a more accessible position outside of the coup?


----------



## Littlelegs (28 December 2012)

The fox was unable to bear weight on one leg moomin, it needed putting out of its misery. The barn it was darting into every morning is an old cow byre converted into stables. That's how hungry it was. And forgetting the leg, as I said earlier how do you successfully feed a country fox? Leaving food out the other foxes would soon see it off, & taming it enough to feed it would encourage it to approach humans. Which with a housing estate not far away would be stupid.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			I can see your point, but how about not just supplying some food for the fox then?  In a more accessible position outside of the coup?
		
Click to expand...

Ah, now the whole business of feeding a wild animal population - especially animals classed as 'vermin' -  is a different argument entirely. 

There are all sorts of reasons why this is a bad idea. In the case described by T_a_l, we have a fox who is clearly suffering. Providing it with food and prolonging its suffering is questionable, but also, as pointed out, it just wouldn't work like that as other foxes would soon be onto a food source. 

And where would it stop? As I mentioned earlier, the local foxes had a bumper breeding year as a result of being well-fed on the bins, or being fed by people on the estate. But soon there were foxes everywhere and they all wanted feeding. It could get to the stage where humans are effectively propping up a population of vermin that is incapable of survival otherwise. There are all sorts of problems with this.


----------



## Star_Chaser (28 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			I can see your point, but how about not just supplying some food for the fox then?  In a more accessible position outside of the coup?
		
Click to expand...

You don't encourage a predator to feed by a source of prey  Talk about asking for trouble


----------



## Moomin1 (28 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			You don't encourage a predator to feed by a source of prey  Talk about asking for trouble 

Click to expand...

But it's already sourcing the prey.


----------



## AnaV (28 December 2012)

From past experience I have found that it is the stronger foxes that dare to attack chicken coops. When my friend and I had several poultry a healthy vixen killed them all to feed her den. More recently another friend of mine who is neither for or against hunting sighted the fox that killed nearly all her chickens. Now he was a big 'dog'.


----------



## Mossi (28 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Could I,  perhaps,  remind you of your species,  as in "Human"?  It isn't how I feel about myself,  but I'm pleased to see just how contrite you are. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

We are, we have probably done more damage to the planet and other species than anything else, intentionally or not.  There is a horrible side to our otherwise beautiful planet in that it is full of creatures that inflict pain on, kill and eat each other to survive and to inflict pain on and kill for sporting pleasure is quite shocking.


----------



## AnaV (29 December 2012)

Nicely put Mossi. I could not agree more. It is even more shocking as people then try and justify it.


----------



## Simsar (29 December 2012)

This is getting silly now, you ask us to justify killing animals to YOUR closed mind, as most of us live it we know the justification and don't need to TRY to do it to appease YOUR unjust mind! You posted on a hunting forum to simply stir, perhaps when you are mature enough to listen to those who MAY know more than you and possibly see these things yourself before closing your mind, then maybe come back for some reasoned debate.
Simon


----------



## Nancykitt (29 December 2012)

Mossi said:



			We are, we have probably done more damage to the planet and other species than anything else, intentionally or not.  There is a horrible side to our otherwise beautiful planet in that it is full of creatures that inflict pain on, kill and eat each other to survive and to inflict pain on and kill for sporting pleasure is quite shocking.
		
Click to expand...

And this is something that you really will have to learn to 'deal with'. It is a beautiful planet but it's not Tellytubby land, and animals - including humans - inflict pain and suffering on each other for a variety of reasons constantly. It's virtually impossible to watch an episode of any David Attenborough programme without something experiencing pain and suffering. 

As for the 'sport' side of hunting - I do not, personally, see the sport as being about killing. I hunt within the law, so nothing gets killed, but I still consider my pastime to be a sport.
Live hunting, with hounds, was a method of fox control. If I was live hunting there is a chance that at some stage during the day a fox would be killed. What happens now is that nothing gets killed during the hunt, but we come home, lampers go out that evening and it's likely that a number of foxes will get killed. 

As others have said, you came on this forum and posed a question, not out of genuine interest, but just to wind people up. Did you really think that the hunting folk on here would read your 'argument' and say 'Wow, hang on, she's right! I never thought of that Foxhunting is really cruel!' We've heard it all a million times before. 

I was anti-hunting for most of my life and I'm sorry to say that I had a closed mind for much of that time. I now live in a rural community and keep my own livestock; I have learnt a great deal about wildlife, habitat, farm animals and conservation, mostly from the people around me - hunting folk with a strong commitment to conserving the nature and wildlife of this country. 

And by the way, AnaV - the post about a fox having taken your chickens and your friend's chickens shows that you obviously do not practise what you preach re. building a secure run.


----------



## Jesster (29 December 2012)

Copperpot said:



			Cos it's the most fun you can have on a horse 

Click to expand...

Disagree. Polo is the most fun, hunting a very close second.


----------



## brighteyes (29 December 2012)

Well, we have managed (by our requirements for a plentiful and secure supply of food) to skew the whole wildlife system so completely that there is no balance brought by self-regulation.  We also removed the top predator from the ecosystem (whose method of controlling the fox was to chase it, then use teeth to despatch it) and have made scavenging and other food sources so plentiful, the fox population has exploded.

Either we hold our hands up and enforce moderation in our food (so there aren't so many lambs and chickens in fields (we like our food to be happy before we kill it and eat it) and only buy exactly the food we need to survive (so none gets thrown into bins and wasted) or we manage the eco-system and fox population in a sensible fashion.

It has to be said, galloping about on horses following packs of hounds, is tremendous fun.  Chasing the odd fox or two doesn't bother me - I'd sooner not do it under the heading of 'sport' and the fit ones get away in any case, but if an old and mangy specimin is lingering (due to aforementioned reasons) then a very quick death (and if there has been a chase of any length, the creature will be full of adrenaline and therefore in an altered state anyway) is far better than a slow and painful one. 

I don't hold with artificially 'setting up' a fox or any other healthy creature for the provision of 'sport' but feel drag hunting (which might include the killing of any fox whose life is compromised by its ill-heath) to be perfectly OK.  The hunt could be officially employed in the countryside on non-hunting days armed with a hound (or so) and several guns. They would all be expert marksmen, naturally.

Of course, safety in the fields would be an issue if we did the reintroduction of wolves (the natural top predator) or fox number control by shooting, but since we got ourselves into this mess...


----------



## {100649} (29 December 2012)

Wow this is getting stupid now. This "argument" isn't going anywhere. She is clearly not listening to anyone. Anything you say to her is wrong and her opinion is what matters. Leave her and her narrow mind to it. She's a waste of your time guys!


----------



## luckyoldme (29 December 2012)

How about doing yourselves a favour and justify good manners when dealing with other members of the general public?
Im sure every single member on here would entusiaticly thank a driver for pullling in and waiting for them to pass, and im sure no one on here would fail to acknowledge the driver and not only that ,turn round and ride half way back up the road and turn into a field, without so much of a thankyou. Im also sure that if a member of the public caught a loose horse and held on to it whilst its injured rider was tended to you would nt just walk over and grab the reins without so evan acknowledging that person.
Both these things have happened to me , i would still stop for horses and i would still grab a loose horse, because im fair minded..but it left me with the impression that out of the three esperiences of speaking or interacting with the hunt, two experiences were with very arrogant people.


----------



## brighteyes (29 December 2012)

You can't really 'justify hunting for sport' but you can justify taking out an odd mangy specimin in the process of following (for sport/pleasure) a set trail across counrty, on horseback behind hounds on a scent accompanied and supervised by a huntsman and his staff.


----------



## Molasses (29 December 2012)

Can't really justify anything to those who ask the question with their minds already made up. 

But I've got to say I've really enjoyed this thread, it's been funny, informative, passionate and very well behaved considering the provocative nature of some.  Bravo everyone.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			I really don't mind if someone with no knowledge of wildlife & even less ability to have reasonable debate considers me silly & pedantic. That's preferable to actually being stupid & misinformed.
		
Click to expand...

Presactly!   Every now and then,  there are those who post on here,  they start of all so often,  with an apology,  and then they ask their question,  a question which is all so often asking for justification.  Those questions come from those who by their own admission,  don't understand.  After the initial mistrust,  most will respond in a factual and reasoned way.

Then we have those who've formed their own preconceived ideas,  they still don't understand,  but they've formed opinions which are based on anything but experience,  and they would also be zealot like in their assumptions about class distinction;  failing to understand that Field Sports are the greatest levellers of any assumed status.

I'd suggest (yes,  AGAIN!) that we ignore the latter.  They have no interest in the views of the bulk of the contributors to this section.



Molasses said:



			Can't really justify anything to those who ask the question with their minds already made up. 

But I've got to say I've really enjoyed this thread, it's been funny, informative, passionate and very well behaved considering the provocative nature of some.  Bravo everyone.
		
Click to expand...

Well said you.  I've enjoyed reading through it too.  I do sometimes wonder though,  why those with such entrenched views even bother to open debate.  Those who live in a seemingly sterile and purist world,  vegans presumably,  post such headings where the majority have a diverging understanding.  If their only intent is causing mischief and disagreement,  then they are no more than Trolls (such a horrible word). 

Alec.


----------



## Springy (29 December 2012)

Foxes kill for fun as well as food same as humans

Hounds hunt in a pack like Lions hunt zebra so surely thats more natural than a gun... people would be outraged at people shooting a zabra but when a lion kills it its ok.... the hounds are using their natural instincts like greyhounds domestic cats etc etc 

People will never agree

My husband hunts and as he is involved in racing then the horses need to have taken part in 3 hunts to p2p

I dont hunt as I couldnt kill a fox however i would drag hunt.

We however are married and we can agree to disagree and see both sides of the argument.

We also have a pet foxhound who likes foxes (he is odd lol) but he isnt the blood thirst animal he is made out to be 

Agree to disagree like everything else in life ie vegiterianism, dirivng a car, owning a caged bird, spurs vs natural horsemanship........ the list never ends.....


----------



## bubbilygum (29 December 2012)

Molasses said:



			But I've got to say I've really enjoyed this thread, it's been funny, informative, passionate and very well behaved considering the provocative nature of some.  Bravo everyone.
		
Click to expand...

Me too!


----------



## iansmithpesty (30 December 2012)

I think the main problem with justifying 'sport' is the meaning of the word sport in itself.

Iv played rugby, to me that is a game, not sport. In modern Britain sport now means all such games and hobbies so using it to include hunting automatically
angers many people and puts fieldsports people on the back foot.

If you feed a cat it still hunts, why? because its part of its very being. I, and many others feel the same. We cannot live without hunting, real hunting, the all consuming being in pursuit of something. The inability or refusal to grasp this is the root cause of the ignorance of the 'anti' brigade. Many people are happy to drag hunt (100% an equestrian activity) just as many people are pacified with watching football or playing video games. But for many of us we need the real thing. 150 people may follow a hunt on horse back, maybe 75% will be there just for the ride, to qualify p2p or for many other reasons but a proportion will be there to hunt, to watch hounds and huntsman in perfect harmony trying to outwit a wild being, that the odds are vastly stacked in the favour of. Thats why hunting isnt about the big posh mounted packs but its also about the group of 15 beaglers who meet on a mountainside to try to catch hares with a tiny hound.

Someone on here has said they would rather choose to be culled by a trained marks man with a lamp. Well that sounds good but no matter how good a shooter maybe their will always be an amount of wounding, with hunting you never get this. Also with lamping for pest control, no hedges will be planted, no woods coppiced, no jobs created, no money brought to rural communities, a healthy young fox as likley to be killed as an old fox, no way of following a lamb killer from the scene of his crime (so many foxes may be shot before the killer is caught) no protection of foxes in areas where hunting is more for 'sport' than pest control, lamping is not possible mountain or forest areas where hunting is more for pest control than sport. The reasons for hunting are very complicated and can never be simplified.

So for me the word sport is the exercising of ones instinct to really hunt and the enjoyment it brings. I can justify it because of the many benifits it also brings to my quarry and the countryside. 
The linking it to meat eating is, I suppose, to do with it being something we dont need to survive. We do it because we want to. A chicken that is bought from a takeaway is proberly 6 weeks old when it is taken from the shed where it has lived its whole short life, stuck in a box and taken to a place where it is killed, more than likley by having its neck cut in the name of a foreign god. The majority of the population either have no problem with this or more than likley choose to ignore it, out of sight, out of mind. Yet their voice and uneducated opininon is used to ban us and our way of life.

I would rather my kids go hunting, real hunting than stay infront of a computer seeing grafic violence, eating mass produced food or watching the rubbish on our tv's.

You ask us to justify hunting? why should we? YOU AND SOCIETY JUSTIFY YOUR OWN LIVES! LET OTHERS CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES!

I remember a poem I once read about a caveman reveling in the killing of a mammoth, the last words of which were 'the age of sin does not begin till our brutal instincts are gone'   ENJOY YOU MASS PRODUCED CHICKEN DINNER


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

For me, this poem sums up the reasons people continue to enjoy pursuing things. Personally, I enjoy stalking deer with my camera, seeing how close I can get to them before they bolt. I chase rabbits, running after them-not that I'd ever catch them ! ....

Always our fathers were hunters, lords of the pitiless spear, 
Chasing in English woodlands the wild white ox and the deer, 
Feeling the edge of their knife-blades, trying the pull of their bows, 
At a sudden foot in the forest thrilling to ' Yonder he goes ! ' 
Safe for the space of a summer the cubs may tumble and play, 
Boldly from April to August the dog-fox chooses his way; 
But soon as the beech leaf reddens, soon as the chill wind blows, 
He must steal, cat-foot, listening, ready for' Yonder he goes ! ' 
The sound of a horn in the bracken, the sound of a cheer in the ride; 
Fourteen couple running for blood as though to the I brush of him tied! 
Fourteen couple screaming for blood, and every hound of them knows 
This is his right from the ages - the heart-stirring  Yonder he goes!' 
Not for the lust of killing, not for the places of pride, 
Not for the hate of the hunted we English saddle and ride, 
But because in the gift of our fathers the blood in our veins that flows 
Must answer for ever and ever the challenge of Yonder he goes !


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

It cannot be justified and 99% of those that seek to justify, do so because it justifies their wish to take part in an activity that permits them to ride around the country side in a manner that they would not otherwise be permitted to.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

You are seriously deluded if you think 99% of the 1.25 million who hunt only do so for the chance to ride over land they wouldn't otherwise be allowed on. That is a factor yes. But to suggest that is the sole motivation for 99% of hunting people is nothing short of hilarious. Oh dear...

Was there any need to find this discussion, make an account and register yourself solely for the purpose of making that comment? Really?


----------



## Springy (30 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			Was there any need to find this discussion, make an account and register yourself solely for the purpose of making that comment? Really?
		
Click to expand...

You have to love a keyboard warrior....


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Countryman - I wonder what motivated you to register? Does it really matter? Taking part in any activity (for fun) which is intended to result (directly or indirectly) in the demise or detriment of an animal is wrong and cannot be justified.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Countryman - I wonder what motivated you to register? Does it really matter? Taking part in any activity (for fun) which results (directly or indirectly) in the demise or detriment of an animal is wrong and cannot be justified.
		
Click to expand...

But not if it is justified to kill that animal.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Ignoring the arguments of whether killing the animal is justified, it can never be right that people derive fun and enjoyment from it.


----------



## Orangehorse (30 December 2012)

So if no-one enjoyed hunting, it would be OK to keep the fox population down as a duty, and there would be no objectors.  Anyway, foxes are shot now, so what is the problem? Oh dear, some people enjoy shooting too. Oops.


----------



## Springy (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Ignoring the arguments of whether killing the animal is justified, it can never be right that people derive fun and enjoyment from it.
		
Click to expand...

Can you please explain that to the fox when its killing the chickens for fun...

Or my cat when it chases birds/mice for fun.....

Or the greyhounds chasing rabbits etc etc..........


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

So eating bread can never be justified? The process indirectly pays for a detriment to an animals way of life. Some of the money spent on the bread is used by the farmer to pay for the cartridges etc he used to shoot the rabbits nibbling the wheat, or to hire a deer stalker. You don't *need* to eat bread you do it for fun. Because you enjoy eating it.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Ignoring the arguments of whether killing the animal is justified, it can never be right that people derive fun and enjoyment from it.
		
Click to expand...

Do we have to go through this _*again*_? *We don't take pleasure in the actual killing of the fox!* 
Otherwise, we could still go and shoot it and be perfectly satisfied.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

I am not suggesting that killing animals is not necessary. What I am saying however is that it cannot be right for human beings to derive pleasure from it. The business of farming is quite different as is being employed to do a job which necessitates the death of an animal but killing is not a matter that should be taken lightly and certainly not one which is seen as leisure/sport.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			I am not suggesting that killing animals is not necessary. What I am saying however is that it cannot be right for human beings to derive pleasure from it. The business of farming is quite different as is being employed to do a job which necessitates the death of an animal but killing is not a matter that should be taken lightly and certainly not one which is seen as leisure/sport.
		
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read my above post!!! 

Dear me.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Sorry Happyhunter, I wasn't responding to your post. Which of your previous posts are you referring to?


----------



## Orangehorse (30 December 2012)

In that case shooting and fishing would be banned too, as the people taking part are enjoying it.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Springy - I do not think your cat is capable of the same thought processess and that you are.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF, this (rather fed-up) post:

Do we have to go through this _*again*_? *We don't take pleasure in the actual killing of the fox! *
Otherwise, we could still go and shoot it and be perfectly satisfied.


----------



## Littlelegs (30 December 2012)

So its ok to kill in your opinion kef, provided you don't enjoy the actual taking of life? In which case hunting is fine then. Or is it a case of out of sight, out of mind? The person who finds fox hunting pleasureable is somehow wrong, but eating meat is ok (despite the awful conditions most is reared & slaughtered in) because you didn't see it die? And pretend not to like the fact an animal did die for your enjoyment?


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Orangehorse - personally I don't think that animals should be killed purely to satisfy the desire of a human being to kill .... many would not agree with me of course. I think a distinction can be drawn between killing to eat and possibly for wildlife management and killing for fun or 'sport'.


----------



## Springy (30 December 2012)

Can I refer you back to my post about 4 page go.........


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			So its ok to kill in your opinion kef, provided you don't enjoy the actual taking of life? In which case hunting is fine then. Or is it a case of out of sight, out of mind? The person who finds fox hunting pleasureable is somehow wrong, but eating meat is ok (despite the awful conditions most is reared & slaughtered in) because you didn't see it die? And pretend not to like the fact an animal did die for your enjoyment?
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree that some animals for food are kept in awful conditions and would not condone that but one wrong does not justify another. In fact, the responsibility that comes with eating meat is bringing me around to the idea of rearing my own animals for meat, although I am not convinced that that would not turn me into a vegitarian.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Killing for fun or 'sport'.
		
Click to expand...

Oh good greif......

You still haven't got it.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			KEF, this (rather fed-up) post:

Do we have to go through this _*again*_? *We don't take pleasure in the actual killing of the fox! *
Otherwise, we could still go and shoot it and be perfectly satisfied.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably you don't take pleasure in the death of any foxes now


----------



## Littlelegs (30 December 2012)

That's the thing though, nobody needs to eat meat in first world countries, but the fox population does need controlling. So the former is death for nothing but pleasure, the second serves a purpose. And banning hunting with dogs just means they are killed by a different method. It's almost laughable that while the masses are objecting to hunting, more & more of the big retailers are converting to halal. And I haven't noticed the rspca being remotely interested in the fact there's virtually no chance of getting caught if you use traps, or are an awful shot & choose to maim foxes.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			That's the thing though, nobody needs to eat meat in first world countries, but the fox population does need controlling. So the former is death for nothing but pleasure, the second serves a purpose. And banning hunting with dogs just means they are killed by a different method. It's almost laughable that while the masses are objecting to hunting, more & more of the big retailers are converting to halal. And I haven't noticed the rspca being remotely interested in the fact there's virtually no chance of getting caught if you use traps, or are an awful shot & choose to maim foxes.
		
Click to expand...

I think my main gripe is the attitude of some people (not singling out those who hunt by any stretch) to animals... I am sure that some hunts are respectful of animals (horses, dogs and foxes alike) but my experience of the hunt local to me is that they are not... they are not even respectful of humans! I think all I would like is for people to have regard to the consequences of their actions when it comes to the treatment of animals. I am sure that all those on this forum do (since the purpose of it is to provoke debate and discussion) but there are many that do not.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

You've acknowledged that killing animals is sometimes necessary but what you object to is people enjoying it? Well that's your own moral judgement, millions disagree with it and although your view should be respected, you have no right to force your own moral views on millions of others.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Of course I don't have the right to force anything on anyone else and the only entities which do are the legislature and parliament. I just emplore that people have regard to the animals that encounter directly or indirectly. With rights come responsibilities.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

I don't think you understand that for many of us, hunting is part of fulfilling that responsibility.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			I don't think you understand that for many of us, hunting is part of fulfilling that responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

Of course I understand and, I am sure that for some that is indeed the case, but can you honestly say that all of those that hunt or kill animals (other than those who are licenced and employed to do so) genuinely hold that sense of responsibility rather than just using it as a convenient excuse to do something they want to do regardless of the consequences?


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			I think my main gripe is the attitude of some people (not singling out those who hunt by any stretch) to animals... I am sure that some hunts are respectful of animals (horses, dogs and foxes alike) but my experience of the hunt local to me is that they are not... they are not even respectful of humans! I think all I would like is for people to have regard to the consequences of their actions when it comes to the treatment of animals. I am sure that all those on this forum do (since the purpose of it is to provoke debate and discussion) but there are many that do not.
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. A relative of mine who is also a farmer let the hunt across their land for many years until they discovered a badger sett on their land filled with concrete. They were devastated. This was the final straw - they also lost many lambs to the hunt and the amount they were reimbursed meant they made a reasonably large loss. They wanted to support the hunt but felt they could no longer, they were treated terribly by the hunt.

I must add that this is not my experience at all of hunts and 'hunters' - a few years ago a friend took my horse hunting (her first time out and also my horses first time out, very unfortunate) and came off, breaking her pelvis. The hunt were incredibly kind and helpful to us all, fed me cake and tea whilst I was crying and shaking, sent flowers to her in hospital and offered both her and myself free days out hunting.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			That's an interesting point. A relative of mine who is also a farmer let the hunt across their land for many years until they discovered a badger sett on their land filled with concrete. They were devastated. This was the final straw - they also lost many lambs to the hunt and the amount they were reimbursed meant they made a reasonably large loss. They wanted to support the hunt but felt they could no longer, they were treated terribly by the hunt.

I must add that this is not my experience at all of hunts and 'hunters' - a few years ago a friend took my horse hunting (her first time out and also my horses first time out, very unfortunate) and came off, breaking her pelvis. The hunt were incredibly kind and helpful to us all, fed me cake and tea whilst I was crying and shaking, sent flowers to her in hospital and offered both her and myself free days out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

The farmer from whom I rented my paddock last year lost thousands of pounds in trashed crops and was inadequately compensated. My dad's car lost a wing mirror, there are frequently unsupervised hounds running around on A roads and on many occassions the hunt leaves abandoned lorries and trailers with insufficient room for emergency vehicles to pass. The hunt local to me needs to do a better PR job. Rider/horse injuries are common and I am sure that some could be avoided with better management.

The blocking up of badger setts is senseless - presumably they were wanting to deny animals of a safe haven.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			The blocking up of badger setts is senseless - presumably they were wanting to deny animals of a safe haven.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - a representative of the hunt told my relative that they had done it to stop the fox going to ground there (though I imagine the badger would have had something to say about that!) and also basically excepted a pat on the back and a thank you for filling it! Relative was horrified and furious.

(Would also like to add that relative lives nowhere near me, and the hunt concerned was not any local to myself).


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			Yes - a representative of the hunt told my relative that they had done it to stop the fox going to ground there (though I imagine the badger would have had something to say about that!) and also basically excepted a pat on the back and a thank you for filling it! Relative was horrified and furious.

(Would also like to add that relative lives nowhere near me, and the hunt concerned was not any local to myself).
		
Click to expand...

I am surprised since one of the (good) arguments for hunting is that the hunt undertake wildlife management and maintain/create areas of conservation etc. I doubt concreting natural habitats would fall into either of those categories.


----------



## Eagle_day (30 December 2012)

As I said, I haven't been on her for a while. Are KEF and bubbliygum merely trolling antis? I''ll give them some credit for originality though: concreting in badger setts is a new one on me.


----------



## Springy (30 December 2012)

On a hunt how would you carry the concrete and the water to make it and the mixer and the shovels to fill it and and........


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Countryman - I wonder what motivated you to register? Does it really matter? Taking part in any activity (for fun) which is intended to result (directly or indirectly) in the demise or detriment of an animal is wrong and cannot be justified.
		
Click to expand...

Not so.

Shall we consider your comfort?  Do you enjoy wearing your expensive leather shoes?  Italian,  perhaps?  Do you enjoy your 90 day hung fillet steak?  Do you eat whilst others in this world starve?  Explain that,  and you will be able to understand those with whom you would take issue.

Using the word "Fun",  demeans the rural pastime of hunting.  The word "Fun" is an offence,  but one which you will cheerfully use,  as,  or perhaps,  you'd prefer to use the word "Murder".

There's a purity about Hunting which you will never understand,  and that's because you don't actually want to.  You have a closed mind.

Alec.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

So I can take it that neither of you agree with the concreting of natural habitats and that you would condemn any hunts that behave in that way? I can speak first hand regarding the activities that I have witnessed. I am anti hunting, yes but that should not offend you. I am open minded but I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the hunting of foxes in the manner that took place pior to the ban.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

I don't have a problem with stopping up. However, I would condemn any hunt that knowingly stopped up a badger sett with concrete!


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Not so.

Shall we consider your comfort?  Do you enjoy wearing your expensive leather shoes?  Italian,  perhaps?  Do you enjoy your 90 day hung fillet steak?  Do you eat whilst others in this world starve?  Explain that,  and you will be able to understand those with whom you would take issue.

Using the word "Fun",  demeans the rural pastime of hunting.  The word "Fun" is an offence,  but one which you will cheerfully use,  as,  or perhaps,  you'd prefer to use the word "Murder".

There's a purity about Hunting which you will never understand,  and that's because you don't actually want to.  You have a closed mind.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Please see my later post which I wrote before reading this. The treatment of animals for consumption can be cruel...but that does not justify other forms of cruelty - which by the way I have not been arguing. When I see a hunt, I do not see sombre faces.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

Eagle_day said:



			As I said, I haven't been on her for a while. Are KEF and bubbliygum merely trolling antis? I''ll give them some credit for originality though: concreting in badger setts is a new one on me.
		
Click to expand...

Not a troll, and not an anti - genuinely on the fence regarding hunting and happily accept opinions from both sides.

Anecdote from relative was genuine, I have no reason to believe they would lie to me about this?

They filled the sett when inspecting the land before hunting on it - relative did allow hunt onto land for many years.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

Springy said:



			On a hunt how would you carry the concrete and the water to make it and the mixer and the shovels to fill it and and........ 

Click to expand...

Not whilst hunting, although that would be impressive in itself! It was before hunting commenced for the season.

Wanted to add that I have no idea if there were badgers in the sett or not - possibly an empty sett but possibly not. Not sure if hunt knew if empty or not either as I have only heard my relatives (possibly biased!) side of events.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			So I can take it that neither of you agree with the concreting of natural habitats and that you would condemn any hunts that behave in that way?  *Without question. *I can speak first hand regarding the activities that I have witnessed.  *Provide the evidence. *I am anti hunting, yes but that should not offend you. I am open minded but I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the hunting of foxes in the manner that took place pior to the ban. *I've yet to hear the view of a bystander which has any value.  That's not intended as an arrogant remark,  but one to support that where those who have no experience,  seem deaf to reason.*

Click to expand...

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

You must remember that hunting doesn't mean 'fox-killing' necessarily. 99.9% of time spent hunting pre ban was spent not killing foxes-this took only a few seconds at a time. Some of greatest days hunting, and I always maintain this, have been when we didn't catch the fox. In some of the best runs I've ever had, we lost him at the end. In terms of enjoyment of a days hunting, I don't care if they kill or not. It's whether you get a good run that counts.


----------



## Springy (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			Not whilst hunting, although that would be impressive in itself! It was before hunting commenced for the season.
QUOTE]

I was wondering lol
		
Click to expand...


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			The blocking up of badger setts is senseless - presumably they were wanting to deny animals of a safe haven.
		
Click to expand...

Before the ban, the blocking of badger setts made perfect sense. Farmers expected foxes to be killed.  If they went to ground, the vast majority of farmers insisted they be dug and despatched.  If a fox went to ground in a badger sett, it couldn't be dug as badger setts are protected.  Of course, if a fox went straight into the main area of a sett when badgers were home, THEY would kill him - but setts have many tunnels and a fox could lie low there.

The hunts rely on farmers' goodwill!


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Alec - you are the one that is being arrogant, in assuming that anyone that doesn't actually hunt yet disagrees with it is 'deaf to reason'.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			You must remember that hunting doesn't mean 'fox-killing' necessarily. 99.9% of time spent hunting pre ban was spent not killing foxes-this took only a few seconds at a time. Some of greatest days hunting, and I always maintain this, have been when we didn't catch the fox. In some of the best runs I've ever had, we lost him at the end. In terms of enjoyment of a days hunting, I don't care if they kill or not. It's whether you get a good run that counts.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is the crux of the matter regarding hunting for sport. There are two sides to this: those who want to cull foxes, and those who want a fun day out. The two often overlap but its not always the case. 

The fact that hunting figures rose following the ban would suggest that many new hunt members who began hunting post ban actually DIDN'T want to partake in killing a fox? Of course there are many reasons why hunt memberships rose post ban but its probably fair to say this is a contributing factor.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			The fact that hunting figures rose following the ban would suggest that many new hunt members who began hunting post ban actually DIDN'T want to partake in killing a fox? Of course there are many reasons why hunt memberships rose post ban but its probably fair to say this is a contributing factor.
		
Click to expand...

Seeing that some hunts still offer fox-killing services, I don't think it was anything to do with the lack of fox killing. Immediately post-ban, most (if not all) hunts were trying and testing these measures out. So plenty of foxes were being killed, and in a more open manner (no chase). A member of the field is more likely to see a fox being killed now!


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Seeing that some hunts still offer fox-killing services, I don't think it was anything to do with the lack of fox killing. Immediately post-ban, most (if not all) hunts were trying and testing these measures out. So plenty of foxes were being killed, and in a more open manner (no chase). A member of the field is more likely to see a fox being killed now!
		
Click to expand...

That is a very good point! Sorry, I don't hunt myself, but I guess now most foxes found by a hunt will be shot, rather than previously those the hounds didn't kill would get away? I hadn't thought about it that way before!


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			You must remember that hunting doesn't mean 'fox-killing' necessarily. 99.9% of time spent hunting pre ban was spent not killing foxes-this took only a few seconds at a time. Some of greatest days hunting, and I always maintain this, have been when we didn't catch the fox. In some of the best runs I've ever had, we lost him at the end. In terms of enjoyment of a days hunting, I don't care if they kill or not. It's whether you get a good run that counts.
		
Click to expand...

Happyhunter...this is a genuine question so please don't dismiss but what do you mean by 'enjoyment'?


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

Perhaps a short explanation of "Stopping" may be in order.  Badger's setts were regularly stopped or blocked,  and generally with anything to hand,  soil,  brashings or brush.  The intention was to keep Master Fox on the move.  Mostly when the day was over,  those who'd done the "Stopping",  would remove the impediment,  and allow Brock his freedom.  If they didn't,  then Brock would remove it for himself.  If he can move road ways,  a few brashings are a minor inconvenience. 

My argument would be with those who would claim the preposterous,  that Setts were filled with concrete.  Nonsense,  and those who would make such claims can hardly expect a reasoned response.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Alec - you are the one that is being arrogant, in assuming that anyone that doesn't actually hunt yet disagrees with it is 'deaf to reason'.
		
Click to expand...

I apologise,  but you've claimed that you have evidence of concrete being used to presumably incarcerate badgers.  Making such ridiculous claims,  and expecting to be taken seriously is sadly going to promote the odd ill-tempered response.

Again,  you assure us that that you have proof.  Display it,  if you're able. 

Alec.


----------



## Molasses (30 December 2012)

would it help Alec,  if we brought some concrete round to your place, did a quick demo, and then you can bang your head on it for a while


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Happyhunter...this is a genuine question so please don't dismiss but what do you mean by 'enjoyment'?
		
Click to expand...

Getting to see hounds work, and getting a good, exciting hunt. For a follower, neither of these things depend on the death of the fox-that's not to say it isn't important for the hounds themselves or for the landowners. Hounds need a reward.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			I apologise,  but you've claimed that you have evidence of concrete being used to presumably incarcerate badgers.  Making such ridiculous claims,  and expecting to be taken seriously is sadly going to promote the odd ill-tempered response.

Again,  you assure us that that you have proof.  Display it,  if you're able. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

For the record I didn't make that claim and the person who did has explained. If you would like me to film the rudeness, general destruction and obstruction that I have seen with my own eyes, I will be more than happy but I suspect that I would be mobbed as a suspect sab and you wouldn't want that on your conscience now would you.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			My argument would be with those who would claim the preposterous,  that Setts were filled with concrete.  Nonsense,  and those who would make such claims can hardly expect a reasoned response.
		
Click to expand...

Preposterous, most definitely, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen . That said I have no proof other than my relatives anecdote, and I would of course agree that if it did happen (which I believe it did, you can believe otherwise) it was an isolated incident. I've never heard of anything similar to this happening elsewhere before or since.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Getting to see hounds work, and getting a good, exciting hunt. For a follower, neither of these things depend on the death of the fox-that's not to say it isn't important for the hounds themselves or for the landowners. Hounds need a reward.
		
Click to expand...

I love seeing animals exercised (safely and properly) and I love that my animals are (not through hunting though) but what I have difficulty comprehending is why that requires a live fox to be chased and potentially killed.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			Preposterous, most definitely, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen . That said I have no proof other than my relatives anecdote, and I would of course agree that if it did happen (which I believe it did, you can believe otherwise) it was an isolated incident. I've never heard of anything similar to this happening elsewhere before or since.
		
Click to expand...

I don't get why the hunt would do that. It is in no way necessary for hunting, and there would be little point. Are you sure it wasn't a neighbouring farmer who hates badgers? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

Killing foxes is not about 'fun'. 
The lampers I know would not describe shooting foxes as fun and do not do it for enjoyment. Similarly, it's probably safe to say that pest control people who destroy urban foxes don't get enjoyment from the act. 

The enjoyment in hunting is, to me, about riding cross-country in a large group with friends; the challenge to me as a rider, and the feeling I get when hounds are running. There is no live quarry involved (our pack is not using other methods to control the fox population). But if all this was pre-ban and a fox may have been killed by hounds, that wouldn't make me feel any worse than being there when the shot was fired that killed the fox in my field a few months ago. Infact, I'm inclined to believe that a fox killed by hounds would suffer less. 

Pro-hunt people do get frustrated, I think, by being 'demonised' when there are much, much worse things happening that the general public will accept without question.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			I don't get why the hunt would do that. It is in no way necessary for hunting, and there would be little point. Are you sure it wasn't a neighbouring farmer who hates badgers? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
		
Click to expand...

Well, quite - as Alec said there are other less permanent methods of blocking these spaces in which a fox could go to ground, concrete does seem a bit extreme!

Could very well have been another farmer, or potentially done with the 'blessing' of one of the farm hands who perhaps hated the badgers more than my relative did. As I said though it was one of the hunt representatives who told my relative about it so they had a hand in it somehow. Perhaps it was common practice at neighbouring farms where the hunt had been asked to do this by neighbouring farmers? I have no idea. Also this was of course a long time ago now, a good few years before the ban.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

Nancykitt said:



			Pro-hunt people do get frustrated, I think, by being 'demonised' when there are much, much worse things happening that the general public will accept without question.
		
Click to expand...

This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.


----------



## Littlelegs (30 December 2012)

My biggest problem is that while the general public are being (mis) lead to believe hunting is barbaric & cruel, they overlook the real cruelty that happens regularly to animals. So real cruelty goes unchallenged. Regardless of whether you are pro or anti, whether you believe hounds are a quick death or not, there's no denying the actual figures that prove more animals suffer in food production than hunting. Even forgetting the money burning exercise regarding the heythrop, the amount of time & money that went into banning hunting, even if you genuinely believe hunting is cruel, could have prevented far more suffering by highlighting battery hens, or intensive farming, or halal slaughter. However battery hens aren't as cute as foxes. The main reason most antis are antis is purely down to a) not knowing the facts, and b) if they focus their attention on the nasty toff on the horse, they can tell themselves they are an animal lover despite the disgusting systems they are happy to endorse as consumers. Imo if any sab was genuinely acting out of concern for animal welfare, they'd be outside the supermarket telling people how the vast % of their food became so cheap. And just to be clear, I'm trying to look at hunting from the pov that its cruel with the above, even though I think nothing of the sort. 
  A while back my daughters school did a project on foxes, during which my 7yr old cheerfully informed the idiot supply teacher we had one that was being shot soon. It didn't go down well with the teacher & her fluffy view of foxes, & the upshot was me going into school. Yet my child was probably the only one who could tell her how her packed lunch lived & died, & why we don't use certain cosmetics brands or eat meat from unknown sources. It's almost as though to be an anti, its compulsory to be a hypocrite, with a few rare exceptions.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

Molasses said:



			would it help Alec,  if we brought some concrete round to your place, did a quick demo, and then you can bang your head on it for a while

Click to expand...

By all means,  you will be made most welcome.  We've had several ostensibly "Practical Demonstrations" recently.  Demonstrations offered by idiots,  and not just ordinary idiots,  but super qualified ones,  to boot.  

If those with neither knowledge or experience,  were only to ask,  then they would be made welcome by the hunting world.  They don't,  they lecture,  they make incredibly stupid observations and state equally stupid "FACTS",  and then wonder why we react.

For those who disagree with me,  and I'm sure that you're legion,  were you only to accept that your well intentioned drivel could,  how shall we say,  have the creases ironed out,  and you could achieve that by listening to those on here who have an understanding,  then progress will be made.

RIGHT,  don't anyone tell me that I haven't at least made the effort.  On another tack,  by now,  our Rosie would be apoplectic! 

Alec.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

Quite - and the image of rich toffs dressing up to engage in sadistic activities makes it easy for so many people to hate it all!

When non-riding friends have come to hunt gatherings the first thing they remark on is how 'down to earth' everyone is.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.
		
Click to expand...

For me, the issue is in the front of my mind because of the time of year. Hunting is more public than other forms of animal control/culling/slaughter so it is an obvious target but that does not mean it is not legitimate to question its merits/practice.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.
		
Click to expand...

In animal terms, yes there are. Factory farming is an example of one of them-the biggest source of animal cruelty in this country ever.
As KEF says, the reason it has been chosen is that it is very public, and seen as a soft target. Millions of pigs and chickens are hidden away behind closed doors without public knowledge of their living conditions, and the methods by which they are slaughtered. It annoys the hell out of me when I see people I know to be 'anti-hunting' happily sweep a cheap chicken off the shelves or buy non-free range eggs.


----------



## bubbilygum (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			In animal terms, yes there are. Factory farming is an example of one of them-the biggest source of animal cruelty in this country ever.
As KEF says, the reason it has been chosen is that it is very public, and seen as a soft target. Millions of pigs and chickens are hidden away behind closed doors without public knowledge of their living conditions, and the methods by which they are slaughtered.
		
Click to expand...

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			For me, the issue is in the front of my mind because of the time of year. Hunting is more public than other forms of animal control/culling/slaughter so it is an obvious target but that does not mean it is not legitimate to question its merits/practice.
		
Click to expand...

But here's the irony - it isn't any more public than other forms because hunting with hounds is banned. So many people I speak to think that killing foxes is illegal. If I ask them to tell me how foxes are controlled these days, they are unable to do so. Some have never heard of lamping and don't have a clue what it is.
 So all the focus is on something that isn't actually anything to do with fox control any more. 

It's fine to ask questions - that's what I did, and that's what ultimately moved me from anti to pro, together with actually living in the country and keeping livestock. No-one on here, I'm sure, objects to anyone asking questions and we can all present a clear case for hunting with hounds. It's the closed minded people that demonise who are the problem as they are generally out just to cause trouble and express hatred.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. People all too often don't remember that the meat they were once eating was an animal, and they often don't question how it was produced. Most of them are completely ignorant about the matter, having nice fluffy pictures of chickens clucking around a farmyard.
These are the same people who have a fluffy, cute picture of foxes. The urban public are, by and large completely ignorant about animals and animal rearing as a whole, I think.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too  but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

My own daughter is vegetarian but is pro-hunting simply because she understands that the fox population needs to be controlled, and believes that death by hounds is more humane/natural than other methods
The main reason she is vegetarian is because she feels that she should not eat meat unless she is prepared to face up to what is involved and take some responsibility for that. So she is actually the complete opposite of the antis who buy the cheap chickens and the battery eggs!


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but what's the betting that that person _still_ says they're anti hunting? I really can't stand that!


----------



## Littlelegs (30 December 2012)

The misconception of hunting being a load of toffs certainly plays a part. I live in a different environment to which I grew up or lived in when I first left home. My boyfriend, & his friends are town born & bred, & although I don't have the local accent, I'm accepted as normal & one of them. Yes, I have horses but that's just an added bonus, everyones child gets to play ponies. The fact I'm pro hunt, & not landed aristocracy or stuck up was a revelation to many. As were the actual facts on hunting, coming from someone they know has very strong views on animal welfare.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too  but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.
		
Click to expand...

Some would say that if you hand over your money to the supermarket then you are, indirectly, taking part in such an activity. I am very pro-ethical farming but it is extremely difficult to live a life where we are guaranteed that what we buy has not involved suffering of one sort or another. 

This year, for the first time, we raised some geese. We supplied them with the very best living conditions and food. And last week we slaughtered them  - humanely - and ate one of them on Christmas Day. It was the first time I had been involved in something like this and although it was not all pleasant by any means there was a great deal of comfort in knowing for sure that the geese did not suffer. 

Foxes have to be controlled. Hunting with hounds is considered by many to be the most humane method of maintaining a healthy fox population. If a fox was killed when I was out hunting in the field I would not feel any more 'responsible' for causing suffering than when I allowed the men with guns on to my land.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

Nancykitt said:



			Some would say that if you hand over your money to the supermarket then you are, indirectly, taking part in such an activity. I am very pro-ethical farming but it is extremely difficult to live a life where we are guaranteed that what we buy has not involved suffering of one sort or another. 

This year, for the first time, we raised some geese. We supplied them with the very best living conditions and food. And last week we slaughtered them  - humanely - and ate one of them on Christmas Day. It was the first time I had been involved in something like this and although it was not all pleasant by any means there was a great deal of comfort in knowing for sure that the geese did not suffer. 

Foxes have to be controlled. Hunting with hounds is considered by many to be the most humane method of maintaining a healthy fox population. If a fox was killed when I was out hunting in the field I would not feel any more 'responsible' for causing suffering than when I allowed the men with guns on to my land.
		
Click to expand...

But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Indeed, but what's the betting that that person _still_ says they're anti hunting? I really can't stand that!
		
Click to expand...

There is hypocrasy in all walks of life. What I object to is being dismissed just because I don't agree with hunting. I think its entirely conceivable for people to have differing views and for them to be respected - as long as they are informed and considered. If all hunts people were so, I doubt I would have the practical objections that I do.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).
		
Click to expand...

No, no, I was talking about percentage of time spent killing foxes ! 99.9% of a days hunting is not spent killing foxes-mainly because it is very quick. That doesn't mean that they didn't kill any. In our best years, when our hounds were at their peak, the pack I hunt with were killing 100 brace a year (200 foxes).
In some areas, the fox numbers may have actually declined since the ban, since farmers will tend to shoot more than the hunt used to take. In others, such as the Lake District, where fox control relies to an extent on hounds, the population may have increased.
Remember, though that many hunts (84% I believe) still carry out forms of fox control.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).
		
Click to expand...

The figures are very, very difficult and not particularly reliable. I've come across many different sets of figures and it does get confusing. It's not going to be any easier to get reliable figures now as no-one needs to 'record' how many foxes they kill. So trying to base any argument on numbers is always going to be tricky.

The thing about foxes self-regulating - as I've said in an earlier post, my experience is that this is complete rubbish. The three basic things affecting the success of a species are food, habitat and predation. Foxes are incredibly versatile and this is one of the reasons for their success, including in moving to urban areas. 2011 was a bumper year for the foxes round here. They spent a great deal of time in bins on the estate. There were also people feeding them because they thought foxes were cute. The result was a lot of cubs who then, as they grew older, all needed food. Believe me, foxes were everywhere, it was unusual to go out at any time of the day and not see one. They started to cause a lot of problems - I lost almost all of my poultry and so did my neighbour. My pet cat fell victim too. The numbers had to be reduced and this was done by lampers - essentially, we had to become the predators. 

When people talk to me about foxhunting and are genuinely interested in my justification, it comes down to this:
Does the fox population need to be controlled?
If they say no, then we go down the evidence for and against. If they say yes, then the next question is:
How can we control fox numbers and maintain a healthy population?
An exploration of the various methods of fox control usually reveals facts a lot of people didn't know - including those related to the misconception that shooting always results in an instant kill. 

There will be certain areas where foxes couldn't practically be hunted by a mounted pack and other methods will have to be used. But to ban the method that, to many, is seen as the most humane was just ridiculous.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			No, no, I was talking about percentage of time spent killing foxes ! 99.9% of a days hunting is not spent killing foxes-mainly because it is very quick. That doesn't mean that they didn't kill any. In our best years, when our hounds were at their peak, the pack I hunt with were killing 100 brace a year (200 foxes).
In some areas, the fox numbers may have actually declined since the ban, since farmers will tend to shoot more than the hunt used to take. In others, such as the Lake District, where fox control relies to an extent on hounds, the population may have increased.
Remember, though that many hunts (84% I believe) still carry out forms of fox control.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - misquoted you - doh! Hopefully legal forms of fox control.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2012)

KEF said:



			Sorry - misquoted you - doh! Hopefully legal forms of fox control.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - flushing to guns or to a bird of prey is perfectly legal. But IMHO neither are more humane than a fox being killed by hounds.
And don't even get me started on poisoning, gassing and snaring, which are also legal.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.
		
Click to expand...

....... and how I agree with you!!  



KEF said:



			Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too  but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear Oh dear,  there is so much well intentioned,  but ill informed thought to get through here.  

Bubbily,  McCartney is a phenomenally wealthy man,  but given that he's of limited intelligence,  he makes such sweeping statements,  whilst forgetting that we would all have a slaughterman kiss our protein goodbye,  as he cuts it's throat,  but the reality is that whilst you and I may be able to afford the meat which has arrived where death was a complete surprise to the creature,  there are many who can't afford such luxury,  and they live here,  in the UK. 

KEF. I speak with some experience here,  and accepting that there are,  and will always be,  bad-eggs,  generally the UK slaughter trade is and takes a focused and committed stance in the support of animal welfare.  You don't believe me?  I've looked and can't find it for quoting,  but if you source "The Slaughterman's Creed",  you may have a better understanding.

I will have no argument with the vegan,  but for other less etherial mortals,  I'd suggest that you look,  very carefully at how and where your poultry is sourced,  I'd suggest that you look carefully into the machinations of our meat producing industry,  and the reasons and need for it,  and then step away and consider the fox which we hunt;  consider his quality of life,  and consider that he is far more brutal and supportive of killing,  than you and I,  even though we support our slaughter houses..... 

There are flaws in my argument,  I'll accept,  and that's because we don't and can't live in a perfect world,  but I suppose that the truth is that we have to live with our consciences.  Perhaps it's all to do with research and looking into the realities of our daily lives,  and then living with our decisions.

Dunno!! 

Night night,  and sleep well.  Alec.


----------



## KEF (30 December 2012)

we have to live with our consciences.  Perhaps it's all to do with research and looking into the realities of our daily lives,  and then living with our decisions.

QUOTE]

This I do agree with....perfect....I am off to bed too.


----------



## VoR (31 December 2012)

Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......


----------



## bubbilygum (31 December 2012)

VoR said:



			Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......
		
Click to expand...

The thread was thoroughly interesting though!


----------



## VoR (31 December 2012)

bubbilygum said:



			The thread was thoroughly interesting though!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, a few too many statistics at times, you know that 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot!! More importantly, you ask the right question of 'Joe Public', in the right place you get the right answer......


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2012)

It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....


----------



## KEF (31 December 2012)

Fiagai said:



			It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....
		
Click to expand...

If only life were so black and white...thankfully not all share your position that those with differing views are simply to be tolerated. Its good to question and challenge ones own beliefs...otherwise we become dogmatic...it's a shame you are unable to see that.


----------



## Shutterbug (31 December 2012)

Fiagai said:



			It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....
		
Click to expand...

Actually I have found this entire thread and both sides of the discussion incredibly informative and educational and am leaning more towards supporting fox hunting each time this subject comes up - and that's from someone who was a staunch anti for many many years. I appreciate all the informed, constructive posts and even though I roll my eyes and disagree with some, I would not wish to participate in a forum where opinions are not tolerated by both sides and one side of any argument was silenced.


----------



## Springy (31 December 2012)

Hevs said:



			Actually I have found this entire thread and both sides of the discussion incredibly informative and educational and am leaning more towards supporting fox hunting each time this subject comes up - and that's from someone who was a staunch anti for many many years. I appreciate all the informed, constructive posts and even though I roll my eyes and disagree with some, I would not wish to participate in a forum where opinions are not tolerated by both sides and one side of any argument was silenced.
		
Click to expand...

^^^


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2012)

If only life were so black and white...thankfully not all share your position that those with differing views are simply to be tolerated. Its good to question and challenge ones own beliefs...otherwise we become dogmatic...it's a shame you are unable to see that.
		
Click to expand...

 yeah and trolling is still an active pastime ... How about maybe the last day of this year going and trying someplace that might actually believe that....x;{


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

The chickens my friend and I shared had been left under another persons care for a few days for we both were away. This person had forgotten to close the henhouse one night and the vixen took her opportunity whilst she had it. 
I understand this balance you feel when observing nature, yet I shall never understand your urge to destroy it just because you can. If I see a stag I dont think What a superb specimen, it shall look grand on my wall in composition with my rug. Why can you not let nature be?

Your argument is you believe fox hunting is the most humane method of pest control for fox numbers are to be maintained as a duty. You see foxes as vermin and believe the act you carry out is Natural Selection.

My opposition is this. Firstly, what motivates me is my perspective of human and animal equality. I see animals equal to us.  I do not see a fox as a pest or something that needs to be controlled.  What you believe to be natural selection is not 100% natural. The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring is Natural selection. Geographical isolation is an occurrence you would class natural for the process. The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man.  It would not naturally be a reason for the selection in alleles to occur. Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept. They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too. With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too. Now your aim is to manage fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase. Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away. Ending an animals life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely. What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why? Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We dont kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we dont call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us.
I have no alternative for your likes.  Picture this please as I have read all the posts you have written for me. You are a fox, you are a little underweight and lumbering through a field you hear a noise. Hounds are fast approaching so you dash for nearby foliage for cover.  You find shelter in some hedge and sit there heart beating, you are tired. It is as if someone can just decide on your death and you are defenceless. The hounds are back as they crush through the bush beckoned to push you through it to your death you make a run but are powerless against 50 odd canines. Their jaws fight over you as though a treat, you are in such shock as you leave the world, and your body remains limp on the ground.  If the fox had gotten away however, it would have only made its condition even worse. It would have been left even more hungry and weak. 

I noticed the thread had been orientated around hunting fox, what about other animals such as rabbit, deer, pheasant? Despite the fact there are thousands of them, imagine if you were the one they shot out of all of them.  No true reason for it. The people didnt need to eat you. 
You would think with the brain capacity humans had they would figure out ways in which to deter foxes or keep them at bay. We are at the top of the food chain and we are the most intelligent therefore you would think we would be the most respectful and understanding for we can diminish between right and wrong. Although many of us still make petty excuses to allow ourselves to sleep at night thinking we have every right to slaughter a life form.  Just because they are lower down in the food chain does not make any animals life lower than ours. Respect the way nature is; the way animals live and survive. Foxes kill in a way that when they find a food source they will wipe it out the first chance they get in order to allow them to keep a store of it in the ground, that is just the way they are. The tradition is cruel does not do what you believe and make it out to do in terms of pest control and is a torment of nature which many of you derive pleasure from as you chase the defenceless around.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

. 
As we're now doing anthropomorphism, let's go through a couple of scenarios:

Imagine yourself as a fox looking for some poultry to rip the heads off....imagine yourself as a buff orpington, dying in the jaws of a fox (I'll spare you the poetic tosh about 'as you feel the jaws start to rip through your neck, you are in such shock as you leave the world etc etc)..imagine yourself as a ewe, watching your first born being massacred...or even 'imagine yourself as a fox looking for food - you see a wolf coming for you and realise that you are in an area where your long lost predator has made a comeback!' you get the idea?  This notion of nature taking complete care of itself and maintaining a balance without 'interference' is Tellytubby land stuff. 
There is one part of the post that proves to me that so many antis do NOT put animal welfare first and that's the bit about the injured fox being allowed to carry on because it might get better. How cruel! Would you really allow an animal to suffer for weeks? If we're doing anthropomorphism, imagine that - limping around in excruciating pain, hour upon hour. Would you treat a pet animal - a horse, dog or cat like that? When the time comes for my pets, it breaks my heart but the last kindness I can do is to ensure them a quick passage. 

As for shooting - I would have more respect for you if you did a bit of research on the topic. Do you understand that game birds are shot with a shotgun, which - providing you are a good shot (and it's not that easy, believe me) will bring a pheasant to the ground. A fox is considerably larger than a pheasant and in order to bring about a quick kill with a shotgun you would need to be very close - less than 30 yards away - because the pellets from the cartridge 'spray' and would injure rather than kill. Larger animals are killed with a rifle, a much more high powered weapon which fires a single bullet. Being able to hit a moving target with a single bullet is, as you can imagine, not very easy. So the comparison with the shooting of game birds is not really valid. 

The stuff about deer shows no understanding of why we shoot deer. As for pheasants - do you understand that pheasants are actually bred by people and released? That gamekeeping and country sports are about conservation, so that ALL species stand a chance? Give me a good reason why rare ground nesting birds, such as the Stone Curlew, should  have their numbers reduced to such low levels because fox numbers have risen? I recommend a good book on the subject - I quite like 'The Fox and the Orchid'.


----------



## AengusOg (1 January 2013)

^^^Post #250. Wow! I feel for you. You are obviously deeply hurt.

Humans are top of the food chain, as you say, but there is more to it than simply stating that we, as arguably the most intellegent species on the planet, should use our huge brains to come up with ingenious ways to keep our chickens safe from the local predators.

Your emotive post has many points which could stand debate.

Natural selection is the means by which a species evolves within its environment. It is entirely dependent on the 'alleles' within the gene pool of the species. If individuals are eliminated from that population, their contibution to the gene pool ceases and their influence, as individuals, on the species is invalidated.

All species on the planet are subject to predation by another or others. Try standing at the edge of a billabong in Australia, or wandering in the Sundarbans, or strolling in the Arctic, and see how long it takes for your contribution of alleles to be negated by the local top predator.

Wolves, foxes and coyotes co-exist in Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, having been cleared out by human intervention, they have now been greatly aided in their return there by humans. I have seen film of wolves pursueing coyotes and foxes, attacking them and leaving them either dead or badly wounded. They didn't eat them, or use any part of them for any purpose; it seems they killed them because they could. I'd be interested to hear your views on that?

There are lots of people who would love to have wolves re-introduced to parts of Scotland. I exclude myself from that group. However, if that were to happen, foxes would surely be predated by wolves. Would you see such re-introduction of wolves as a restoration of a 'natural' state, or interference by humans which would put foxes in a perilous position?

Do you agree, or not, that, in the abscence of a predator higher up the chain than a species, that humans may assume a managerial role of that species should individuals of that species be problematic to co-existing species, and assuming that the method(s) of elimination provide no aspects of sport? 

Do you accept that humans, as primates, and on a purely biological basis, are, in some cases, bound to behave as predators of other species, and that the alleles passed on from such individuals are bound to perpetuate the hunting instinct in some individuals of the human species?

Do you accept that homo-sapiens underwent a successful evolution due in the main to the ability of individuals to hunt for food and to defend members of the species from predation by other species, and to compete successfully in their environment?

Do you agree that hunting foxes with hounds mimics the scenario in Yellowstone, and, given that some foxes will escape hounds whilst others will not, that replacing wolves with hounds in that sense is more akin to a natural method of species control than is shooting or trapping?

On the subject of whether I can justify hunting any species for sport, personally I could not condone bull-fighting, badger-baiting, or similar brutal 'sports', but was always able to allow myself to kill animals for food, and I enjoyed the challenge of the hunt. Maybe that's just the influence of the alleles which contributed to my existence.

As far as fox-hunting is concerned, I see a distinct seperation between the professionals who competently and responsibly hunt a pack of hounds, and those who follow. The huntsman is responding to his inherent instinct. The followers enjoy the social aspect and the riding. I don't think either of them are savage killers who delight in the death of any fox.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

Totally agree with your last paragraph, AengusOg. And I too make a very clear distinction between the brutal sports that you describe - that serve no purpose to conservation whatsoever - and field sports, including hunting, that involve careful land management. I believe that we have a duty to protect and cherish our countryside and our indigenous species.

Although these threads tend to go round and round and so many people who initiate the argument have closed minds, the airing of different views is often very interesting and can lead to other people starting to ask questions and learn more about things. 

The only thing that does get me down is that there are groups of people who hold very strong beliefs based on either misinformation or lack of awareness, and can do a great deal of damage as a result. Let's not forget that it was a bunch of animal rights activists that released a population of mink into the wild where they have gone on to wreak havoc. Whatever their reasons for releasing the mink, an ounce of awareness/intelligence between those people would have made them realise that releasing a successful non-indigenous predator into the wild would result in the death of many other animals and birds. But because these so-called activists live in a lovely fluffy world where all animals love and respect each other they no doubt thought that the mink would get on really well with everything else.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (1 January 2013)

AengusOg said:



			^^^Post #250. Wow! I feel for you. You are obviously deeply hurt.

Humans are top of the food chain, as you say, but there is more to it than simply stating that we, as arguably the most intellegent species on the planet, should use our huge brains to come up with ingenious ways to keep our chickens safe from the local predators.

Your emotive post has many points which could stand debate.

Natural selection is the means by which a species evolves within its environment. It is entirely dependent on the 'alleles' within the gene pool of the species. If individuals are eliminated from that population, their contibution to the gene pool ceases and their influence, as individuals, on the species is invalidated.

All species on the planet are subject to predation by another or others. Try standing at the edge of a billabong in Australia, or wandering in the Sundarbans, or strolling in the Arctic, and see how long it takes for your contribution of alleles to be negated by the local top predator.

Wolves, foxes and coyotes co-exist in Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, having been cleared out by human intervention, they have now been greatly aided in their return there by humans. I have seen film of wolves pursueing coyotes and foxes, attacking them and leaving them either dead or badly wounded. They didn't eat them, or use any part of them for any purpose; it seems they killed them because they could. I'd be interested to hear your views on that?

There are lots of people who would love to have wolves re-introduced to parts of Scotland. I exclude myself from that group. However, if that were to happen, foxes would surely be predated by wolves. Would you see such re-introduction of wolves as a restoration of a 'natural' state, or interference by humans which would put foxes in a perilous position?

Do you agree, or not, that, in the abscence of a predator higher up the chain than a species, that humans may assume a managerial role of that species should individuals of that species be problematic to co-existing species, and assuming that the method(s) of elimination provide no aspects of sport? 

Do you accept that humans, as primates, and on a purely biological basis, are, in some cases, bound to behave as predators of other species, and that the alleles passed on from such individuals are bound to perpetuate the hunting instinct in some individuals of the human species?

Do you accept that homo-sapiens underwent a successful evolution due in the main to the ability of individuals to hunt for food and to defend members of the species from predation by other species, and to compete successfully in their environment?

Do you agree that hunting foxes with hounds mimics the scenario in Yellowstone, and, given that some foxes will escape hounds whilst others will not, that replacing wolves with hounds in that sense is more akin to a natural method of species control than is shooting or trapping?

On the subject of whether I can justify hunting any species for sport, personally I could not condone bull-fighting, badger-baiting, or similar brutal 'sports', but was always able to allow myself to kill animals for food, and I enjoyed the challenge of the hunt. Maybe that's just the influence of the alleles which contributed to my existence.

As far as fox-hunting is concerned, I see a distinct seperation between the professionals who competently and responsibly hunt a pack of hounds, and those who follow. The huntsman is responding to his inherent instinct. The followers enjoy the social aspect and the riding. I don't think either of them are savage killers who delight in the death of any fox.
		
Click to expand...


This. Plus the added point that unlike shooting, hunting will inevitably take out more of the weaker, the diseased and the old foxes, the young and fit more likely to escape, making it much less problematic in my view where numbers need controlling for the health of the population as well as the health of other species.


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Totally agree with your last paragraph, AengusOg. And I too make a very clear distinction between the brutal sports that you describe - that serve no purpose to conservation whatsoever - and field sports, including hunting, that involve careful land management. I believe that we have a duty to protect and cherish our countryside and our indigenous species.
		
Click to expand...

I also agree that there is a distinction between the huntsmen and the followers/other riders and also between hunting and brutal sports. Animals and humans are not equal but it because we are the superior species that we owe a duty of care to animals, which can include putting an animal out of its misery to keeping domestic pets in good health. What I would be interested to know however is to whom or what does the huntsmaster owe his/her primary duty of care - is it the animal which they hunt or the followers/other riders?


----------



## Simsar (1 January 2013)

Huntsmans duty of care is towards the hounds and the fox, masters duty of care is towards the people within the hunt, huntsman, whip, mounted field, terrier men and foot followers etc.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			.......

... What I would be interested to know however is to whom or what does the huntsmaster owe his/her primary duty of care - is it the animal which they hunt or the followers/other riders?
		
Click to expand...

Where does the responsibility settle with the man who hunts the hounds?  That's easily answered;

He has a moral responsibility to care for firstly,  his quarry,  secondly his hounds,  thirdly (and perhaps of the greatest importance),  he has a duty to the tradition which supports his calling.  He has hundreds of years of established and totally correct protocol to abide by,  and within those arms,  so care is administered evenly.  There's little in the way of preference,  it seems to me,  except for those who follow!

Lastly,  and if you don't believe me,  and were he here Captain Wallace would assure you,  the mounted field come last,  or should do. 

Alec.


----------



## Simsar (1 January 2013)

Better put than mine Alec.


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

Once again you are missing the point. Wolves were eliminated from places such as Scotland by humans in the first place. So bringing them back would be rightfully done. There you go, that would be a natural selection process. Humans have not done one thing to benefit this earth without trying to fix something they have already messed up. 
I do not agree that humans should take the managerial role, entitling them the right to kill off lower predators such as the fox. Why should they? It was not their role in the first place; it was the animal which was made absent by them.
Whether or not primal traits are apparent in human behaviour we should be moral enough to not act on them. If in that case you disagree, would you allow your primitive way to rule your actions? You feel the need to seduce something, you do not in the modern day go and take advantage of someone in which case a chimpanzee would. 
A subject such as the evolution is not one which can and cannot be accepted because there is so much evidence valid making it true and fact. I am aware that homo-sapiens survived due to them developing adaptive traits in their alleles allowing them to make use of other animal resource around them (such as meat, skin, and fur). They used wood to make simple spears which enabled them to kill prey from a distance. They also used the fur and skin to clothe themselves and their children. This gave them raise above other species such as rhodesiensis, rudolfensis and Homo sapiens idaltu for their young had more chances of survival. However, what you are clearly oblivious to is the fact the species we evolved from although did coexist with other species such as the Neanderthal they did not actually meet or face opposition between themselves.  According to scientific evidence it is the fact we more able to take care of ourselves and produce the alleles giving higher mortality of young which enabled us to survive through the years.  
I do not agree humans collaborating with 50 odd hounds to kill foxes is mimicking the situation in nature (such as that in Yellow Stone).  I have said I do not see foxes as something that need to be controlled as I do not see any animal population. They self regulate themselves, and humans should not have the law behind them to interfere.  
The followers derive pleasure from the hunt because without it being there to kill foxes they would not be allowed to ride across farmers land. I do not see how you all struggle to grasp this. 
Anyway, so do the weak and old not have the right to live? Not all territorial scraps result in a fox bound to die, they may well recover, would you be aware?


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Humans have not done one thing to benefit this earth without trying to fix something they have already messed up.
		
Click to expand...

What nonsense! Many wild animals (the fox included) have actually benefited from human activity. We have created and preserved numerous habitats (such as heather moorland), and some wild animals live very well with us. Their is a great diversity of habitats in this coutnry _because_ humans interfered. The fox is only as widespread and common as he is today because he lives alongside humans. Hunting has played a role in the introduction of foxes to many parts of the country, and their preservation there. 




			Anyway, so do the weak and old not have the right to live?
		
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that you don't own a pet. You'd never have it put down if it was suffering.




_I do not agree that humans should take the managerial role_

Click to expand...

Taking a managerial role (not just with animals, but with plants too) is a good thing. We take a managerial role when we preserve important habitats such as sand dunes-yes, we are killing off plants species that should naturally be there (such as brambles), but we are protecting many more, rarer species of plants and animals. This is beneficial.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Do you understand that game birds are shot with a shotgun, which - providing you are a good shot (and it's not that easy, believe me) will bring a pheasant to the ground.
		
Click to expand...

"Bring a pheasant to the ground"? Well at least you are not trying to pretend that they are all dead, just "brought to the ground", very often alive, in pursuit of, in my opinion, an utterly barbaric and indefensible sport.

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			What nonsense! Many wild animals (the fox included) have actually benefited from human activity. We have created and preserved numerous habitats (such as heather moorland), and some wild animals live very well with us. Their is a great diversity of habitats in this coutnry _because_ humans interfered. The fox is only as widespread and common as he is today because he lives alongside humans. Hunting has played a role in the introduction of foxes to many parts of the country, and their preservation there. 
.
		
Click to expand...

The poster said that earth has not benefitted, not single species. I believe that she is correct in that. Man's interference has done nothing for earth except to unbalance it.


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well
		
Click to expand...

Conservation of moorland is for grouse shooting, generally, not pheasant shooting. And yes, because it brings in money, the habitat is protected. Otherwise, it could so easily be turned into farmland. It's not the actual shooting of the birds that protects the moorland (obviously!).


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			The poster said that earth has not benefitted, not single species. I believe that she is correct in that. Man's interference has done nothing for earth except to unbalance it.
		
Click to expand...

I was using the fox as an example. Many species _have_ benefited from human activity. The earth, as a whole hasn't and that can only damage us as a species in the end.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

AnaV,

genuinely,  it is not my intention to be offensive,  but you aren't just stupid in your arguments,  you're incredibly stupid.  

I suspect that it's your refusal to consider reasoned and simple debate which sets you apart from most.  You don't know,  and you wont be told.  Your anthropomorphised twaddle,  along with your theorised thoughts for our future,  leaves most in a state of bewilderment!! 

Good night.

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

A weakness can be any aspect. For animals it is mostly physical. Just because one has endured an injury does not mean it is destined to die. If someone is diagnosed with cancer. They do not think, 'You know what, I might as well die' no people always try and prolong their lives. Most people do try and prolong the life of pets and animals too with medicines, extra care. With a wild animal such as a fox they may not die from a few cuts. Hunting does nothing. Nothing for fox populations or the health of either a single fox nor a population. It does nothing but aggravate animals lives. If you obtained a cut you would hate to think you had to die. Wouldn't you? Finally, with pets we try our best to help them then if it is the last resort we shall put them out of them misery. Those of us who respect animals will try our very best to help them. The issue? People exploit animals. No man has not benefitted the earth without trying to fix or solve what we have already destroyed. Conservation work is done because the human race had eliminated a few species or put them at the brink of extinction. It is done to try and heal the land we have already manipulated for our own uses.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			.......

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.
		
Click to expand...

CPT,  once again,  as fond of you as I am,  you really shouldn't offer such argument,  at least,  not if you want to be taken seriously.  Correct Moorland management relies totally upon those who graze the land with sheep,  and those that would promote the Red Grouse.  Google "The Moorland Trust",  and if you approach it with an enquiring and open mind,  then you may come away informed.  Approach it with your ill-informed,  ignorant and at odds approach,  and you will learn nothing.

The Red Grouse is the fastest game bird,  and the most testing,  in the British Isles.  Grouse are *not* artificially reared,  to suggest that they can't fly is quite preposterous,  and having shot Grouse,  there's a very good reason why they are charged out at such phenomenal cost,  they are quite priceless!

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

I am not insulted by people who do not know what they are talking about. I am sorry my state of mental health is based according to what your own opinion? I have taken into account each and every one of your excuses alongside everyone elses however have not been swayed. You have left much of my opposition to you unanswered, which has left me presuming you cannot? Therefore you can not justify your own actions.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

Simsar said:



			Better put than mine Alec. 

Click to expand...

  But both of you missed one of the most important 'duties of care' - shared by the Masters and the Huntsman - and that is to the farmers!!

MOST farmers who support hunting want foxes controlled - at very little cost to themselves!  That's reasonable.  And - prior to the ban - if the fox control wasn't good enough the farmers made their views known!  My local hunt - some years back - had to fire a Master who was also Amateur Huntsman because - although he was a very nice guy and put a LOT of money into the hunt - he couldn't catch enough foxes to keep the farmers happy.  So the farmers got together and told the Committee: "Get a huntsman who can catch foxes - or you won't be welcome!"


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

'Left much opposition to you unanswered'????  What on earth have the majority of the 27 pages been about? I think that there has been a response to every single point you've made. The issue is that you are simply not prepared to accept anything that doesn't fall in with your lovely, cosy, fluffy little view of the world.

As for the self-regulating argument - in many circumstances, it is true that a species will self-regulate. If there is a limited food supply then that is a major factor. In the case of foxes, particularly semi-urban and urban foxes, we are looking at a highly successful, adaptable creature that can feed from waste bins on housing estates amongst other food sources. There are parts of the country where urban foxes are being shot by pest control wardens regularly because they are proving to be a terrible nuisance. 
Please do not tell me that with a plentiful food supply the fox population is self regulating as I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced the problems caused by large numbers of foxes. In my area, the core population moved to the housing estate to source food. Some idiots were even buying cheap supermarket chicken pieces and leaving it out for foxes 'because they are so cute.' (Would they have done that with rats, by the way? No, these same people were taking shots at rats with an air rifle!) We had a large population of well fed foxes who produced lots of cubs - who then needing feeding themselves. 
At one stage we were literally overrun and everyone in the area who had livestock was utterly fed up of our animals being taken. When the lampers came in they said that they'd never seen so many foxes within a short space of time. 

There are two aspects to your argument that, in my eyes, remove any credibility from it. One is the anthropomorphism. The second is your belief that an animal should be left to suffer as that is preferable to death.

Why not just leave this thread now and go and sit in a corner with your fingers in your ears going 'lalalalalala not listening'? The fact that you have failed to persuade anyone here to change their views should say something to you. And you are clearly not prepared to consider the viewpoints of other people, far more experienced in such matters than you or I.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			"Bring a pheasant to the ground"? Well at least you are not trying to pretend that they are all dead, just "brought to the ground", very often alive, in pursuit of, in my opinion, an utterly barbaric and indefensible sport.

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.
		
Click to expand...

Now I don't HAVE to support it, I confess I am not a great fan of that branch of game shooting that relies on reared pheasants - not least because our local woodland is FULL of the ruddy birds who constantly fly out of undergrowth and spook young horses!  And the ruddy things are always strutting across the roads around here, trying to cause traffic accidents!

But, conservation DOES rely VERY heavily on shooting (and to a lesser degree, ono fox hunting!)

Within easy view (and hearing!) of my farm, there are 3 game shoots - and all are responsible for a lot of conservation work on the land they have sporting rights over.  Preservation of woodland, planting of fodder crops for gamebirds (which benefit hares and other species), laying and preserving hedges (on arable farms with NO livestock!) because they benefit game birds (and other species!)

And on the moors where grouse shooting takes place, it's even more important!  Grouse are not 'reared' for shooting the way pheasants - and to a lesser degree - partridge are.   The habitat HAS to be maintained (at considerable expense) to benefit them - and the other wildlife who live alongside them and benefit from the work done!


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



  But both of you missed one of the most important 'duties of care' - shared by the Masters and the Huntsman - and that is to the farmers!!

MOST farmers who support hunting want foxes controlled - at very little cost to themselves!  That's reasonable.  And - prior to the ban - if the fox control wasn't good enough the farmers made their views known!  My local hunt - some years back - had to fire a Master who was also Amateur Huntsman because - although he was a very nice guy and put a LOT of money into the hunt - he couldn't catch enough foxes to keep the farmers happy.  So the farmers got together and told the Committee: "Get a huntsman who can catch foxes - or you won't be welcome!"
		
Click to expand...

so, is it the case that the third party riders are only needed to fund the hunt? Surely if foxes were such a pest the farmers should pay for control themselves?


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

Agree totally, JG. 
And as for grouse, managing the moorland for the red grouse benefits the rare black grouse. 

The shooting point was a bit of a digression but it was really to demonstrate the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, as the OP was clearly not aware of the difference and the suitability of a particular weapon for a particular purpose.


----------



## Luci07 (1 January 2013)

Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

KEF, some farmers do pay lampers to control foxes on their land. 

When it comes to foxhunting with hounds, the followers do fund much of the cost, as JG pointed out in an earlier post. The cost of keeping hounds is very high. The arrangement whereby a hunt would collect fallen stock to feed hounds (thus saving the farmer money) and, in return, be able to ride over that land - funded by the followers - was beneficial to everyone involved.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

Luci07 said:



			Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. 
And as it turned out, it wasn't actually about justifying hunting for sport. It was about justifying not allowing all animals to just get on with everything without any human interference whatsoever, in spite of the consequences. Ridiculous.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			so, is it the case that the third party riders are only needed to fund the hunt? Surely if foxes were such a pest the farmers should pay for control themselves?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!  The hunt followers are irrelevent to the actual hunting - they just enjoy watching hounds work, enjoy access to land to ride over that would not otherwise be available to them, and the social interactions!  And they pay for the running of the hunt!

Foxes ARE a pest to the majority of livestock farmers.  But the 'cost' of control can be quite high.  You can, of course, let the local lads loose on your land to lamp foxes at night - and end up with some dead sheep before you realise you have some slap-happy lads who aren't very good at the job!!  (One of the 'benefits' for a farme in allowing the hunt is that he has a good excuse to say "No thank you" to local lads who volunteer their services!!)

He could, of course, hire a 'professional' to do the job (they're in short supply - and it would be expensive - becaue for efficient lamping you need 3 people.  One to drive, one to handle the lamp, and one to shoot!)  And of course if the foxes are around the lambing fields, getting a clean shot can be difficult - it takes time and a good 'squeaker'.

Or the farmer could do it himself.  But as most livestock farmers work a 12 hour day, 6 days a week, and 6 - 7 hours on Sunday - they need their sleep!

And most sheep farmers KNOW that the foxes most likely to prey on new-born lambs (or cast ewes) are foxes wearing wire or carrying lead shot - or those riddled with mange!  Those foxes look for easy pickings!  Only the hunt primarily takes out these foxes - the fit, healthy fox usually escapes (and he's the one who is fit to hunt and catch rats and rabbits!)


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Correct Moorland management relies totally upon those who graze the land with sheep,  and those that would promote the Red Grouse.  Google "The Moorland Trust",  and if you approach it with an enquiring and open mind,  then you may come away informed.  Approach it with your ill-informed,  ignorant and at odds approach,  and you will learn nothing.

The Red Grouse is the fastest game bird,  and the most testing,  in the British Isles.  Grouse are *not* artificially reared,  to suggest that they can't fly is quite preposterous,  and having shot Grouse,  there's a very good reason why they are charged out at such phenomenal cost,  they are quite priceless!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It does not require grouse to be shot to conserve moorland.  Conservation does not require any animal to be killed for sport.

And if you think grouse are not articifically reared so that people can be charged (ten years ago that I last knew £800 a day) to shoot them, then I suggest that you talk to the people who run the shooting moors where I live.

Your sport is, in my opinion, utterly indefensible and completely barbaric.  I take this viewpoint because of the lack of a clean kill, with birds brought down still alive, though I am also against the rearing of animals for no other purpose than to kill them for sport. 

I find your suggestion that I take that stance from a point of ill informed ignorance and in order to be "at odds" for the sake of it to be patronising, arrogant and very insulting. 





ps  I have never suggested that grouse can't fly, please read what I write more carefully before you respond.


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			And if you think grouse are not articifically reared so that people can be charged (ten years ago that I last knew £800 a day) to shoot them, then I suggest that you talk to the people who run the shooting moors where I live.
.
		
Click to expand...

That is *UTTER* rubbish. Grouse are never reared artificially.
I know little about grouse shooting, but that much I do know.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			And most sheep farmers KNOW that the foxes most likely to prey on new-born lambs (or cast ewes) are foxes wearing wire or carrying lead shot - or those riddled with mange!  Those foxes look for easy pickings!  Only the hunt primarily takes out these foxes - the fit, healthy fox usually escapes (and he's the one who is fit to hunt and catch rats and rabbits!)
		
Click to expand...



Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a  strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			That is *UTTER* rubbish. Grouse are never reared artificially.
I know little about grouse shooting, but that much I do know.
		
Click to expand...

I think this rather depends on your definition of "artificial". Mine is that humans intervene to ensure that there are plenty of well fed grouse to be shot at. Yours clearly differs, but since I have friends who are paid to do so, I know what I believe.







			From http://www.britishmoorlands.com/grouse-management


*Husbandry*

    Parasite and disease control
    Territory management
    Grit and water provision (including medicated grit)
    Nutrition &#8211; over winter pre-lay
    Nutrition &#8211; chick rearing to 3 weeks
    Grouse population control.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			It does not require grouse to be shot to conserve moorland.  Conservation does not require any animal to be killed for sport.
		
Click to expand...

Nope - conservation just takes money - and incentive!  Why would anyone maintain grouse moors to suit grouse if there was no income to be had from the land??

Similarly, why would arable farmers retain hedgerows and small coverts (that inconvenience large machinery) for no reason??


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			.......

.. that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay .......
		
Click to expand...




ChristmasPTrees said:



			.......

ps  I have never suggested that grouse can't fly, please read what I write more carefully before you respond.
		
Click to expand...

  and whilst we're at it,  you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Nope - conservation just takes money - and incentive!  Why would anyone maintain grouse moors to suit grouse if there was no income to be had from the land??

Similarly, why would arable farmers retain hedgerows and small coverts (that inconvenience large machinery) for no reason??
		
Click to expand...

My argument exactly JG. Farmers do not kill animals for sport in order to retain hedgerows.

The "we need to kill for sport to do conservation" argument never works for me and never will. 

I live on shooting moors and for the life of me can't see what difference there would really be if they weren't "managed". "Mine" are too high for tree growth and have very dense coverage of heather, too dense to walk through or over, into which many ugly and disfiguring rectangles are cut so that the game birds can feed. And if the moors did change, who is to say that what they change to is "wrong" or "right"?  My own viewpoint would be that for a wild peat moorland, natural is right.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



  and whilst we're at it,  you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly, as your quote clearly shows. So why you quote it is beyond me. And neither have I made any reference to Red Grouse. I know for a fact that grouse are artificially managed to be shot on the moors around me. I have friends paid to do it.  What colour or breed the  birds that are shot are, I care not. It is barbaric whether they are red, purple, or they are bright green with sky blue spots on.

The problem is that a substantial proportion of them are not killed clean, they fall to the floor alive to die later, often after being picked up by a dog and brought to a human to have their necks wrung. If that was any other animal it would be against the law to treat them that way.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			My argument exactly JG. Farmers do not kill animals for sport in order to retain hedgerows.

The "we need to kill for sport to do conservation" argument never works for me and never will. 

I live on shooting moors and for the life of me can't see what difference there would really be if they weren't "managed". "Mine" are too high for tree growth and have very dense coverage of heather, too dense to walk through or over, into which mnay ugly and disfiguring rectangles are cut so that the game birds can feed. And if the moors did change, who is to say that what they change to is "wrong" or "right"?  My own viewpoint would be that for a wild peat moorland, natural is right.
		
Click to expand...

You miss the point!  MANY farmers retain their hedgerows and their small coverts because of their support for shooting and hunting.  (And a few hunts own and maintain some very nice coverts - which benefits ALL wildlife!)

Your moors sound rather badly managed to me!!


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Your moors sound rather badly managed to me!!
		
Click to expand...

Our moors are managed by the Duke of Devonshire.


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			You miss the point!  MANY farmers retain their hedgerows .......... because of their support for shooting and hunting.  (And a few hunts own and maintain some very nice coverts - which benefits ALL wildlife!)
		
Click to expand...


That's news to me Janet. At the presentation by Defra I went to a couple of years back they were all there learning how to manage their hedges for the EU grants that were available to them to do so. And for love of the birds that breed in them, not for the ability to shoot them.  I see no connection whatsoever between hedge management on the Cheshire Plain and mass bird shooting on the Peak Moorlands.

I don't miss the point at all. The fact is that there is no requirement to kill animals for sport  in order to carry out conservation.


----------



## Vulpinator (1 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



  and whilst we're at it,  you still seem convinced that the Red Grouse is reared artificially!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec I've been reading this thread for ages and been keeping an eye on the very interlectual conversation that has gone on here.

I'm now convinced that some people on this debate live in a parallel universe,  one has to assume, by the way they comment 
on ways of the countryside been educated at university.

Unfortunateley we were educated in and around the countryside and therefore know nothing, understand nothing,  as far as I'm concerned long may that be so. I for one dont want to be as educated as these intelectuals.

Long live being as thick as a brick. cos I can read and I can write, but I can drive a tractor.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly, as your quote clearly shows. So why you quote it is beyond me. And neither have I made any reference to Red Grouse. I know for a fact that grouse are artificially managed to be shot on the moors around me. I have friends paid to do it.  What colour or breed the  birds that are shot are, I care not. It is barbaric whether they are red, purple, or they are bright green with sky blue spots on.
		
Click to expand...

You said: "that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay ......."  

Grouse fly very well indeed - at speeds of up to 80MPH!  That's what makes them extremely challenging to shoot!  

And when you talk 'grouse', you will be assumed to be referring to Red Grouse - as they are the ones that live pretty much exclusively on moorland only, and are the ones that are most numerous.  Black Grouse used to live just about everywhere, but their requirements of their habitat is MUCH more diverse and they are now endangered.  The only place where you find them now is the fringes of the grouse moors, where efforts are made to provide them with the mixed habitat they need!

If you are talking the Duke of Devonshire's moors, then they ARE well managed - and it is the moors that are managed to suit the grouse - the grouse are not being 'artificially managed'!  Without the management of the grouse moors, the red grouse would have followed their black cousins to near extinction!

And - of course - the management of the moorland is JUST as important to a number of other endangered species of birds for whom the moors are an important breeding and/or feeding habitat!  Eleven of these species appear on the UK's Red List of bird species of greatest conservation concern.  A further 21 are on the Amber list!  They ALL benefit from the proper management of the heather!  And grouse shooting pays for the management!

If a few grouse fall from the skies wounded and have to be picked up and despatched, it is - frankly - a small price to pay!


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Alec I have never said that grouse can't fly, 

.......
		
Click to expand...

Re-read post 283.  I've quoted you,  never mind,  we'll set that aside,  it isn't important,  and it isn't about point scoring either,  it's about establishing reason.

What matters is that you come away with an understanding. YES of course I'm being arrogant and displaying all the other traits which you hate about me,  but that's only in the face of your lack of understanding,  and your increasingly frustrating refusal to BLOODY WELL LISTEN!! 


_From http://www.britishmoorlands.com/grouse-management

Husbandry

Parasite and disease control
Territory management
Grit and water provision (including medicated grit)
Nutrition  over winter pre-lay
Nutrition  chick rearing to 3 weeks
Grouse population control.
_

The provision of protein to the new brood has nothing to do with intervention,  by artificial rearing. It's everything to do with establishing nutrition for the Red Grouse and It's about assisting the laying,  brooding and rearing parents,  in anyway that we can.  The Red Grouse is subject to,  and prone to Looping Ill and Strongyllosis.  Parasite control,  by medicated grit is a huge step in the right direction,  but more than that,  the provision of bright,  new,  and clean heather shoots,  during the Autumn Flush,  and the Spring Flush too is a way of assisting with Grouse management.  generally the new heather growth is promoted by burning off the old stock.

OF COURSE those who do it have an ulterior motive.  Those who want our Moorlands as they once were should understand that they were in that happy state because of Grouse shooting.  We have by management,  but NOT by artificial rearing,  encouraged the Red Grouse.

Ban all shooting,  ban all sheep management,  and then look at the unholy mess that you will create.

CPT,  I'm not a barbarian.  I care and am passionate about our environment,  but for all the good work which is done by conservationists,  those who offer an input of value,  I find it ever more frustrating to be told that I don't know what I'm talking about, and such comments,  all so often come from those who live a theorised existence.

I've already bid one person "Good night",  and now this I shall offer to you.

Alec.


----------



## elliebrewer98 (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			When I see a hunt, I do not see sombre faces.
		
Click to expand...

That is because hunting is an sociable pastime for friends and strangers alike to converse together and enjoy, that's is what the true meaning of hunting is!


----------



## elliebrewer98 (1 January 2013)

VoR said:



			Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......
		
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought when I read the first post, the people who start these threads are bloody ridiculous!


----------



## Starbucks (1 January 2013)

Well lets justify eating meat?  Do you understand what that means?  Do you know how many pigs, chickens etc. have no life due to intesnive farming?

Lets justify milk farming, have you seen old, lame, milk cows walking down the lane, who've just had their baby taken from them??

Lets justify shooting, oh no, that's fine because we eat them. yeah right.

Lets justify women having HRT from mares having to have babies every year so we can stick things in their uterous to get their wee

Lets justify all the stray, thin dogs all around the world, the working donkeys and horses

I hunt, and I love animals. Fox's have a good life and if they get killed by a hound they get a quick death.  I feel much less bad about hunting than any of the above.


----------



## bubbilygum (1 January 2013)

Luci07 said:



			Started reading the thread, gave up. Why bother asking a question if you don't like the answers and won't entertain or review the responses.!
		
Click to expand...

I have enjoyed the debate on this thread but I have to agree with this - I've never seen a thread whereby the OP actively ignores responses they don't like and continues to promote arguments that have been disproven many times by many different contributors. It is somewhere between entertaining and frustrating!


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

Starbucks said:



			Well lets justify eating meat?  Do you understand what that means?  Do you know how many pigs, chickens etc. have no life due to intesnive farming?

Lets justify milk farming, have you seen old, lame, milk cows walking down the lane, who've just had their baby taken from them??

Lets justify shooting, oh no, that's fine because we eat them. yeah right.

Lets justify women having HRT from mares having to have babies every year so we can stick things in their uterous to get their wee

Lets justify all the stray, thin dogs all around the world, the working donkeys and horses

I hunt, and I love animals. Fox's have a good life and if they get killed by a hound they get a quick death.  I feel much less bad about hunting than any of the above.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that you are aligning hunting with the above. You are suggesting that hunting is acceptable because it's not as bad as the above. Is this what you intend?


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			The problem with this argument is that you are aligning hunting with the above. You are suggesting that hunting is acceptable because it's not as bad as the above. Is this what you intend?
		
Click to expand...

Are we to assume that you have an alternative argument?

Alec.


----------



## Luci07 (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a  strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?
		
Click to expand...

You say weak and easy, don't you mean " newborn and vulnerable" ?


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

elliebrewer98 said:



			That is because hunting is an sociable pastime for friends and strangers alike to converse together and enjoy, that's is what the true meaning of hunting is!
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure some of your fellow hunters would agree who have been at pains to suggest that it is taken more seriously than this.


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Are we to assume that you have an alternative argument?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

If my only argument in support of something was to point to things that are worse/perceived as worse, I would have to question the thing I was supporting. That's all. There are better arguments within this thread and to say hunting is ok because it's not as bad as battery farming or because other animals kill unnecessarily makes for a weak position, I am sure you would agree. I am interested in the debate because personally, I don't think you can have an opinion about something unless you understand the pro's and cons.


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

Luci07 said:



			You say weak and easy, don't you mean " newborn and vulnerable" ?
		
Click to expand...

What does is matter how the fox selects its prey - it is an animal which acts on instinct.


----------



## Luci07 (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			What does is matter how the fox selects its prey - it is an animal which acts on instinct.
		
Click to expand...

Because the wording seemed to be disingenuous and misleading. Weak and easy suggests something that is feeble and of lesser value.


----------



## KEF (1 January 2013)

Luci07 said:



			Because the wording seemed to be disingenuous and misleading. Weak and easy suggests something that is feeble and of lesser value.
		
Click to expand...

I see. Of course the foxes assessment of prey will have no regard to the economic value of the prey.


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

What you believe to be natural selection is not 100% natural. The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring is Natural selection. Geographical isolation is an occurrence you would class natural for the process. The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man. It would not naturally be a reason for the selection in alleles to occur. Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept. They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too. With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too. Now your aim is to manage fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase. Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away. Ending an animals life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely. What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why? Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We dont kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we dont call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us.


^My argument which I have selected from a few pages back.^
 There are a few questions in there for you to think about and answer. I have not read any answers yet, only you repeating your arguments over and over.


----------



## Mossi (1 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			And this is something that you really will have to learn to 'deal with'. It is a beautiful planet but it's not Tellytubby land, and animals - including humans - inflict pain and suffering on each other for a variety of reasons constantly. It's virtually impossible to watch an episode of any David Attenborough programme without something experiencing pain and suffering. 

As for the 'sport' side of hunting - I do not, personally, see the sport as being about killing. I hunt within the law, so nothing gets killed, but I still consider my pastime to be a sport.
Live hunting, with hounds, was a method of fox control. If I was live hunting there is a chance that at some stage during the day a fox would be killed. What happens now is that nothing gets killed during the hunt, but we come home, lampers go out that evening and it's likely that a number of foxes will get killed. 

As others have said, you came on this forum and posed a question, not out of genuine interest, but just to wind people up. Did you really think that the hunting folk on here would read your 'argument' and say 'Wow, hang on, she's right! I never thought of that Foxhunting is really cruel!' We've heard it all a million times before. 

I was anti-hunting for most of my life and I'm sorry to say that I had a closed mind for much of that time. I now live in a rural community and keep my own livestock; I have learnt a great deal about wildlife, habitat, farm animals and conservation, mostly from the people around me - hunting folk with a strong commitment to conserving the nature and wildlife of this country. 

And by the way, AnaV - the post about a fox having taken your chickens and your friend's chickens shows that you obviously do not practise what you preach re. building a secure run.
		
Click to expand...

However you try to 'deal with it', the planet is full of creatures that kill and eat each other and that is horrible but a fact, it doesn't mean we have to make it worse though (and I'm not a kid, I've been on the planet a long time and experienced many things - but not hunting - not for me).  I suppose some of us just can't understand how anyone can put a gun to an animals head and blast it, let dogs tear another dog (fox) apart, cut animals throats in abattoirs etc, when we couldn't do this ourselves.  I don't think Ana posted to 'wind people up', it is a discussion board afterall, and heated debates often arise on them.


----------



## iansmithpesty (1 January 2013)

It must be a very sad existence going through life being 'against' things. Maybe your the same people who trawl hunting videos on utube just to leave snide comments about toffs and how evil we all are.

I really do feel sorry for people who dont hunt, shoot and fish. I would never impose my will and beliefs on you though.


----------



## Mossi (1 January 2013)

Please could you define 'things'?


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a  strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?
		
Click to expand...

Of course not!  Almost any fox will attack a newborn (or half-born) lamb that it comes across!  But one thing I learned when working in the outback was that the infirm/injured foxes LOOK for lambing fields!

The station I worked on did a LOT of fox shooting.  There was NO snaring and NO shooting with shotguns - we only used 303's.  Apart from lambing time, some 10% of the foxes shot were carrying lead shot or wearing wire.  Around the lambing fields, more than 60% of the foxes we shot were in that disadvantaged state!!  So they were travelling in (the station was more than 12,000 acres) - attracted by smell - to the easy pickings.  Healthy foxes didn't bother!


----------



## Luci07 (1 January 2013)

KEF said:



			I see. Of course the foxes assessment of prey will have no regard to the economic value of the prey.
		
Click to expand...

Yes..the wording from the original post would suggest otherwise. Glad you agree!


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

"The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man".  

I think we can agree that on a global basis 'interference' is some way down the line, so this is all academic really.


"Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept."

Seems utterly barmy to me. Wittier?? More intelligent? How on earth could you know? It's not as if each fox goes through an IQ test and the outcome determines whether or not it gets hunted.

"They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too".

I think you've got this wrong as you are saying that they are stronger but more die.


 "With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too".

What, they have more cubs because they're cleverer? No, it doesn't matter how clever (or initially healthy) they are, they won't breed successfully if there isn't a plentiful food supply. Hence the vast numbers of foxes in my local area.

 "Now your aim is to &#8216;manage&#8217; fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase". 

There's got to be some sort of twisted logic here. Or am I missing something? Lampers shot seven foxes in two hours but this means that they will actually increase in number??? Again, I think you need to consider the whole food source issue.

"Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away".

See previous post about the difference between shotguns and rifles. You clearly know absolutely nothing about such things.


 "Ending an animal&#8217;s life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely".

Agreed - our only bone of contention here is the perception of 'humanely'. 

 "What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why?"

Because it is exceptionally cruel to subject an animal to continuous agony. Or do these injured foxes with infected wounds and mangled limbs hobble around thinking 'well, at least I'm still alive!'

"Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We don&#8217;t kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we don&#8217;t call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us."

This has been explained clearly by other contributors. You are into a whole different area here and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the original question. There is no parallel between the impact of OAPs on the landscape and the issue of 'hunting for sport'. It's just daft to even bring it up.


 "There are a few questions in there for you to think about and answer. I have not read any answers yet, only you repeating your arguments over and over"

Well, there you go. I've responded to every point. But it won't make the slightest difference.  

You don't think that the fox population needs to be controlled. 
I do. 
So the question about sport doesn't even come into it. We don't even get that far. 

It's been interesting in some respects but hugely frustrating in others. Go and do some PROPER research. That's what I did.


----------



## AnaV (1 January 2013)

If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations. 

I was supposed to write that the fox populatons mortality rate decreases for they are more liable to escape the hounds.

Natural Selection not only allows animals to don favourable traits to survive it also increases the chance of an animal reproducing and its young surviving for they are adapted to their environment. 

Do hunters not attempt shooting rabbits which flee? I have read your previous post yet you only brought up my question on pheasants. 

Ok. An animal is wounded in a territorial dispute. It has a few wounds. Nothing major. It will most likely be fine tottering around continuing its life. Has it not the right to go on if it is not affected by its injuries for long? 
You just assume it would have died so that you can sleep easy at night. Well that is not good enough. If the fox had escaped it would have only become weaker from the chase. 

As I have said before, putting an animal to sleep is humane if it is the last resort, not because it is the easier option for the humans behalf. 

How is it nothing to do with my original question? I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

AnaV, you must remember that while hunts are successful in catching the injured or sick, most foxes caught are probably perfectly healthy foxes. The difference is that with an injury or sickness, the fox is almost 100% certain to be caught, whereas there is only a one-in-three chance that a healthy fox will get caught. As there aren't that many unhealthy foxes compared to healthy ones, more healthy ones are caught. When I say injured or sick, I mean severely injured or sick (e.g a broken leg), not just some scratches and bruises from a fight! 

If animals are equal to humans, surely hunting is justified-after all, many animals kill other species to protect their territory, or food sources etc.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2013)

I take great exception to you stating that I think the lives of animals are 'worthless'. How dare you! You know absolutely nothing about me and the work I do for animals.

The aim of culling is to maintain a healthy population. With no apex predator, the adaptable fox - with a good food source- can breed unchecked. Surely you are not suggesting that I should simply stand by and allow the local foxes to help themselves to my livestock? I don't recall anyone saying that taking out injured foxes leaves a more intelligent population. Foxes become weakened through disease and injury, not because they are less clever than other foxes.

Shooting rabbits - my experience is that most are shot at night using the lamp, so like the fox they are stationary when shot. But again, there is quite a size difference and a rabbit is much more likely to be a quick kill from a shot. I mentioned pheasants because you seemed to have some daft notion that it is harder to shoot a bird (with a shotgun) than a moving fox (with a rifle).

The stuff about analogies with humans - they are a waste of time because FOXES ARE NOT HUMANS. Simple as that. I could go into all the complexities of this but if you cannot see the obvious - that there is essentially no comparison - then it is a waste of my time.

Your original question was 'let's justify hunting for sport (smiley face)' - look at the content above. it's not about sport, it's about the whole notion of killing. You don't think hunting is wrong because some call it sport. You think it's wrong because foxes get killed and you think they should be allowed to run around killing anything they like. Sport just isn't the issue.
I've had some interesting discussions with all manner of people over the years but this is getting really stupid now. OP is out to demonise and is coming up with all sorts of tripe in order to do so.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks the lives of ANY animals are 'worthless'!  Killing wounded/ill foxes leaves a HEALTHIER fox population.  It has NOTHING to do with a genetic predisposition to evading hounds - any healthy, fit fox can do that unless it runs into bad luck!




			Natural Selection not only allows animals to don favourable traits to survive it also increases the chance of an animal reproducing and its young surviving for they are adapted to their environment.
		
Click to expand...

Natural selection takes more than one or two generations to have any effect on survival - and adaptation to a changing environment would take a lot longer!




			Do hunters not attempt shooting rabbits which flee? I have read your previous post yet you only brought up my question on pheasants.
		
Click to expand...

You don't listen.  Shooting rabbits and pheasants with a shotgun is FAR easier as it requires far fewer pellets to bring them down.  Shooting a fox with a shotgun - even at 30 yards - can result in severe injury and the fox getting away to die slowly and painfully.  Shooting a moving fox with a rifle can do the same! 




			Ok. An animal is wounded in a territorial dispute. It has a few wounds. Nothing major. It will most likely be fine tottering around continuing its life. Has it not the right to go on if it is not affected by its injuries for long? 
You just assume it would have died so that you can sleep easy at night. Well that is not good enough. If the fox had escaped it would have only become weaker from the chase.
		
Click to expand...

A few minor wounds would not make a fox a natural victim to hounds!  In the outback, I shot a lot of foxes that WOULD have been easy catches for hounds - and their wounds certainly weren't minor.  One I particularly recall (which made me anti-snaring ever after) had the wire noose around its belly so tight that maggots were eating into the wound!    I didn't have ANY trouble sleeping at night after shooting healthy foxes around the lambing fields - I saw enough of what they did to new-born lambs - but shooting THAT one made me feel good!




			As I have said before, putting an animal to sleep is humane if it is the last resort, not because it is the easier option for the humans behalf.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong!  Too many humans can't BEAR to put a much loved pet or horse to sleep, despite the fact that it is dying slowly and in pain!  It's too HARD for them to do the right thing!  When you care about your animals, a decision to PTS FOR THE ANIMAL'S SAKE is bloody hard - it's never 'easy'!




			I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.
		
Click to expand...

Yep - I assumed you were an AR nutter!  In many ways, animals are treated FAR better than humans.  I watched both my father and my father-in-law die horribly painful and prolonged deaths from incurable illnesses!  If I'd done the only humane thing, and helped them go more quickly, I'd have been prosecuted for murder!  If I left one of my horses to die so slowly and in so much pain, I'd also be prosecuted - but for cruelty!


----------



## Bourbons (2 January 2013)

^^This!

Good grief, this thread has gone around in so many circles I am getting dizzy. 

OP - you appear to purposely not be reading or twisting what people are saying for the sake of being arguementaive. There have been many fantastic replies from hunting folk who have politley answered your questions, but you have failed to acknowledge their replies and have completely taken them out of context.

I think we have established that you do not agree with hunting. I think it is time that you should acknowledge that their are many people that do, and have provided pretty solid reasons as to why.

Either you are a troll or an incredibly bored, argumentative anti who has nothing better to do.


----------



## Countryman (2 January 2013)

Yes, the quicker foxes usually escape and so yes over time the fox population may get fitter a d faster. This does not mean number of kills will decrease, because hunts will proportionately breed faster hounds!


----------



## Littlelegs (2 January 2013)

To answer your argument regarding pets & injured foxes anaV, which yet again demonstrates your lack of ability to grasp the concept of wildlife, I shall try to explain. Pets & domesticated animals often have injuries & illnesses which are treated successfully, which a wild animal would not survive. It's simple & relatively stress free to obtain medical help for a domesticated animal, & provide things like food, water & shelter until such time it is healthy again. It's not as simple with a wild animal. If for instance a pet cat or dog gets a lame infected leg as the result of a bite from another animal, most of us would clean the wound, visit the vets & then care for the wound, provide a warm bed, hide antibiotics in food we provide, place fresh water nearby etc. A fox however is entirely different. Even examining the wound yourself would be extremely stressful, let alone several hours of poking & prodding by humans. And to nurse it you'd have to tame it. A good few years back we found an urban fox with wire wrapped round its leg & trailing along behind, eating from the neighbours bin. It took 3 of us & several towels over its head to prevent us being bitten just to untangle it. Although it had bald patches, it wasn't injured & we let it go. But still it was scared witless at the human interaction. Now if that wound had required veterinary treatment at a surgery, imo given the stress this would cause, pts is kinder. I think where animals are concerned, the mental well being is equally important to the physical well being. So just like I don't condone the owner who puts an old animal through extensive, intrusive treatment to the detriment of its quality of life, needlessly stressing wild animals to satisfy some bizarre need to 'rescue' is also not my idea of animal welfare. We should always balance the physical & mental needs. And if we do, then we have to accept that wild animals die of things pets are easily treated for.


----------



## KEF (2 January 2013)

iansmithpesty said:



			It must be a very sad existence going through life being 'against' things. Maybe your the same people who trawl hunting videos on utube just to leave snide comments about toffs and how evil we all are.

I really do feel sorry for people who dont hunt, shoot and fish. I would never impose my will and beliefs on you though.
		
Click to expand...

But you do impose your beliefs on others...if you hunt, you disrupt the lives of those that live in the area...it is you that imposes your actions/views on others not the other way around.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 January 2013)

Can anyone explain to me,  just why there are those who come on to a pro-hunting forum,  to simply disagree?  I can only imagine that those who are so opposed to hunting either think that they'll manage to persuade those of us who see the benefits to hunting,  that we are in fact quite wrong,  and despite our,  mostly,  factual and well reasoned responses,  that they may be able to change our minds,  or they're simply here in an attempt to provoke and anger,  without any other intention.

Those who are so opposed to hunting seem unable to gather any factual or reasoned arguments,  they make claims which verge on the ridiculous,  and yet we still attempt to defend our law abiding ways.  

We attempt to educate the idiot,  and that's where we've gone wrong.  There are those who've kept an open mind,  who've listened,  and though never wishing to hunt,  have accepted that those who do,  speak with experience,  but there's a small nucleus of clowns,  and I'd suggest that we leave them to their delusions.

Alec.


----------



## KEF (2 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Can anyone explain to me,  just why there are those who come on to a pro-hunting forum,  to simply disagree?  I can only imagine that those who are so opposed to hunting either think that they'll manage to persuade those of us who see the benefits to hunting,  that we are in fact quite wrong,  and despite our,  mostly,  factual and well reasoned responses,  that they may be able to change our minds,  or they're simply here in an attempt to provoke and anger,  without any other intention.

Those who are so opposed to hunting seem unable to gather any factual or reasoned arguments,  they make claims which verge on the ridiculous,  and yet we still attempt to defend our law abiding ways.  

We attempt to educate the idiot,  and that's where we've gone wrong.  There are those who've kept an open mind,  who've listened,  and though never wishing to hunt,  have accepted that those who do,  speak with experience,  but there's a small nucleus of clowns,  and I'd suggest that we leave them to their delusions.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself...I am open minded and am happy to be convinced to an alternative position. On this occassion my mind has not been changed (on the principle issue) but what I am realising (and this is not intended to be patronising) is that there are those that hunt that have well considered reasons for doing so...its a shame that those that I have witnessed hunting do not portray this. The status quo will be maintained (for the time being at least) so it is for those that hunt to convince others and not the other way around.


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 January 2013)

KEF said:



			I can only speak for myself...I am open minded and am happy to be convinced to an alternative position. On this occassion my mind has not been changed (on the principle issue) but what I am realising (and this is not intended to be patronising) is that there are those that hunt that have well considered reasons for doing so...its a shame that those that I have witnessed hunting do not portray this. The status quo will be maintained (for the time being at least) so it is for those that hunt to convince others and not the other way around.
		
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, KEF!  I've seen some idiots out hunting - AND had 'professonal' dealings with some MFH's - that have made me wonder why I bother defending hunting.  Particularly as I don't hunt any more myself!  So - for me - defending hunting is also a matter of principle!  (And I don't hesitate to give a good mouthful to those I see out hunting who ARE letting the side down!)


----------



## Nancykitt (2 January 2013)

Once again, JG, you are spot on. I went out a few times with a particular hunt and I did not like the attitude of several individuals one bit. I have been out with a few others and found their attitude to be totally different. Although I will always defend foxhunting in principle, I feel that a few individuals involved do need taking to task as they play straight into the hands of the anit-hunt movement.

As far as the whole thread is concerned, it's very much like the writer Stephen Covey said - "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply". If certain individuals believe that the fox population should simply be left alone, then any subsequent argument about methods of control is redundant.


----------



## iansmithpesty (2 January 2013)

KEF said:



			But you do impose your beliefs on others...if you hunt, you disrupt the lives of those that live in the area...it is you that imposes your actions/views on others not the other way around.
		
Click to expand...

What a twisted way of seeing things.


----------



## happyhunter123 (2 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			You're not wrong, KEF!  I've seen some idiots out hunting
		
Click to expand...

Those who behave in an arrogant, reckless or violent manner are just as great enemies of hunting as the antis themselves. They are also, thankfully, in the minority!


----------



## Littlelegs (2 January 2013)

Tbf though kef, the same could be said of many activities done by those in all walks of life. Nearly all of us disrupt others going about their daily lives, whether we hunt or not. Along with many others I drive my daughter to school, its not possible to walk home for the car before going to work, & thus I contribute to disrupting traffic. When its harvest time I avoid certain hacks because of busy farmers. Likewise when bt dug up a local road. Or when my daughter & other local kids are disrupting the peace playing out on summer eves. Next door building an extension was disruptive. Sometimes our pursuits inconvenience others, othertimes we ourselves are inconvenienced by others doing what they choose. It's not unique to hunting, its just part & parcel of living with each other.


----------



## bubbilygum (2 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations.
		
Click to expand...

If you read some of the other posts you would see that nobody here has said the lives of animals are worthless...


----------



## Vulpinator (2 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			How is it nothing to do with my original question? I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV. can you tell me what responsibilities animals have as to my un university educated tractor driving mind I thought to have rights you first have to have responsibilities.

To what extent is there any rational thought gone into, "animals are equal to humans" where is the consequencal action for the wrongs animals do, and if this a negative? then should consequences be removed from humans?  

I can read and I can write, But Ican drive a tractor.


----------



## micki (2 January 2013)

Can someone please answer this question for me. Everyone keeps saying that you can no longer kill the fox with the hounds, the hunting ban that now exists, but through out this thread people are still saying it is quicker to kill the fox with hounds which it sounds like is still happening(by the sound of people are saying on here). What happened to the ban?
The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?


----------



## bubbilygum (2 January 2013)

micki said:



			Can someone please answer this question for me. Everyone keeps saying that you can no longer kill the fox with the hounds, the hunting ban that now exists, but through out this thread people are still saying it is quicker to kill the fox with hounds which it sounds like is still happening(by the sound of people are saying on here). What happened to the ban?
The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?
		
Click to expand...

I think the points being made regarding hunting foxes with dogs aren't necessarily saying it is still common practice but that they feel it is a quicker,  ore humane method of fox control than the methods being used now.


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 January 2013)

micki said:



			The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?
		
Click to expand...

There are various ways of hunting within the law.  The first - and most obvious - is to hunt a trail.  The trails are laid to simulate a fox hunt (rather than they type of 'drag' set by draghunting packs which tend to go faster and hunt fixed drags in relatively straight lines.

You can flush foxes to shotguns, or to a bird of prey.


----------



## Springy (2 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			You can flush foxes to shotguns, or to a bird of prey.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder how many birds of prey could kill a fox  lol


----------



## micki (2 January 2013)

Thought i'd understood the ban correctly. It still doesn't really explain why they didn't shoot the fox that ran across the fields in full view of the fox hunt where it wasn't too far from them to be shot safely and easily. They certainly don't follow a trail around here, they definitely follow foxes. 
As for keeping the numbers down the local man that goes out lamping does that the best.


----------



## Sherston (2 January 2013)

...... because you can only flush a fox to guns with a couple of hounds in England, not a full pack. Unlike Scotland. Different again in N Ireland. Thats how consistent views on what is ok in the UK is.

Oh yes the man that goes lamping, never misses and never wounds a fox, he's perfect of course. Perhaps we should hunt a night, whats out of the public eye must be acceptable to the uneducated masses.

This thread is a waste of time and should be archived off to a new forum dedicated to the now near eternal debate of people that will never see eye to eye, along with other threads that just take up too much space.


----------



## micki (2 January 2013)

Sherston said:



			...... because you can only flush a fox to guns with a couple of hounds in England, not a full pack. Unlike Scotland. Different again in N Ireland. Thats how consistent views on what is ok in the UK is.

.
		
Click to expand...

So why bother taking the hunt out then? If they cant flush out with a full pack then it seems that the hunt are a bit out dated then. By the way i'm not an anti i have hunted before the ban, just can't see the point if this is true.


----------



## AengusOg (2 January 2013)

Springy said:



			I wonder how many birds of prey could kill a fox  lol
		
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQorMyH0EA

It just needs one...


----------



## Springy (2 January 2013)

AengusOg said:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQorMyH0EA

It just needs one...
		
Click to expand...

1 big one lol.... I presume that theres only 1 or 2 big birds of prey that can....


----------



## bubbilygum (2 January 2013)

AengusOg said:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQorMyH0EA

It just needs one...
		
Click to expand...

That video is amazing!

A very big bird of prey indeed... Bigger than any round my way (that said, there are some rather large Red Kites!)


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 January 2013)

Springy said:



			I wonder how many birds of prey could kill a fox  lol
		
Click to expand...

You need the right bird - Golden Eagles or Eagle Owls make mincemeat of a fox!


----------



## AengusOg (2 January 2013)

Or this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2UJe_Nc_4k


----------



## Countryman (2 January 2013)

Lamping is unselective mass slaughter. It's pest control. Hunting on the other hand, is selective because overall it takes out the old weak sick and infirm.


----------



## Nickijem (2 January 2013)

I would have posted something on this thread but I agree with all that Countryman has said so it has saved me doing the typing! Thank you Countryman for your intelligent posts that to me are common sense - I haven't yet seen an argument that stands up against all you are saying.


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

I see I shall have to select out the excuses you have given me to justify why you believe it is alright to kill animals for sport. You appear to stick together and call yourself pro hunting crew so you can hold responsibility for your fellow hunters reasons which have stuck out to me. 


 Hairy Old Cob: Survival of the Fittest    (Pg1)


Noobs31: And this happens not by magic, but by the strongest, youngest, wiliest fox outsmarting the hounds. (Pg1)


Countryman: It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull (Pg14) 


By what I have read and presuming you stick by what you say you all seem to be very for the fact it is part of natural selection. Now the theory is down to natural occurrences (no not a someone climbing on to a horse/ or going out at night to kill an animal) where over time animals breed the most favourable traits. I am sure I am repeating myself now. The traits that offspring may inherit is perhaps the ability to run faster, jump higher, hear better, dig better, or generally be more wary. You think your intervention by man encourages this naturally. It does in the way it aids the alleles to be passed down faster but it is not natural to the extent of the way you do it. You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome. 


HappyHunter123: AnaV, you must remember that while hunts are successful in catching the injured or sick, most foxes caught are probably perfectly healthy foxes.

^REALLY? Wait was your opposition not that the hunts killed only the weak/old to maintain a healthy population? I would like to point out the word most used above. So with hounds you do kill perfectly healthy foxes. 


Vulpinator- No you do not have to have responsibilities to be entitled to rights. Responsibilities are something mankind are supposed to have to be structured and live in harmoniously in society. Animals do have responsibilities for like people when they reproduce it is their responsibility to care and raise the offspring until time is right. 


Now what is your excuse for killing rabbits in the wild? I also did not say Natural Selection would occur in a couple of generations I used the words future generations so talk about twisting words. 


You dont live in the real world if you think every person who has a horse in their care has it put to sleep or shot because they think it is whats best. People who have horses in their care who actually care about them do for them what is best. HOWEVER, many people who have horses in their care such as racing yards, ex stud owners, breeders (yes I know from experience) do have horses shot because its quick and for them the easiest option. Just one example would be when my friends and I rescued a colt from a breeder who at about 6months old was going to be shot just because he wasnt a coloured or a filly.


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

I can not take some of the people on this thread seriously for they try to justify the actions of people where they know not of the stupid reasons.


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

At last op, something we can agree on, I too 'cannot take some people seriously on this thread...they know not...stupid reasoning'. And omg, they shoot horses who have little chance of a decent future? Wow, never heard that before. They should all be set free & allowed to self regulate their populations, just like the foxes. Do you live in a Disney film?


----------



## Nancykitt (3 January 2013)

AnaV, you must, by now, realise that you are losing more and more credibility here as your 'arguments' are based on fragmented nonsense which you attempt to put together in an some sort of articulate and coherent manner. However, you have not succeeded because you are failing to see the big picture, and time after time after time you fail to listen to what people here are saying. 

"You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome."

THIS is the issue. You disagree with killing foxes. So any debate on how they are killed is futile. If you don't agree that foxes need to be controlled you are not going to enter into a considered debate about the best method of control. 

So you acknowledge that the fox may be a pest for some with poultry, but this can be overcome? How, exactly? I have a large number of hens who free-range in the field, covering an area or around a third of an acre. Should I pen them in, digging the fence all round, covering the top and maybe electrifying it too? Any ideas on the cost of such an exercise? I'm producing high quality free range eggs for people to eat, I am not a charity. Oh, hang on a minute, wouldn't the hens be safer in cages? Maybe we should resort to that, then, just so that we won't have a fox/chicken problem. 

What about newborn lambs? Are foxes not a pest to them? In case you didn't know, the answer is YES. So how do we overcome this? Do give us an answer. And don't forget that sheep need to live outdoors and graze. 

I've mentioned this before but you ignored it - what about ground-nesting birds, such as the stone curlew? What about tern colonies? Some of the numbers of these birds are very low but presumably we should just allow the fox to wipe them out? Do you REALLY believe this? Why are the RSPB killing foxes to protect these birds? If you can find a solution, first of all tell us here and then get in touch with the RSPB because they'd love to hear from you. 

What about my beloved cat, killed by a huge dog fox two years ago? And the fox did not eat him, by the way. Should I have kept my cat indoors at all times? Or should I just not have a pet cat? Does my pet cat have less of a right to life than a wild fox?

Try telling the people in certain urban areas that the fox isn't a pest. I have friends who used to live in Essex and foxes were constantly causing problems, defecating in gardens, fighting with each other at night, attacking pets. Pest control workers trap these foxes and shoot them. Is that acceptable to you? If not, what is the alternative?

If you can provide a sensible, workable solution to the above I would be interested to hear about it. Otherwise, don't bother replying.


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

Once again you are missing the point.

My issue is humans unecessarily killing animals. Unecessarily as in 'we do not need to eat them, yet some of us take it upon ourselves to kill other animals.' 
I thought that was easy to understand. 

No obviously if I disagree with killing animals for sport I shall not be spending my time thinking of solutions for your murderous games.

I told you ending an animals life with good intentions for its welfare (last restort..) is a different situation. 

But, taking it yourself to go out at night another animal or get on a mount and chase the poor creatures then over see hounds tear them apart for no other reason other than you believing it is alright should not be a right. 

My thoughts on dealing with a chicken/fox issue? Dig a little deeper and think a little higher. Is it a foxes fault that is seeks food in peoples waste when in some places bin bags are left in open reach for them. Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests.
The curlew and fox situation is part of nature, are you going to intervene with lion predating a gazelle? The stone curlew very much thrives in North Australia where it is still common and its overall species is of least concern to being extinct. May I remind you the wolf was eliminated by people, killing more animals for should be the last thing on anyones list due to that human error. Those who have a pest issue should think around the box for other ideas which do not involve death.


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

It has also been found in places where the Stone Curlew thrives in healthy numbers there is also a good population of fox. You also did not qutie finish amusing me as to why you think its acceptable to kill rabbits? 
What about the badger cull? Why not just innoculate them against TB through food in such a way it was used to wipe out rabies in this country?


----------



## Nancykitt (3 January 2013)

Oh my, you really have excelled yourself this time.
The fox has no natural predator in this country. The comparison with the lion and the gazelle is ridiculous.
Absolute RUBBISH about stone curlews thriving - they DO NOT thrive in this country in areas where they frequently fall victim to foxes! Do you think that the RSPB would spend time and money protecting these birds just for fun? Speak to some RSPB wardens responsible for protecting colonies of birds such as roseate terns from foxes. You might learn something - but then again, probably not as you know everything there is to know and have the most closed mind I've ever come across on this forum. 

You didn't deal with the lamb question, but actually just don't bother. You have not given one single plausible answer to anything.

You seem to think that killing for food is acceptable but other reasons for killing are not. If you knew anything about anything you would know that animals torment and kill each other for a variety of reasons. My much-loved hens are sometimes vile to each other and cause painful injuries. Wolves will kill coyotes and foxes in places such as Yellowstone presumably because they are competitors. 

"Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests."

Yes, and all the land was once wilderness and unspoilt etc etc etc = but IT ISN'T NOW!!!!!  Look around you! No, the fox does not 'have a right' to cause a whole host of problems! You'll be telling me next that they have the 'right' to go into houses and bite children!

(By the way, you might like to learn some spelling if you want to give the impression of being articulate - eg, 'terrain'; 'wander'.) 

Your comment  - 'where human civilisation infests' - speaks volumes about your horrid, twisted, distorted view. I would put you in the same category as any other fanatical extremist nutter and you are therefore not worth any more of my time.


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

The fox has not natural predator in this country because of what? Humans. 
You make me larff. When you write in caps lock I assume you would be speaking in a yelling manner or with a raised intonation. I am afraid by doing this you are the one that loses credibility for you have ruptered your composure. Can you not stand up for something in which you believe in without having to resort to shouting?
I am prepared to stand up for what I believe in and the rights animals deserve.
With that tis you who closed your mind by beckoning me to abandon this argument. 

The Stone Curlew has been found to thrive in places where fox population have been of good numbers. It is a fact unknown as to why. Where in the world this data has been collected from I do not know (most likely from somewhere where the Curlew is reasonably common eg Australia).

The idiom 'You can dish the dirt it out, but you can't take it' applies well here indeed.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 January 2013)

AnaV,

there are those (I'm not amongst them ),  who would consider that drinking this early in the day,  does little to assist with lucid argument.

Alec.


----------



## Keimanp (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			The fox has not natural predator in this country because of what? Humans.
		
Click to expand...

As humans are responsible for removing the natural predator of the fox from this country should we not try to replace the role to endeavour to restore balance? (however we can although it will not be perfect)

You yourself have suggested the reintroduction of wolves to become once again the natural predator of the fox?

Wolves hunt in a pack, stalk, chase and kill their quarry in a similar vein to hounds, both prior to ripping the carcass apart to divide and eat.

Whilst I would like to see packs of wolves reintroduced the majority of the rural and urban landscape is no longer an appropriate place for a pack of wolves. This would result in them being contained in localised high fenced areas, it is not an option for nationwide fox control. In addition a high fenced area would have to contain their entire food source.

The closest method for a natural predator to the wolves out of the available options for fox control (shooting, snaring, poisoning, hounds) is replacing the pack of wolves with a pack of hounds.

Unfortunately the pack of hounds hunting the fox has to be managed and kept together to reduce the impact of other &#8216;users&#8217; of this country. Similarly to the wolves we can&#8217;t just let them run riot and out of the two hounds have long since been domesticated which enable humans to work with them.

It is unfortunate that people take offence to the business aspect of hunting (the social ride side, the social ride continues as it is still required to finance the hunt and services rendered to the farmers for fox control).

From what I have read of your responses and viewpoint we should return the natural landscape of this country, and probably many more as to how they were before humans arrived, or became technologically advanced. Whilst I can see your reasoning for this and the perception of a natural harmony restored, where do all the human inhabitants of this world go? Do we build an ark? How do you achieve this idealisation? Surely if you have a view of what it should be like it should be achievable? I would like my neighbours to be further away from my house but my pockets aren&#8217;t deep enough for that let alone buying a country!

You have admitted that foxes are a nuisance to a number of sources, out of the methods available for controlling the fox population and with your ideal for the country to be returned to a more natural state, how do you achieve fox control? Bear in mind that feeding and nursing foxes would require increased production of food and medicines etc and is counter intuitive to a more natural country.


----------



## Simsar (3 January 2013)

Keimamp I wrote all this earlier then deleted it as I shall not waste my breath on this numpty.
Still, good post.


----------



## Nancykitt (3 January 2013)

But Kelmamp, apparently all we've got to do is to make this country more akin to 'somewhere like Australia' and everything will be fine! (The fact that the fox is not indigenous to Australia, as far as I know, is by the by).

We're not talking about Australia anyway, or anywhere else in the world - we were talking about this country. 

I tend not to get too involved in arguments about things I know little about because it's only a matter of time before I would be exposed as an idiot. Unfortunately the original poster is under some sort of illusion that by repeating stuff about lovely foxes, the right to life, and that other species aren't really threatened by foxes then it will all magically come true. Take the argument about the stone curlew. I've actually visited places where these birds are nesting and I'm only too aware of the threat from foxes. I wonder if the OP has done the same? I doubt it very much - it would seem she knows very, very little about birds because she then came up with some stuff about the bush stone curlew which isn't even the same bird and is endemic to Australia. She has got this information by googling stone curlew! Hmmm, I wonder how some of these people would cope without google - even though it's part of the technological world brought about by the evil human species!


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

AnaV, whilst intelligent debate & conflicting opinions can be of interest to myself & I imagine many others, I would be more likely to have an adult discussion with the foxes in question than yourself, goodbye.


----------



## Antw23uk (3 January 2013)

I got to page two before i yawned and took a very strong disliking to the OP. Numpty!!


----------



## E13 (3 January 2013)

Very interesting thread! Unfortunately some have closed minds. Not judging though as I can identify with many of the 'anti' posts; however I can also see the logic of the 'pro' hunters. I think the natural reaction for those without experience of hunting (myself included) is that it is awful and barbaric. But the points raised about fox control and likeness to wolves are very convincing - I would rather we not have to control the population, and not kill animals for fun, but if it is indeed true that the population must be controlled then I can see that hunting is the most natural, and in some ways most humane, way.

ETS: Not that those who hunt find it fun to kill, I understand the fun is all about the riding, which is why I don't have a problem with drag hunting; I think maybe it's that hunting in itself is seen as fun, so it's difficult to separate, that the fun part is one bit, and the actual kill a separate factor, and the two - fun and kill - aren't related, in order to have the kill you need the chase which is where the fun comes in. I hope I make sense!


----------



## Springy (3 January 2013)

If you introduced 'proper' wildlife like the wolf thats being suggested then surely you would have to re-introduce wild boar, bears and such like.....

Hmmm not sure how that would work


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

Keimanp the issue you have raised about if the reintroduction of wolves was overseen they would struggle to adapt to the present environment is very much true. As I am sure however, you are aware places in different parts of the world where the human population overlaps with that of another predatory animal such as Wolf, Bear or Tiger they keep optimism high in order to cope.
I do not think that we should abolish technology that would be like saying we should go back to being cave men. My arguement is what gives someone the right to deny any animal its life, be it a healthy one for instance?
One of your fellow hunters told me on this thread they do mostly kill healthy foxes and I am questioning why we should have authority to. 

Does anyone have an excuse up their sleeve why people should be allowed to kill rabbits and badgers aswell? 

My answers do not seem to register with others such as NancyKitt for she clearly knows not of all the cruelty inflicted by people and gives an overall portrayal of mankind with a backside beaming radiant sunlight.


----------



## Springy (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Does anyone have an excuse up their sleeve why people should be allowed to kill rabbits and badgers aswell? 
.
		
Click to expand...

Rabbits
myxomatosis
over population
ruining crops
to eat

Badgers no


----------



## Molasses (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			As I am sure however, you are aware places in different parts of the world where the human population overlaps with that of another predatory animal such as Wolf, Bear or Tiger they keep optimism high in order to cope.
		
Click to expand...

Having lived in some of those places, i'd say they keep optimism high, and the gun loaded  

This thread keeps getting funnier, bless you AnaV
I want what you're drinking


----------



## Keimanp (3 January 2013)

AnaV

From a very quick look on Wikipedia regarding vegetarianism around between 3 and 11% of the population of the UK consider themselves to be partially or completely vegetarian. That would suggest that 90%of the UK population eat meat and choose to deny an animal its life for their pleasure (we don't need to eat meat, we can live healthily without it).

In addition we keep Cat's, Dogs and a variety of other pets that 'deny other animals their lives'.

Death is a large part of life, it is natural and normal and not something that should not occur (no one can prevent it).

I consider my pet cat to be fairly evil when it comes to the tormenting and playing with her prey around 25% of her kills are to eat and 75% enjoyment. She kills for fun, I can't stop her from hunting, nor should I, she is acting on her natural instincts.

These are by no means 'excuses' but reasons,

I have no problem with rabbits being killed and on a number of occasions I have requested that the local rabbiter come and remove the exploding population. The reason being they are in my horses fields, I don't want to go down to find my horse has broken his leg. The neighbouring farmer has lost animals through injury relating to rabbit holes and rabbits scratching&#8217;s. Provided they stay within the ditch bank and the small woodland I don't mind them being there.

As for Badgers I don't have any personal experience in respect for a need to reduce numbers or remove complete sets, but I can understand and appreciate the economic reasons for culling them. If it was as easy as you suggest to go and inoculate them so they do not have an effect on the livelihood of individuals, why are no charitable organisations raising funds and assisting these people at risk of loosing their income rather than simply trying to block a cull?

I know of several areas where Badgers are protected and additional land has been set aside for them to use by farmers.

Re-introduction of the wolf into to other parts of the world may well have been successful however the areas in which it is are likely to be more sparsely populated and a completely different agricultural set up for providing for the population. As you agree that the introduction of wolves into the UK is not a reasonable nor practical option.

Which out of the options available for fox control is most suited and most natural for the rural landscape of the UK? (I would like you to answer this question on the grounds that foxes should be controlled, whether or not you believe they should be controlled)


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

Watching 'the fox & the hound' whilst at that sentimental stage of drunkenness is clearly not the gateway to rational discussion.


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Keimanp the issue you have raised about if the reintroduction of wolves was overseen they would struggle to adapt to the present environment is very much true. As I am sure however, you are aware places in different parts of the world where the human population overlaps with that of another predatory animal such as Wolf, Bear or Tiger they keep optimism high in order to cope.
I do not think that we should abolish technology that would be like saying we should go back to being cave men. My arguement is what gives someone the right to deny any animal its life, be it a healthy one for instance?
One of your fellow hunters told me on this thread they do mostly kill healthy foxes and I am questioning why we should have authority to. 

Does anyone have an excuse up their sleeve why people should be allowed to kill rabbits and badgers aswell? 

My answers do not seem to register with others such as NancyKitt for she clearly knows not of all the cruelty inflicted by people and gives an overall portrayal of mankind with a backside beaming radiant sunlight.
		
Click to expand...


Wow. In the other parts of the world you hold in such high regard, those predatory animals will be killed if they start getting too close to humans, so rose tinted glasses are not very realistic.

I have to take you to task on believing that we have cause global warming. Have we helped, sure...are we the biggest reason we have a gaping hole in the ozone layer? No!

You don't believe we should be managing the mess we have made, but you're so much more interested in blame and judgement that you can't be bothered to learn the truth.

The world is full of geothermal activity that produces more CO2 than we humans could manage if we tried. A volcano eruption is more damaging in 1 hour than we can be in years.

Don't believe me? Study the history of earth. It has been through many cycles of heating up and cooling down. We are just in one of those cycles...it will happen without our help, some of our choices have just made a contribution that's all.

Stop being so young about this subject.

Do I like the idea of foxes being killed by hounds? No. Do I think there is a more humane alternative? He'll no. 

Why do it in the first place? Because we messed up and now the good and responsible among us have to do the hard job of making that right. People like you with such a closed attitude would not do this work and the environment would be damaged beyond recognition through the fast spreading of disease and breakdown of the natural food chain. 

Grow up and smell the roses. Hunting may not be nice, but it is responsible and thank god there are still responsible people around to protect what you obviously care so much about.


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

Keimanp said:



			AnaV

From a very quick look on Wikipedia regarding vegetarianism around between 3 and 11% of the population of the UK consider themselves to be partially or completely vegetarian. That would suggest that 90%of the UK population eat meat and choose to deny an animal its life for their pleasure (we don't need to eat meat, we can live healthily without it).

In addition we keep Cat's, Dogs and a variety of other pets that 'deny other animals their lives'.

Death is a large part of life, it is natural and normal and not something that should not occur (no one can prevent it).

I consider my pet cat to be fairly evil when it comes to the tormenting and playing with her prey around 25% of her kills are to eat and 75% enjoyment. She kills for fun, I can't stop her from hunting, nor should I, she is acting on her natural instincts.

These are by no means 'excuses' but reasons,

I have no problem with rabbits being killed and on a number of occasions I have requested that the local rabbiter come and remove the exploding population. The reason being they are in my horses fields, I don't want to go down to find my horse has broken his leg. The neighbouring farmer has lost animals through injury relating to rabbit holes and rabbits scratching&#8217;s. Provided they stay within the ditch bank and the small woodland I don't mind them being there.

As for Badgers I don't have any personal experience in respect for a need to reduce numbers or remove complete sets, but I can understand and appreciate the economic reasons for culling them. If it was as easy as you suggest to go and inoculate them so they do not have an effect on the livelihood of individuals, why are no charitable organisations raising funds and assisting these people at risk of loosing their income rather than simply trying to block a cull?

I know of several areas where Badgers are protected and additional land has been set aside for them to use by farmers.

Re-introduction of the wolf into to other parts of the world may well have been successful however the areas in which it is are likely to be more sparsely populated and a completely different agricultural set up for providing for the population. As you agree that the introduction of wolves into the UK is not a reasonable nor practical option.

Which out of the options available for fox control is most suited and most natural for the rural landscape of the UK? (I would like you to answer this question on the grounds that foxes should be controlled, whether or not you believe they should be controlled)
		
Click to expand...

AnaV...

If we can live perfectly healthily without meat, why the need for careful dietary planning to ensure again deficiencies? If we were that concerned, we wouldn't fly the planes or fuel the ships that carry so many foreign foods into this country that allow vegetarians the variety needed to be healthy. 

Also, if we don't need meat, why did a famous vegetarian nutritionist and tv presenter go back to eating meat when trying for a baby and through pregnancy and breast feeding, quoting that there were no substitutes for meat in a vegetarian diet. She was happy to sacrifice herself, but not for her child so she ate meat for that period.

I am not pro or anti vegetarian....I am just realistic and base my opinions on fact, not emotion! We are animals and we are omnivorous. Therefore we kill and eat other animals to make up part of our diet. Just like wolves do and other predators do. You don't seem to have a problem with them being animals! At least we kill humanely!


----------



## bubbilygum (3 January 2013)

Springy said:



			Rabbits
myxomatosis
over population
ruining crops
to eat

Badgers no
		
Click to expand...

The amount of ill, tatty rabbits I see in the countryside/beside roads is saddening. I wish more were killed humanely than left to die a horrible, slow and painful death. Rabbits breed at a rate that is simply impossible to sustain. 

I saw a lady walking a Weimaraner last month that had a rabbit in its mouth - she was very embarrassed but this rabbit clearly was a tatty old thing and the dog probably did what most people wouldn't have the decency to do by ending its life quickly and humanely.


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			But Kelmamp, apparently all we've got to do is to make this country more akin to 'somewhere like Australia' and everything will be fine! (The fact that the fox is not indigenous to Australia, as far as I know, is by the by).
		
Click to expand...

Sadly, the fox is a major pest in Australia - and while there are a number of foxhunts, they can't begin to even make a dint in numbers locally.  So - how are they controlled in Australia?  Lamping is the main method and I did a LOT f it when I was working in North-west NSW.  My best tally was 50 foxes in ONE night - all cleanly shot with a rifle - at night!  I WAS quite proud of that as I used 50 shells!  Not one wounding.  But - of course - we used BIG rifles (.303s)  You would NOT get a licence for anything above a .222 in this country for fox shooting - and in some areas, the police will oppose anything above a .22 for fox shooting!  Even a crack shot CANNOT guarantee a clean kill with a .22!  On the same night, my shooting companions got 43 and 47 foxes - the aim there isn't control - it's extermination!  And on many stations, snaring, shotgun shooting and poisoning are also heavily used (none of which is in the slightest bit 'humane'!  

Funnily enough, the fox isn't quite so much of a problem in Northern Australia - because of the high number of dingos!


----------



## Nancykitt (3 January 2013)

Fascinating, Janet. I knew that the fox was a big pest in Australia but am I right in saying that it was introduced at some stage rather than being indigenous? (Not that it matters a great deal now, I suppose, I'm just interested...)

That is an amazing tally of foxes in one night, even with a large bore rifle! My neighbour applied for a firearms license stating that he needed it to shoot foxes and was told that his limit was a .223, which I'm not convinced is ideal but no chance of anything larger unless he gets into deer stalking.


----------



## Simsar (3 January 2013)

I believe that foxes were introduced in the 1800's in Australia for the purpose of hunting.


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2013)

Simsar said:



			I believe that foxes were introduced in the 1800's in Australia for the purpose of hunting.
		
Click to expand...

You're right - and it was the stupidest bloody thing ever done in the name of hunting!!  

But then you have to consider the 'types' that travelled to Australia in those early days - whether military (to guard the convicts) or settlers.  It was a great place to send people you wanted out of the way - like the 2nd sons who were getting all the local girls pregnant, or the army captains who were 'playing up' with their senior officers' wives!  The convicts were the BEST of the early settlers!

I suppose at least the foxes distracted some of the ratbags from Aborigine hunting!!


----------



## Springy (3 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			I suppose at least the foxes distracted some of the ratbags from Aborigine hunting!!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

GG, I disagree that in first world countries its difficult to be healthy & vegetarian. My diet isn't a carefully balanced one, nor do I have supplements or tablets. And I successfully conceived, & had a healthy pregnancy, birth & breastfed on the same diet. Although I do eat some meat (chicken & occasionally pig products) its such a small % of my food intake it makes no difference, & my usual vege meals are actually far more healthy & balanced, without much effort. Maybe once a month I'll eat chippy battered cod or seafood. My child also thrives on the same diet. I've been aneamic (or borderline) since my teens, not diet related, but obviously diet can help rectify my bodies inefficiency. And despite what most people think, spinach, breakfast cereals are actually higher in iron than a portion of red meat. (the fact I would rather eat carbs than spinach & cereal etc is responsible for my levels staying low, rather than lack of red meat). Interestingly, during pregnancy when I made a normal effort to eat a balanced diet, rather than white starch, cheese & junk food my iron levels were the highest they've ever been. And tbh, most vegetarians I know eat like me, they aren't careful diet planners or users of pills & supplements. And at no point in pregnancy did any professional even hint more meat would be a good idea. 
  Now I'm not judging those who eat meat regularly, but I maintain the opinion that same as when I do, its for no reason but pleasure. Also, producing non meat food has a higher yield than raising meat in terms of land,  so we would manage with far less imports if everyone was fully vegetarian. I'm not saying we should do btw, just that all that trouble is taken purely for pleasure, not survival.


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			That is an amazing tally of foxes in one night, even with a large bore rifle! My neighbour applied for a firearms license stating that he needed it to shoot foxes and was told that his limit was a .223, which I'm not convinced is ideal but no chance of anything larger unless he gets into deer stalking.
		
Click to expand...

The old boy who ran the station HATED foxes with a passion - but only allowed them to be shot with a .303 - and only after you'd PROVED you could shoot cleanly by polishing off large numbers of rabbits with a .22!  He doled out shells grudgingly - and counted them back in - and woe betide you if you didn't have the foxes to match the missing shells!  60 years of sheep farming had taught him that wounded/infirm foxes were the ones who camped around the lambing fields!  He used to use poison (1080 and strychnine are still legal for fox control in most states!) but lost a much-loved collie to a 1080 bait!  Everything else had too high a risk of injured foxes.

My father taught me to shoot when I was about 10 - and I had a good eye!  In their eyes I was a 'city girl' (I was there to do polo ponies) so they made me jump through far more hoops to PROVE I could shoot!


----------



## Vulpinator (3 January 2013)

[QUOTE=AnaV;
I consider my pet cat to be fairly evil when it comes to the tormenting and playing with her prey around 25% of her kills are to eat and 75% enjoyment. She kills for fun, 

I can't stop her from hunting, nor should I, she is acting on her natural instincts

AnaV......

Could some one please explain to me why If AnaV. thinks that we "Humans are the same as animals" as previously quoted by the author abov. Then why should she not want to stop her cats from hunting, but would us, we also have natural instincts well I do, AnaV, are you a human or some alien speices


----------



## AnaV (3 January 2013)

Keimanp- As GG has stated it is healthier especially during pregnancy to eat meat. I have do not have an issue with eating meat to survive for it is part of nature and all predatory animals kill for survival. A relative of mine learnt is was better to get some protein intake after being a vegetarian and having two children which were sickly. It is part of being a omnivore, we need a balanced diet to be healthy. 

Yes, cats do kill for pleasure sometimes, they will quite often bring them back into your house too. Animals should have the equal right as a human to their own life. I diagree strongly with people chasing around animals as if they do not have the right to live. Not only foxes however, deer, rabbits and badger, all animals which are hunted. No that does not mean if an animal kills for pleasure we should be allowed to. That is just coming down to an lesser intelligent animals level. Due to us being at the top of the food chain for many reasons we should take higher ground. 

Molasses what was that about you and the balance of nature? Funny how my great grandma had different views of bears in Caucaus. She loved and respected all animals and she had cows and free range chickens.

Farmers are the ones who inflict myxomatosis onto rabbits in this country. You speak of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as if it is a daily occurence. Strange how being in the middle of nowhere on a 35 acre field not one of my 51 rescued horses put their foot in a rabbit hole. There were no hunts around us and farmers fields for on average 5 miles in each direction. It is horrible and unlucky if it happens. I have not had the misfortune at the Stud I work at either so it must be bad luck and unfortunatley we cannot wrap the world in cotton wool.


----------



## Vulpinator (3 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			The old boy who ran the station HATED foxes with a passion - but only allowed them to be shot with a .303 - and only after you'd PROVED you could shoot cleanly by polishing off large numbers of rabbits with a .22!  He doled out shells grudgingly - and counted them back in - and woe betide you if you didn't have the foxes to match the missing shells!  60 years of sheep farming had taught him that wounded/infirm foxes were the ones who camped around the lambing fields!  He used to use poison (1080 and strychnine are still legal for fox control in most states!) but lost a much-loved collie to a 1080 bait!  Everything else had too high a risk of injured foxes.

My father taught me to shoot when I was about 10 - and I had a good eye!  In their eyes I was a 'city girl' (I was there to do polo ponies) so they made me jump through far more hoops to PROVE I could shoot!
		
Click to expand...

Janet I have shot thousands literally of foxes using a .222 same calibre as a 223 but different chamber and with most beneficial results the use of a 303 is some what outdated and the constable is probably looking at the terain to be shot over and has for once used some common sense.


----------



## Vulpinator (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Keimanp- As GG has stated it is healthier especially during pregnancy to eat meat. I have do not have an issue with eating meat to survive for it is part of nature and all predatory animals kill for survival. A relative of mine learnt is was better to get some protein intake after being a vegetarian and having two children which were sickly. It is part of being a omnivore, we need a balanced diet to be healthy. 

Yes, cats do kill for pleasure sometimes, they will quite often bring them back into your house too. Animals should have the equal right as a human to their own life. I diagree strongly with people chasing around animals as if they do not have the right to live. Not only foxes however, deer, rabbits and badger, all animals which are hunted. No that does not mean if an animal kills for pleasure we should be allowed to. That is just coming down to an lesser intelligent animals level. Due to us being at the top of the food chain for many reasons we should take higher ground. 

Molasses what was that about you and the balance of nature? Funny how my great grandma had different views of bears in Caucaus. She loved and respected all animals and she had cows and free range chickens.

Farmers are the ones who inflict myxomatosis onto rabbits in this country. You speak of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as if it is a daily occurence. Strange how being in the middle of nowhere on a 35 acre field not one of my 51 rescued horses put their foot in a rabbit hole. There were no hunts around us and farmers fields for on average 5 miles in each direction. It is horrible and unlucky if it happens. I have not had the misfortune at the Stud I work at either so it must be bad luck and unfortunatley we cannot wrap the world in cotton wool.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV any chance you could directly answer my post both about the responibility/ Rights issue and about the hunting instincts of man and animal your the one saying we are the same so why are we  to be treated differently you cant have it both ways


----------



## happyhunter123 (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			No that does not mean if an animal kills for pleasure we should be allowed to. That is just coming down to an lesser intelligent animals level. Due to us being at the top of the food chain for many reasons we should take higher ground.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that you said that we were equal to animals?


----------



## Keimanp (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Keimanp- As GG has stated it is healthier especially during pregnancy to eat meat. .....

Farmers are the ones who inflict myxomatosis onto rabbits in this country.

....You speak of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as if it is a daily occurence.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV - As a man I can safely say that I have no requirment to eat meat during pregnancy and would suggest that would be the same for 50% of the 90% I suggested earlier. I eat meat because I enjoy it. I would also suggest that the vast majority of time of a womans life is not during pregnancy which would suggest less meat would be required to be consumed. I will also refer you to The_little_angels post.

I am unaware of any farmers who currently inflict myxomatosis onto rabbits in this country. I believe it was initially spread by farmers after it was illegally imported but it has long since ceased in being actively spread. It was something that occurred in my grand parents/parents generation.

I quite like my horses and although the risk may be considered small or low I'm not going to risk it. The rabbits aren't erradicated but they are controlled. I don't want to reduce them in number from the ditch or woodland areas as we have a couple of pairs of nesting barn owls and a pair of Tawny owls and we have a fox den across the other field but even these mouths are unable to keep up with the population growth of the rabbits.

It appears you have missed answering a direct question to yourself in my previous post?

Although this thread has gone on I have learnt something new as I think have many others, and overall I think the thread has mostly improved the perception of hunting.


----------



## bubbilygum (3 January 2013)

Keimanp said:



			Although this thread has gone on I have learnt something new as I think have many others, and overall I think the thread has mostly improved the perception of hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - the arguments for hunting foxes put forward here are much more sensible than those against. I have always been pretty firmly on the fence when it comes to fox hunting, but I think, actually, wasn't such a wuss I would even consider going out hunting next season.

I don't think this thread has gone the way AnaV hoped it would.


----------



## bubbilygum (3 January 2013)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			GG, I disagree that in first world countries its difficult to be healthy & vegetarian. My diet isn't a carefully balanced one, nor do I have supplements or tablets. And I successfully conceived, & had a healthy pregnancy, birth & breastfed on the same diet. Although I do eat some meat (chicken & occasionally pig products) its such a small % of my food intake it makes no difference, & my usual vege meals are actually far more healthy & balanced, without much effort. Maybe once a month I'll eat chippy battered cod or seafood. My child also thrives on the same diet. I've been aneamic (or borderline) since my teens, not diet related, but obviously diet can help rectify my bodies inefficiency. And despite what most people think, spinach, breakfast cereals are actually higher in iron than a portion of red meat. (the fact I would rather eat carbs than spinach & cereal etc is responsible for my levels staying low, rather than lack of red meat). Interestingly, during pregnancy when I made a normal effort to eat a balanced diet, rather than white starch, cheese & junk food my iron levels were the highest they've ever been. And tbh, most vegetarians I know eat like me, they aren't careful diet planners or users of pills & supplements. And at no point in pregnancy did any professional even hint more meat would be a good idea. 
  Now I'm not judging those who eat meat regularly, but I maintain the opinion that same as when I do, its for no reason but pleasure. Also, producing non meat food has a higher yield than raising meat in terms of land,  so we would manage with far less imports if everyone was fully vegetarian. I'm not saying we should do btw, just that all that trouble is taken purely for pleasure, not survival.
		
Click to expand...

^ This. Protein can be found in many sources other than meat, as can iron.

A vegetarian with a balanced diet will be getting more nutrients/substanance than a meat eater with a poor diet.


----------



## AengusOg (3 January 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=rlVHhVdbXzQ&feature=endscreen


----------



## Molasses (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Molasses what was that about you and the balance of nature? Funny how my great grandma had different views of bears in Caucaus. She loved and respected all animals and she had cows and free range chickens.
		
Click to expand...

Wow! cows and chickens! You're right! Hilarious 

Where did you say??


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			Janet I have shot thousands literally of foxes using a .222 same calibre as a 223 but different chamber and with most beneficial results the use of a 303 is some what outdated and the constable is probably looking at the terain to be shot over and has for once used some common sense.
		
Click to expand...

A .222 is fine in the UK - foxes aren't as easily freaked.  They're used to lights, and vehicles and people.  If they're not close enough, you can squeak them up.

On a big station in the outback, the foxes see very little of lights or vehicles - particularly at night.  The odd person they see is usually on a horse - and anything out of the ordinary, they're off!  You have to be able to shoot from a fair distance - and a .222 couldn't pack enough whack for a certain kill.  There's probably a better rifle being used now in the outback - I was there 45 years ago!


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			GG, I disagree that in first world countries its difficult to be healthy & vegetarian. My diet isn't a carefully balanced one, nor do I have supplements or tablets. And I successfully conceived, & had a healthy pregnancy, birth & breastfed on the same diet. Although I do eat some meat (chicken & occasionally pig products) its such a small % of my food intake it makes no difference, & my usual vege meals are actually far more healthy & balanced, without much effort. Maybe once a month I'll eat chippy battered cod or seafood. My child also thrives on the same diet. I've been aneamic (or borderline) since my teens, not diet related, but obviously diet can help rectify my bodies inefficiency. And despite what most people think, spinach, breakfast cereals are actually higher in iron than a portion of red meat. (the fact I would rather eat carbs than spinach & cereal etc is responsible for my levels staying low, rather than lack of red meat). Interestingly, during pregnancy when I made a normal effort to eat a balanced diet, rather than white starch, cheese & junk food my iron levels were the highest they've ever been. And tbh, most vegetarians I know eat like me, they aren't careful diet planners or users of pills & supplements. And at no point in pregnancy did any professional even hint more meat would be a good idea. 
  Now I'm not judging those who eat meat regularly, but I maintain the opinion that same as when I do, its for no reason but pleasure. Also, producing non meat food has a higher yield than raising meat in terms of land,  so we would manage with far less imports if everyone was fully vegetarian. I'm not saying we should do btw, just that all that trouble is taken purely for pleasure, not survival.
		
Click to expand...




bubbilygum said:



			^ This. Protein can be found in many sources other than meat, as can iron.

A vegetarian with a balanced diet will be getting more nutrients/substanance than a meat eater with a poor diet.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say at any point that in first world countries it is difficult to be healthy and vegetarian so I would appreciate not having words put in my mouth.

I was under the impression that the OP was making a point about vegetarianism being easy in terms of getting the right balance but also taking a moral stand on our impact on the environment.

My point was that if you only had access to the foods grown and able to be produced in this country, it would be much much harder to get a healthy vegetarian diet without the need for supplements. 

I have no problem with anyone wanting to be vegetarian. I do however dislike being told we shouldn't eat meat. We were designed to eat everything.

Hope that is understood a little better.


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Keimanp- As GG has stated it is healthier especially during pregnancy to eat meat. I have do not have an issue with eating meat to survive for it is part of nature and all predatory animals kill for survival. A relative of mine learnt is was better to get some protein intake after being a vegetarian and having two children which were sickly. It is part of being a omnivore, we need a balanced diet to be healthy. 

Yes, cats do kill for pleasure sometimes, they will quite often bring them back into your house too. Animals should have the equal right as a human to their own life. I diagree strongly with people chasing around animals as if they do not have the right to live. Not only foxes however, deer, rabbits and badger, all animals which are hunted. No that does not mean if an animal kills for pleasure we should be allowed to. That is just coming down to an lesser intelligent animals level. Due to us being at the top of the food chain for many reasons we should take higher ground. 

Molasses what was that about you and the balance of nature? Funny how my great grandma had different views of bears in Caucaus. She loved and respected all animals and she had cows and free range chickens.

Farmers are the ones who inflict myxomatosis onto rabbits in this country. You speak of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as if it is a daily occurence. Strange how being in the middle of nowhere on a 35 acre field not one of my 51 rescued horses put their foot in a rabbit hole. There were no hunts around us and farmers fields for on average 5 miles in each direction. It is horrible and unlucky if it happens. I have not had the misfortune at the Stud I work at either so it must be bad luck and unfortunatley we cannot wrap the world in cotton wool.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree about the rabbit hole thing. Did you know that actually, there were only 18 reported incidents with horses and rabbit holes in all of the uk in 2012. Compared to incidents involving poor stable management, it is pretty much insignificant!


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

Fair enough GG, although it was me, rather than op that raised the point of meat eating. Ops argument is that its ok to kill for survival, but we otherwise have no rights to take an animals life, in response I voiced the opinion that an animal dying for us in the first world to eat is not survival, just for our enjoyment in eating it. Ops stance seemed to be that even in first world countries, meat is necessary for survival, so its ok to kill meat animals. And off topic but if we stopped producing as much meat in this country & concentrated solely on other protein sources, we could access a varied diet without foods grown only outside this country. Although I'm sure for many, including myself, that would be rather boring.


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Fair enough GG, although it was me, rather than op that raised the point of meat eating. Ops argument is that its ok to kill for survival, but we otherwise have no rights to take an animals life, in response I voiced the opinion that an animal dying for us in the first world to eat is not survival, just for our enjoyment in eating it. Ops stance seemed to be that even in first world countries, meat is necessary for survival, so its ok to kill meat animals. And off topic but if we stopped producing as much meat in this country & concentrated solely on other protein sources, we could access a varied diet without foods grown only outside this country. Although I'm sure for many, including myself, that would be rather boring.
		
Click to expand...

No probs, I probably got confused with people quoting other people!


----------



## Littlelegs (3 January 2013)

Hadn't finished, I meant to add that I don't have any issues with raising animals for meat. My reluctance to eat it comes from not wanting to eat factory farmed meat & the high cost of ethically raised meat, hence eating it rarely. I actually think if the world became vegetarian many animals would become extinct & that would be sad to see the end of traditional, rather than intensive, farming & all that goes with it.


----------



## _GG_ (3 January 2013)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Hadn't finished, I meant to add that I don't have any issues with raising animals for meat. My reluctance to eat it comes from not wanting to eat factory farmed meat & the high cost of ethically raised meat, hence eating it rarely. I actually think if the world became vegetarian many animals would become extinct & that would be sad to see the end of traditional, rather than intensive, farming & all that goes with it.
		
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense! I don't eat any meat that I don't get locally and no where it is from and it doesn't cost any more because I go get it from the farms that produce it. Guess I am lucky that I can get everything that way within 6 miles of my house


----------



## Littlelegs (4 January 2013)

I can get lamb or beef reared locally, but I don't like either, & since local butcher closed its either trek miles away, or pay high prices.


----------



## Nancykitt (4 January 2013)

Well, it's been frustrating at times but overall it's been a really good thread that has served to unite the like-minded pragmatists against those that live in the world of Disney animations. I've learnt a lot - and sometimes it's good to revisit our beliefs and core values.


----------



## fburton (4 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			As for the self-regulating argument - in many circumstances, it is true that a species will self-regulate. If there is a limited food supply then that is a major factor. In the case of foxes,
		
Click to expand...

...it is space, as they are a territorial species.




			Please do not tell me that with a plentiful food supply the fox population is self regulating as I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced the problems caused by large numbers of foxes.
		
Click to expand...

Without _additional_ culling, but with the same relatively large number of road deaths, how much will the fox population increase? Double, triple, even more? Does anyone know?


----------



## Nancykitt (4 January 2013)

Very hard to say how much the population could increase. Around here, road deaths are limited - infact, it's years since I saw a fox dead on the roadside, although, of course, some could well be injured. 
If you look at the video posted by AengusOg on page 39 it gives some indication of just how big the population is in some areas. There have been times when the lampers around here have come across very high numbers, suggesting a possible increased tolerance (by the fox) to sharing territory?
Not sure, but I do know that if the conditions are favourable they can breed very successfully indeed.


----------



## Vulpinator (4 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			A .222 is fine in the UK - foxes aren't as easily freaked.  They're used to lights, and vehicles and people.  If they're not close enough, you can squeak them up.

On a big station in the outback, the foxes see very little of lights or vehicles - particularly at night.  The odd person they see is usually on a horse - and anything out of the ordinary, they're off!  You have to be able to shoot from a fair distance - and a .222 couldn't pack enough whack for a certain kill.  There's probably a better rifle being used now in the outback - I was there 45 years ago!
		
Click to expand...

Janet ive killed head shot at over 300 yds with .222 if thats not long enough then you should nt be behind the but modern ballistics can be quite a surprise not that im condoning shooting at distance i prefer at the end of the barrel but I can definatley say even as a competant marksman ive wounded foxes with both rifle and shot gun but ive never wounded a fox witheither terriers or hunting hounds so there it is.


----------



## AnaV (4 January 2013)

I have read T_ a_ l_'s post and its good it worked being a vegetarian for her during pregnancy but it is not the same for everyone. My aunt was not only vegetarian during pregnancy but before the time too. I believe that protein derived from meat is needed for sustaining a balanced diet and not only that it is part of the cycle of life. We as omnivores require nutrients from different sources of sustinence. 

Vulpinator if you would be as so kind to look a few pages back I answered your query on rights and responsibilites. 

GG- I am not vegetarian and I am not quite sure where you came up with that for the thread is about hunting for sport (you know where you dont need/intend to eat the animal after). Thank you however for you nicely backed up my point how humans being omnivores need a balanced diet in order to be healthy.

Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'. 
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal. 

As Simsar kindly brought up earlier it was man who introduced the fox into Australia for the leisure of killing them. They slaughtered them not for 'pest control' or to put them out of pain but for pleasure. What 'Core Values?'


----------



## Vulpinator (4 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			I have read T_ a_ l_'s post and its good it worked being a vegetarian for her during pregnancy but it is not the same for everyone. My aunt was not only vegetarian during pregnancy but before the time too. I believe that protein derived from meat is needed for sustaining a balanced diet and not only that it is part of the cycle of life. We as omnivores require nutrients from different sources of sustinence. 

Vulpinator if you would be as so kind to look a few pages back I answered your query on rights and responsibilites. 

GG- I am not vegetarian and I am not quite sure where you came up with that for the thread is about hunting for sport (you know where you dont need/intend to eat the animal after). Thank you however for you nicely backed up my point how humans being omnivores need a balanced diet in order to be healthy.

Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'. 
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal. 

As Simsar kindly brought up earlier it was man who introduced the fox into Australia for the leisure of killing them. They slaughtered them not for 'pest control' or to put them out of pain but for pleasure. What 'Core Values?'
		
Click to expand...


AnaV. 

Ive trawled the pages back and forward cant find it but what about your post about humans and animals being equal but some how the orwellian in you says we are more equal than animals could you answer in a less politician manner so we not so elequent tractor drivers can be assured you answer. thanks


----------



## cptrayes (4 January 2013)

_GG_ said:



			I totally agree about the rabbit hole thing. Did you know that actually, there were only 18 reported incidents with horses and rabbit holes in all of the uk in 2012. Compared to incidents involving poor stable management, it is pretty much insignificant!
		
Click to expand...

How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole? 

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them. 

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!


----------



## Alec Swan (4 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole? 

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them. 

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!
		
Click to expand...

For just this once,  I agree with you.  Totally!  It's rather like those horses which are reported as having died from liver failure,  brought on by ragwort poisoning.  "REPORTING"?  TO WHO?  

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (4 January 2013)

Vulpinator- I think all animals should have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animals survival. On pg 35 and on post 342 you will find I have written a little about rights and responsibilities for you.


Christmas trees- I presume the incidents where horses have put their foot down a rabbit hole and sustained injury are noted down by the veterinarians which see to them and when overall data is needed they are reported.


----------



## Nancykitt (4 January 2013)

Ah right - all animals have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animal's survival! Fantastic! As my lambs and chickens - not to mention the ground nesting birds - can't survive while the fox insists on killing them, then the fox's life is needed in order to ensure the survival of others.

AnaV, in spite of the fact that you started this thread I think that it has outgrown you. It's made me feel a whole lot better though and provided me with some amusement. Thank you.


----------



## _GG_ (4 January 2013)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole? 

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them. 

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!
		
Click to expand...




AnaV said:



			Vulpinator- I think all animals should have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animals survival. On pg 35 and on post 342 you will find I have written a little about rights and responsibilities for you.


Christmas trees- I presume the incidents where horses have put their foot down a rabbit hole and sustained injury are noted down by the veterinarians which see to them and when overall data is needed they are reported.
		
Click to expand...

I have been waiting for this. I apologise for the method used, but thought it may be the most blatant way for me to make a point that has been made time and time again and yet ignored, time and time again. 

AnaV - you PRESUME the incindents are noted by vets. You haven't gone and researched it properly by actually speaking to vets or calling the national statistics office. You have just read something online and taken it as true because it suits. You feel able to presume. You cannot form opinions on anything that are in any way educated or able to be taken seriously when you fail to even attempt to find the truth of something before PRESUMING that it is what it says it is. 

To clarify. I have no idea how many rabbit hole related horse incidents there are. I do however know they happen. Known a horse have to be shot with a broken cannon bone and shattered knee. My own horse lost a shoe which I found in one and she had a very puffy leg for over a week and those incidents were in the space of a few months...so yes, they happen.

My point is, AnaV...your arguments in this thread hold very little to no authority because it is clear to the many people in here who actually understand things through first hand experience and knowledge that most, if not all of your arguments are based on presumption, emotion and a lack of actual, geuine, first hand, direct knowledge. 

Nuff said!


----------



## Molasses (4 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'. 
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal. 
'
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean Caucasus AnaV because the people i've met there love to hunt? If its magical Disney land called Caucaus then please proceed there at the first available opportunity. I think NancyKitt sums up beautifully the thread has provided us with some amusement and some wonderfully eloquent arguments but I don't think poor AnaV will ever see it that way.


----------



## AnaV (4 January 2013)

GG- Thats right I do not know whether vets report incidents of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as well as I do not know whether anybody even gives a damn about how many times it occurs. The fact is you hunters exaggerate everthing in order for it to suit you best.

Molasses- It is true people in Caucasus hunt, however, to survive because the government would rather spend all its money on weaponery than looking after its people. As you are probably aware the area is a place of poverty for many of its people. People there will hunt to survive however, for they will not only eat the meat but turn the fur into clothing for harsh winter conditions. My great grandma (alongside my great grandad) lived amongst the same people her entire life (prior to when we brought her over here at the age of 80) and they would always give each other milk, eggs, meat which they raised and would think wisely on the money they spent on other products and groceries.


----------



## _GG_ (4 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			GG- Thats right I do not know whether vets report incidents of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as well as I do not know whether anybody even gives a damn about how many times it occurs. The fact is* you hunters *exaggerate everthing in order for it to suit you best.
.
		
Click to expand...

Yet another PRESUMPTION....are you 10 years old? That is a genuine question and I ask it because only children or the seriously self centred think they can make such presumptions based on....NOTHING!

I am not a hunter. I don't hunt. I am a dressage rider. I did hunt as a child, twice. Didn't like it, never went again. Just because I didn't like it though doesn't mean I don't agree with it. I am a realist. 

You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, so please sweetheart, don't presume you do. It really is quite pathetic.


----------



## AnaV (4 January 2013)

GG- I do apologise for believing you were of the hunting sort when it was supposed to have been projected to those who hunt when I based my thread 'To all those who hunt...' You are wrong in believing I base my knowledge on presumption and I sincerley do not care who you and what you do. I am open to different views and perspectives on hunting however, I aimed it at people who hunt themselves for I believe having first hand experience and the motiviation which fuelled them they would tell me why they thought it was alright to kill animals for sport.


----------



## _GG_ (4 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			GG- I do apologise for believing you were of the hunting sort when it was supposed to have been projected to those who hunt when I based my thread 'To all those who hunt...' You are wrong in believing I base my knowledge on presumption and I sincerley do not care who you and what you do. I am open to different views and perspectives on hunting however, I aimed it at people who hunt themselves for I believe having first hand experience and the motiviation which fuelled them they would tell me why they thought it was alright to kill animals for sport.
		
Click to expand...

I deduce that a lot of your opinions are based on presumption or what you have read or heard and just believed because you could because there is such a vast amount of information coming from you in your posts that is not true or realistic. Most of it is perhaps what you can find doing google search and is written by people who are fanatical about the subject and do no proper research. 

Answer me a few questions if you will...

Have you ever been hunting?
Have you ever seen a fox that has been poisoned? 
Have you ever seen a fox that has been trapped?
Have you ever seen a rabbit suffering from Myxomatosis?
Have you ever discussed the subject of taking out a second mortgage with a farmer because he is constantly losing poultry to foxes and having to replace the killed birds and keep erecting new or repairing fencing?
Have you ever seen a fox killed by a pack of hounds?

Have you ever eaten meat? 
Have you ever visited an abattoir?

Do you hail from another planet where your type of human is not actually an omniverous animal? This question is asked because you question our rights to kill other animals. We are animals. 

Do you think we need to take responsibility for our mistakes?

Do you think we should leave the natural world and the ecosystems and environments in the natural world to suffer through us doing nothing, when we could help by taking small measures?

I am genuinely interested in your answers to these. 

I honestly don't want to be rude, but I felt the need to point out that you are so emotionally charged about this subject that you are jumping in with replies, inciting angry responses through your lack of understanding of what people are actually saying. You have had an enormous amount of replies on this thread, most of which have taken a great deal of time for the posters to write. For you, they have gone to great lengths to give you the explanations you have asked for and yet you still hold fast to the idealistic principals that actually do the wildlife you care about no good whatsoever.


----------



## AnaV (5 January 2013)

The answers to your questions are as follows;
1-No
2-No
3-No
4-Yes
5-No
6-Yes
7-Yes
8-No, I have auction markets where animals (eg horses) go prior to the knacker man but never an abattoir.

You banging on about me being from another planet? From which content of writing I have posted have you deduced I believe we are anything but omnivores? You will find it is I think we being omnivores are to eat a balanced diet containg meat, carbohydrates ect to be healthy. 
I am very much for people trying to conserve our planet. These small steps you talk of? Would you consider taking the life of an animal for no other reason than it being a pest a small step? How is it a small step for the earth? 

It has been proven to me on here people hunt fox for simply because they regard them as pests. I do not think that killing off certain animal populations because it suits people is the way forward for cleaning up the mess the human race has caused to the earth. Why should other animals suffer? 

This topic is obviously one to draw emotion yet not at any moment through out it did I myself allow it to anger me. Funny you mention it for I have noticed on the other hand those who have opposed me on here have allowed it to do so. As I mentioned to one, how can you let something you believe whole heartedly subdue you so, for you to come across inferior through the manner of your post.


----------



## Springy (5 January 2013)

Is anyone actually still reading this thread  

I cant be bothered to read it all / add to it as its going round in circles and not actually achieving anything now


----------



## AengusOg (5 January 2013)

We're nearly there.


----------



## Nancykitt (5 January 2013)

I agree Springy, it was entertaining at times but it's just becoming boring now. There's only so many times you can say something and be completely ignored before it just gets tedious.

OP has seen a fox killed by hounds (but has never been hunting) but presumably hasn't been there when a fox was shot and not killed and has not seen a poisoned or trapped fox. Had she seen any of these things she would have seen that death by hounds causes much less suffering. 
Lots of MY questions have gone unanswered - not had any response about lambs (perhaps we're just supposed to stand around and let foxes kill our newborn lambs? After all, surely the farmers can stand the loss, everyone know how wealthy they are), or about the rare ground nesting birds. OP just hasn't a clue and when I raised the question about stone curlews all she could do was to post an irrelevant bit of stuff copied and pasted from a site about Australian bush curlews following a google search. The RSPB has a leaflet for farmers and landowners about stone curlews - this is one of our most endangered birds - encouraging them to use 'legal methods of predator control.' But hey, isn't the RSPB just full on bloodthirsty idiots and nothing to do with conservation?

For the record - yes, I do agree with killing animals that are pests, especially when numbers get out of hand and threaten other species. 
Yes, I do consider taking the life of an animal because it is a pest a 'small step.'
Yes, I do support hunting and believe that hunting with hounds is the preferred method of fox control. 

OP refers to 'killing off certain animal populations.' This I don't agree with at all, and foxhunting is not about that. It is about trying to ensure some sort of balance. Ironically, certain ground nesting birds could indeed be killed off if there isn't any predator control.

Presumably rats and cockroaches, even though they are pests, have a right to life too? How lovely. Forgive me, but I must go and plait my horse for hunting (although there will be no fox control until we next go lamping).


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2013)

Now I'm going to round on those who are justifying their sport.  

Understand this;  AnaV has displayed no interest *what-so-ever*,  in listening to reason or logical or undeniable argument.  AnaV has continued to make claims and statements which we all know to be preposterous and frankly,  incredibly juvenile.  When being faced with the fact that 2 + 2 really do add up to 4,  continuing to argue that 5 is in reality where they see the total,  makes for a pointless discussion.

Why on earth do you continue to discuss the subject with someone who whilst having no understanding of their own argument,  and being unable to make coherent statements in their own support,  will have even less chance of understanding yours?  Tell me that if you're able. 

Without the inclusion of the OP,  this would have been an interesting and searching read.

Alec.


----------



## bubbilygum (5 January 2013)

Without the inclusion of the OP, this would have been an interesting and searching read.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. Some very informative and interesting points have been made on this thread.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Why on earth do you continue to discuss the subject with someone who whilst having no understanding of their own argument,  and being unable to make coherent statements in their own support,  will have even less chance of understanding yours?  Tell me that if you're able. 

Without the inclusion of the OP,  this would have been an interesting and searching read.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

A little lesson for you, Alec.  There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP.  She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

The anti 'case' is so easy - foxhunters are - after all - a bunch of rich, Tory-voting toffs who charge around the countryside with packs of dogs, tearing up small fluffy foxes for fun! 

The OP has given us a chance to put our arguments to people who will listen - and think - and perhaps change their views!  That's what PR is all about.


----------



## Bourbons (5 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			A little lesson for you, Alec.  There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP.  She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

The anti 'case' is so easy - foxhunters are - after all - a bunch of rich, Tory-voting toffs who charge around the countryside with packs of dogs, tearing up small fluffy foxes for fun! 

The OP has given us a chance to put our arguments to people who will listen - and think - and perhaps change their views!  That's what PR is all about.
		
Click to expand...

Both of these!

She has no intention of acknowledging anything that has been said to her re pro-hunting. Although it has been pretty amusing reading some of her "theories"


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			A little lesson for you, Alec.  There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP.  She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

.......
		
Click to expand...

AH,  right,  I understand,  and I apologise for being so dim,  and leading on from that rational,  then if I where to seek out an animal rights activist's group,  and enter myself (I'll apologise for that,  but hang on and you'll see the point),  and claim that all those women (sic) who are "Activists",  through some chemical imbalance,  are quite obviously all lesbians,  and their interests in wildlife protection are simply an extension of their ability,  or lack of it,  to produce children,  then would you expect a reasonable response?  Were I to do so,  then I'd expect such stupid observations,  to be roundly ignored,  and the point that I was making was that so AnaV should have been ignored for her equally asinine remarks.

Had there not been one single response to the opening lines of this thread,  then as an aside we'd have missed some interesting posts,  I'll accept,  but by ignoring it we'd have denied a platform to one who is quite possibly unbalanced.

As a disclaimer,  and before the wrath of the forum lands upon me,  for the first paragraph,  you must understand that I'm offering up an example that when we respond to those who are agents provocateurs,  so we fuel their sense of self importance.  Again,  as is the case with this particular thread,  there has,  though quite by chance,  been an enlightening and interesting joining and bonding of thought.  Many,  including you Mrs. George,  contribute posts of great worth,  but I'm still of the view that those who are more interested in mischief than understanding,  are best ignored.

Alec. 

Ps.  I've just re-read my words,  and I'm getting to sound ever more like Judgemental!  What would Rosie say?!!


----------



## EAST KENT (5 January 2013)

Rosie would smack you Alec...steady..don`t get over excited ! I actually am a veggie,but not vegan;OK confessed to that.I choose not to eat flesh,but my meriad dogs are fed entirely flesh! As to "justify",well I confess to having come from hunting stock,in my family`s case Beagling.Not Toff at all! They walked beagle pups/whelped bitches etc.As a child the hunting gene was extremely strong,I hunted water rats/rats/rabbits ..anything ,with my best buddy mongrel,   that was normal for us country kids. If I got the chance I would foot follow or grab a pony in pursuit of the Chiddingfold Farmers hunt.   Why...because I enjoyed it ,it was FUN....that`s why.
    There is something primevil in hunting,it is in all of us,if we care to admit it,and I do.If it is also justifiable by being the most humane way of controlling foxes ,well good-oh,but that in the first place was not my reason at eight years old to stay out hunting until 4pm on a shaggy black 21 year old mare.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Had there not been one single response to the opening lines of this thread,  then as an aside we'd have missed some interesting posts,  I'll accept,  but by ignoring it we'd have denied a platform to one who is quite possibly unbalanced.
		
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly happy to help a rabid anti PROVE she's unbalanced!


----------



## Orangehorse (5 January 2013)

Well all the "antis" are having great fun, chasing their prey and shooting them - with cameras.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2013)

EAST KENT said:



			Rosie would smack you Alec..........

.......
		
Click to expand...

Oh no she wouldn't.  Rosie was very fond of me,  she just had a rather strange way of showing it. 

Alec.


----------



## Littlelegs (5 January 2013)

Imo op's unrealistic & bizarre manner of promoting the anti stance has probably done more good for supporting hunting, to anyone previously on the fence, than a dozen pro's could have accomplished alone.


----------



## _GG_ (5 January 2013)

The_angel_littlelegs said:



			Imo op's unrealistic & bizarre manner of promoting the anti stance has probably done more good for supporting hunting, to anyone previously on the fence, than a dozen pro's could have accomplished alone.
		
Click to expand...

This...I very rarely can be bothered to get embroiled in things like this to be honest, but I wanted to post up some fictional information about rabbit holes and horse incidents to prove a point, publicly, that the OP was not interested in fact finding or correct research in order to find a solid base for her opinions. 

Anyone else who is anti hunting reading the drivel that she is spewing will have a hard time taking what she says seriously. 

In the post of mine that she quoted, she tells me I am inferior. That is all I need to know about how self centred, self important and arrogant she is. In my book, if you feel you can call someone else inferior, you must have a pretty bl00dy high opinion of yourself. It is ironic also. She spends all this time and effort defending the rights of animals yet thinks it is perfectly ok to be rude to fellow human beings.

Inferior is a state of mind. I haven't felt inferior since I left home at 16 to go to Hartpury college, so it bothers me not. 

I for one think that, whilst it is giving her a platform she shouldn't really have, it is also showing in the most spectacular way just how scewed her opinions are so that others who may read in future, think twice before forming opinons based on heresay and google. 

Plus...it has quite frankly, be largely amusing and incredibly informative.


----------



## Vulpinator (5 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Vulpinator- I think all animals should have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animals survival. On pg 35 and on post 342 you will find I have written a little about rights and responsibilities for you.


Christmas trees- I presume the incidents where horses have put their foot down a rabbit hole and sustained injury are noted down by the veterinarians which see to them and when overall data is needed they are reported.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV. My initial impression of you was POLITICO and ive not been proven wrong maybe a little more water is required in your drink or even a a little more drink in your water UN educated un educated un educated should have been Mr Blairs thoughts of you. they certainly are mine.


----------



## micki (5 January 2013)

So far you have all said you will not continue with this thread yet you all keep coming back to it !!! Perhaps the OP has hit a few nerves after all and no one wants to admit it.


----------



## _GG_ (5 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			The answers to your questions are as follows;
1-No
2-No
3-No
4-Yes
5-No
6-Yes
7-Yes
8-No, I have auction markets where animals (eg horses) go prior to the knacker man but never an abattoir.

You banging on about me being from another planet? From which content of writing I have posted have you deduced I believe we are anything but omnivores? You will find it is I think we being omnivores are to eat a balanced diet containg meat, carbohydrates ect to be healthy. 
I am very much for people trying to conserve our planet. These small steps you talk of? Would you consider taking the life of an animal for no other reason than it being a pest a small step? How is it a small step for the earth? 

It has been proven to me on here people hunt fox for simply because they regard them as pests. I do not think that killing off certain animal populations because it suits people is the way forward for cleaning up the mess the human race has caused to the earth. Why should other animals suffer? 

This topic is obviously one to draw emotion yet not at any moment through out it did I myself allow it to anger me. Funny you mention it for I have noticed on the other hand those who have opposed me on here have allowed it to do so. As I mentioned to one, how can you let something you believe whole heartedly subdue you so, for you to come across inferior through the manner of your post.
		
Click to expand...

That's an awful lot of no's and that is why any argument you make is not going to carry any weight. Change all those answers to yes...and if your opinion is still the same, then fair enough and nobody would have a problem with it....because it would be an educated opinion, based on direct knowledge.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do. I just cannot understand your insistence that some things are so very bad, when in actual fact, you know very little about them.


----------



## _GG_ (5 January 2013)

micki said:



			So far you have all said you will not continue with this thread yet you all keep coming back to it !!! Perhaps the OP has hit a few nerves after all and no one wants to admit it.
		
Click to expand...

Not me. I am stuck indoors for the evening again and I go months sometimes without coming on here, so am getting my "fix"


----------



## Moomin1 (5 January 2013)

On a slight tangent, I wonder how Heythrop hunt can justify this! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TSvb34bHak


----------



## _GG_ (5 January 2013)

Moomince Pie said:



			On a slight tangent, I wonder how Heythrop hunt can justify this! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TSvb34bHak

Click to expand...

Oh dear! Any hunt master I know would put a stop to that pretty quickly. Not a good advert for the Hunt, but I am sure they get reet pi$$ed off being harrassed and filmed all day.


----------



## bubbilygum (5 January 2013)

_GG_ said:



			Oh dear! Any hunt master I know would put a stop to that pretty quickly. Not a good advert for the Hunt, but I am sure they get reet pi$$ed off being harrassed and filmed all day.
		
Click to expand...

A hunt can't really have control over foot followers, as GG says hunt masters would have intervened if they were aware this kind of exchange was going on. The hunt can't really be held accountable for this as this is just the "opinion" of one or two followers! 

I'm sure that all the bile and hatred being spewed at the hunt followers by the 'monitors' just didn't happen to be caught on camera... How convenient


----------



## Countryman (5 January 2013)

To be fair he knew she was filming and was probably just trying to rile her. Not appropriate but people get pretty pissed off being followed by that foul mouthed lot every day for 3 years...


----------



## Star_Chaser (5 January 2013)

Not had chance to read it all yet but has OP given a suitable alternative to hunting with hounds yet??  One that does control population leaving the strongest to survive and the weakest dispatched??


----------



## bubbilygum (5 January 2013)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			Not had chance to read it all yet but has OP given a suitable alternative to hunting with hounds yet??  One that does control population leaving the strongest to survive and the weakest dispatched??
		
Click to expand...

The best argument seemed to be letting the weak ones either starve or get injured by the stronger foxes to die a slow and painful death.

EDIT: I think there was also a suggestion of reintroducing wolves and possibly bears?!


----------



## Nancykitt (5 January 2013)

Yes - apparently foxes self- regulate regardless of food supply and lack of predation. So they don't need us to control numbers because it just happens naturally.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			To be fair he knew she was filming and was probably just trying to rile her. Not appropriate but people get pretty pissed off being followed by that foul mouthed lot every day for 3 years...
		
Click to expand...

Oh that's ok then! 

I suppose most people have excuses like that for vile behaviour though.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

Well he clearly didn't mean it and just wanted to shock her. Much less vile than the antis behaviour.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

To be clear are you referring to his use of racist language? The use of that term is surprisingly common among the elder generation which he belongs to. Go to any white working class council estate and you'll hear it. Less of the pretend horror please.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			To be clear are you referring to his use of racist language? The use of that term is surprisingly common among the elder generation which he belongs to. Go to any white working class council estate and you'll hear it. Less of the pretend horror please.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who or where it comes from, it's vile and out of order.  

Not sure how you were brought up, but I certainly wasn't brought up to make excuses for racism and threatening behaviour.  You seem to think it's acceptable and justifiable in certain situations.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

I haven't justified it. I am explaining to you why he was driven to do it and how you will hear lots of people his age use that term. That doesn't make it right.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			I haven't justified it. I am explaining to you why he was driven to do it and how you will hear lots of people his age use that term. That doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE

Unless you know him personally then how on earth do you 'know' that he has been driven to it? 

I would say that is an attempt to justify and excuse his behaviour.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## KEF (6 January 2013)

E13 said:



			Very interesting thread! Unfortunately some have closed minds. Not judging though as I can identify with many of the 'anti' posts; however I can also see the logic of the 'pro' hunters. I think the natural reaction for those without experience of hunting (myself included) is that it is awful and barbaric. But the points raised about fox control and likeness to wolves are very convincing - I would rather we not have to control the population, and not kill animals for fun, but if it is indeed true that the population must be controlled then I can see that hunting is the most natural, and in some ways most humane, way.

ETS: Not that those who hunt find it fun to kill, I understand the fun is all about the riding, which is why I don't have a problem with drag hunting; I think maybe it's that hunting in itself is seen as fun, so it's difficult to separate, that the fun part is one bit, and the actual kill a separate factor, and the two - fun and kill - aren't related, in order to have the kill you need the chase which is where the fun comes in. I hope I make sense!
		
Click to expand...

I understand your concerns. They are the same as mine. I am prepared to accept that animal numbers need to be controlled (although I do think that things other than kiiling can assist - such as not leaving food waste is accessible places and more solid chicken copus for example) even if for economic reasons but what I find hard to accept is that the mounted field derive some kind of fun or enjoyment or satisfaction (or whatever it should be called) as a consequence (direct or not, intended or not) of something that causes stress and pain to an animal. So this includes the chase as well as the kill. The mounted field do not contribute towards the hunt itself. Their involvement is essentially financial. The satisfaction of those that are essential to the hunt should be dervied from a clean and pain/stress free pursuit/kill.

I know that there are far worse stresses and pains caused to animals (battery farming etc) and I certainly wouldn't seek to suggest that this kind of activity should continue but nor should it be used as an argument for pro hunting.

I have listened to the pro hunt arguments - some of which are compelling and I am certainly more open minded about the efficacy of hunting itself but I remain to be convinced about the other elements.

As for people being tolerant to the interference caused by others - I quite agree but what I do object to is the hunt causing danger to the public and obstructing highways with abandoned vehicles. I am not come accross some inconsiderate and reckless attitudes (other than perhaps on the road occassionally) elsewhere.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Unless you know him personally then how on earth do you 'know' that he has been driven to it? 

I would say that is an attempt to justify and excuse his behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't attempt to justify it - it was stupid! But having had experience of some of the antis who target the Heythrop, I'd say it's a JOKE for them to take offence. Their own behaviour and language makes the language and behaviour of the silly Heythrop foot follower pale into insignificance!


----------



## bubbilygum (6 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			I wouldn't attempt to justify it - it was stupid! But having had experience of some of the antis who target the Heythrop, I'd say it's a JOKE for them to take offence. Their own behaviour and language makes the language and behaviour of the silly Heythrop foot follower pale into insignificance!
		
Click to expand...

As antis monitor hunts, do any pro-hunting foot followers monitor the antis? Probably wouldn't take much effort (as they are there anyway) and it might make Joe Public see how hunt sabs behave? Does this happen?


----------



## Alec Swan (6 January 2013)

bubbilygum said:



			As antis monitor hunts, do any pro-hunting foot followers monitor the antis? Probably wouldn't take much effort (as they are there anyway) and it might make Joe Public see how hunt sabs behave? Does this happen?
		
Click to expand...

This has long been my argument.  

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			I wouldn't attempt to justify it - it was stupid! But having had experience of some of the antis who target the Heythrop, I'd say it's a JOKE for them to take offence. Their own behaviour and language makes the language and behaviour of the silly Heythrop foot follower pale into insignificance!
		
Click to expand...

The point is being completely missed though.

It matters not whether the anti's behave the same way, as I said, it's vile whoever or wherever it comes from.  

It is myself that took offence at this video, and yes, if I saw footage of anti's behaving the same way, then I would take offence at that too.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

BubillyGum and Alec, on the issue of monitoring the antis.I haven't had any experience of sabs so I'll talk about 'monitors' - no less foul mouthed. 

Some hunts have tried this informally I.e if they kick off someone tries to get their phone out to film but it's very rare for there to be a real system of monitoring the monitors. An informal system doesn't work well at all, because nobody wants to give up their days hunting to follow a carload of antis around, to get their photo and number plate put on anti websites and databases or to remember to bring a camera each day. Personally, I must say I'd be very reluctant to get out my camera near the antis as it wluld be very easy for them to accidentally try and dash it against the ground. Such things have happened many times.

I know in one case the antis upon being filmed themselves got in their car, turned on their own camera and panned around filming the hunt followers filming her and loudly tutted to the camera saying "Look at this behaviour. Just look at this behaviour...". They don't like it when they're filmed occasionally-yet they do it for the whole hunting day! 

Furthermore, one hunt I know of did organise a rota of car followers to tail the antis while they 'monitored' the hunt to remain at a safe distance and to film them if they kicked off. The antis then proceeded to loudly and vocally complain about how this was harassment, how being followed all day was illegal and they would call the police and how it was threatening and harassing to be tailed all day while they filmed the hunt. I do hope someone explained to them that was exactly what they did themselves...


In any case in some videos they show themselves up. I can think of videos I've seen recently on YouTube in which the antis tell footfollowers they're "bloody barbarians" ask "where's the bloody Huntsman" in front of scared children and ask a woman what gender she is, explaining its hard to tell. This is on their own videos which they are proud of so you can imagine what they're like off-camera.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			BubillyGum and Alec, on the issue of monitoring the antis.I haven't had any experience of sabs so I'll talk about 'monitors' - no less foul mouthed. 

Some hunts have tried this informally I.e if they kick off someone tries to get their phone out to film but it's very rare for there to be a real system of monitoring the monitors. An informal system doesn't work well at all, because nobody wants to give up their days hunting to follow a carload of antis around, to get their photo and number plate put on anti websites and databases or to remember to bring a camera each day. Personally, I must say I'd be very reluctant to get out my camera near the antis as it wluld be very easy for them to accidentally try and dash it against the ground. Such things have happened many times.

I know in one case the antis upon being filmed themselves got in their car, turned on their own camera and panned around filming the hunt followers filming her and loudly tutted to the camera saying "Look at this behaviour. Just look at this behaviour...". They don't like it when they're filmed occasionally-yet they do it for the whole hunting day! 

Furthermore, one hunt I know of did organise a rota of car followers to tail the antis while they 'monitored' the hunt to remain at a safe distance and to film them if they kicked off. The antis then proceeded to loudly and vocally complain about how this was harassment, how being followed all day was illegal and they would call the police and how it was threatening and harassing to be tailed all day while they filmed the hunt. I do hope someone explained to them that was exactly what they did themselves...


In any case in some videos they show themselves up. I can think of videos I've seen recently on YouTube in which the antis tell footfollowers they're "bloody barbarians" ask "where's the bloody Huntsman" in front of scared children and ask a woman what gender she is, explaining its hard to tell. This is on their own videos which they are proud of so you can imagine what they're like off-camera.
		
Click to expand...

I am not ashamed to say that I am anti hunt, but I cannot condone or even respect the people who behave in the way you describe.  I don't believe behaviour like that should come from either hunt supporters or anti hunt.  What I think would be ideal is that genuine hunt followers come to some agreement with some agency who is willing to employ monitors who do not in any way behave like this, and act professionally.  

Of course, the not so genuine hunt supporters would kick up a fuss about this also, but surely this would weed out the ones who don't act legally quicker anyway.


----------



## fburton (7 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Yes - apparently foxes self- regulate regardless of food supply and lack of predation. So they don't need us to control numbers because it just happens naturally.
		
Click to expand...

That is my understanding, yes - total fox population recovers to more or less the same numbers in the face of fluctuations in mortality rate, and that's because of territoriality. So there is a valid argument to cull foxes locally where they are causing problems, but not that overall population needs to be controlled - hunting appears to have little effect on that. That makes sense when you consider that the numbers killed by hunting are much smaller than the numbers killed on the road - the dent hunting makes on numbers is relatively insignificant. I believe Janet George has made that point before.


----------



## Littlelegs (7 January 2013)

Watership down was on in the early hours of the morning, so I expect op shall be back with some 'facts' about myxamotosis (sp), humans treatment of the rabbit population & their effect upon rabbit habitat, & the private grief of rabbits when one of their fellow warren dwellers is killed.


----------



## AnaV (11 January 2013)

I underestimated you all for just when I thought you could not out do yourself anymore you go ahead and make yourself sound even more naive.

Firstly, the English language you are right is not my first, however, it has no regards to this matter. The fact it is not and it is most of yours is shameful to be honest. I respect the English language, however, I am not picky over other peoples mistakes within it (be it spelling or grammar) yet some of the english used on this forum is awful. I did not find it necessary to raise that issue because that is not why I came on this forum. 
Anyway, the questions I answered have little to do with this topic, for you do not know who I am or the amount of experience I have had around animals. 
Just to clarify there is a difference between having a sky high ego and an inquisitive mind for human psychology. 

On to the question about lambs. They are with their ewes when newborn in the field. If sick or weak the farmer if one who is good with his animals will know and keep a good eye on him/her. It is only nature when one is eaten by a fox.


----------



## JanetGeorge (11 January 2013)

bubbilygum said:



			As antis monitor hunts, do any pro-hunting foot followers monitor the antis? Probably wouldn't take much effort (as they are there anyway) and it might make Joe Public see how hunt sabs behave? Does this happen?
		
Click to expand...

When I was an Area PRO for the BFSS, I monitored some of the sab attacks on hunts in my area.  It was pretty damn intimidating - on several occasions my car was surrounded by thugs wearing balaclavas - while one tried to get the petrol cap off with a box of matches in his hand!! (A favourite trick!)

And when I went to London to run the press office, some of my team were doing the same thing.  One very brave lass took a sequence of stills of a balaclava'd sab, with a raised baseball bat in his hands, running towards her and getting closer and closer!  Another was videoing, was surrounded by sabs - one of whom tried to pull the camera away from him (it was on a neck strap.)  He tried to push the sab away, the sab fell dramatically to the ground and the PRO was arrested for 'assault' (fortunately the film survived and in light of the sab's behaviour, the charge against my staff member was dropped!)

Another girl filmed sabs leaping out of their vehicles and immediately rushing towards hunt supporters' vehicles, smashing in the windscreens, screaming abuse and threats (thousands of pounds worth of damage was done!) She managed to escape to her car and get away, copied the film to all the local news media - before the police 'appropriated' the film as 'evidence' - it appeared on all local and some national news programmes that night!  She was - frankly - a heroine!  It was damn dangerous as the sabs wouldn't have hesitated to bring one of their 'clubs' down upon her head!  They were a particularly nasty and dangerous group!  Of course, there were no charges - police couldn't identify the culprits because of the balaclavas!


----------



## AnaV (18 January 2013)

After nearly 500 posts you have failed yourselves. I did not want to say this but you 'for' hunting for sheer sport are pathetic with your petty excuses.


----------



## _GG_ (18 January 2013)

...


----------



## elliebrewer98 (18 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			After nearly 500 posts you have failed yourselves. I did not want to say this but you 'for' hunting for sheer sport are pathetic with your petty excuses.
		
Click to expand...

'I did not want to say this' either, but honestly how stupid are you? Do you want to keep creating discordant discussions? Yeah, I think we all *just about* get your views and what you believe but was there really any point after eight tension free days without emails popping up in my mailbox to try and start this all over again? Really? 

I totally agree with what GG has just written, and to be quite honest at the moment my opinion of you as a person is low. Mainly for this *pathetic* (note the use) attempt to try to 'stir' and irritate people all over again... We've had over 450 posts on this drivel on a thread which you originally produced; please, enough is enough - this is a topic which is never, ever going to have an answer to! Just leave it before you embarrass yourself even more


----------



## Springy (18 January 2013)

YAWN has this been re started


----------



## _GG_ (18 January 2013)

Springy said:



			YAWN has this been re started 

Click to expand...

This....I posted and then thought NOOOOO, don't be daft, that's just what she wants. 

So very sad.


----------



## Vulpinator (18 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			After nearly 500 posts you have failed yourselves. I did not want to say this but you 'for' hunting for sheer sport are pathetic with your petty excuses.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV you failed to answer any questions put to you you only gave your pre organised brain washed propaganda hope your vegi burgers were bought from Tesco


----------



## AnaV (18 January 2013)

Last time I posted I had no reply.

Wrong you are Vulpinator, for if you read closely you will find I have answered all questions related to my thread.
What you have simply proven to me is that you people cannot justify why you kill animals for sport with actual reasons. 
You cannot however, fill a cup which is already full-try I might-I wanted to round off my thread for you incompetent ones.


----------



## _GG_ (19 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Last time I posted I had no reply.

Wrong you are Vulpinator, for if you read closely you will find I have answered all questions related to my thread.
What you have simply proven to me is that you people cannot justify why you kill animals for sport with actual reasons. 
You cannot however, fill a cup which is already full-try I might-I wanted to round off my thread for you incompetent ones.
		
Click to expand...

You're just plain rude sweetheart...good luck in life


----------



## happyhunter123 (19 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			What you have simply proven to me is that you people cannot justify why you kill animals for sport with actual reasons.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I told you about five times that we don't 'kill animals for sport'. *We follow their scent using a pack of hounds for sport*. Why can't people understand this? The hounds then kill the animal, which is their own reward (hounds hunt for a reward). The killing of foxes is justified completely. 
People who go hunting take no pleasure in the death of the animal-other than it being a marker of a good hunt. If all we wanted to do was 'kill stuff', there are plenty of other ways in which we could do it. Using a pack of hounds isn't much fun if you want to actually get to see something killed! 

Anyway, this is getting boring now. I doubt you will listen to me.


----------



## Countryman (19 January 2013)

I don't understand how hunting (ie taking part in and enjoying a process of chasing an animal which may or may not end with the death of the animal) for sport is in any way different to shooting for sport, fishing, horse racing or eating meat....


----------



## AnaV (20 January 2013)

Countryman-
Shooting for sport is part of my opposition to you. Yet, horse racing and eating meat have nothing to do with my thread. Please go elsewhere to change the subject.


----------



## E13 (20 January 2013)

But... you say it's awful to take pleasure from the chase of a fox, therefore causing fear, and the death - what about the theory of racing being activating the flight response, ie all the other horses are running, the jockeys want to run, there must be something to run from, aka fear? And then the myriad of problems that racehorses suffer? (I am not pro-hunt, this just popped into my head and I wondered as to your response!)


----------



## cptrayes (20 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			Oh dear. I told you about five times that we don't 'kill animals for sport'. *We follow their scent using a pack of hounds for sport*. Why can't people understand this?
		
Click to expand...

People can't understand it because it is pure semantics. There is no necessity to kill foxes in order to follow a scent with a pack of hounds for sport. I do it every Saturday that I can get out.

The fact that you choose to follow a scent which will inevitably end up in foxes being killed makes it absolutely indistinguishable in practice, as opposed to semantics, whether you kill animals for sport or follow scent for sport.


----------



## Nancykitt (20 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Countryman-
Shooting for sport is part of my opposition to you. Yet, horse racing and eating meat have nothing to do with my thread. Please go elsewhere to change the subject.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV, do you honestly not realise that we would like YOU to go elsewhere if you want to spend all your time spouting nonsense??? Why not go on an anti-hunt forum where you can all talk rubbish together?

Seriously what on earth was the point of you coming on here and asking all these questions when you knew all along that you were not prepared to listen to anyone's argument as you had already made up your mind? Did you REALLY believe that you would persuade people on here that they were all wrong and you were right? Surely it was obvious to you after a few pages that the arguments were going nowhere, so why keep it up?

I was a town-dweller, actually I was born on a council estate and lived there for many years. I was very anti-hunting for most of my life. But there is a fundamental difference between me and you. I was prepared to look, listen and learn. And as a result I changed my view. 

So if you seriously think that you stand any chance of persuading me with your silly arguments you are very much mistaken. Been there, done that. I've done the whole 'How cruel! Chasing a fox and killing it! OK they kill chickens, but that's natural!' thing, and I have moved on. 

As for you having 'answered' all the questions put to you, yes of course you have answered them. It's just that your answers are based on a total misunderstanding of fundamentals, all mixed up with bits you have 'googled'. So quite honestly they're not worth listening to. Your 'answer' about foxes taking newborn lambs was utterly ridiculous. I breed Balwen sheep, they are quite a rare breed - and they are very small compared to most breeds (Google it if you need further info). A fox could easily take one, regardless of whether it was sick or fighting fit. I can bring the ewes in to lamb, but they will need to go out to graze very soon afterwards. I cannot camp out on the moor and/or stay awake 24/7. And no, I am NOT prepared to look after my sheep and take care of them as I do just so that one of the local population of foxes - which is out of control, by the way - can have a meal. 

By the way, my husband shoots foxes. He doesn't do it for sport, he does it to control pests. So the original question - about hunting for sport - is redundant. You think foxes are lovely, wonderful and can kill and eat exactly what they want. I don't. End of. Now go away. Please.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 January 2013)

Nancykitt,

such a sensible and practical post,  except for one small point;  you're arguing with someone who I suspect has yet to become a teenager,  who despite their claims,  has the IQ of a budgie,  and who can't string together one single sentence which is able to rely upon fact,  for support.

It must be obvious to everyone by now,  that AnaV's claimed knowledge,  experience and hypothesised nonsense,  would either support her very well as a Troll,  or a fool.

Best that this thread is cast adrift,  I'd suggest.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			People can't understand it because it is pure semantics. There is no necessity to kill foxes in order to follow a scent with a pack of hounds for sport. I do it every Saturday that I can get out.

The fact that you choose to follow a scent which will inevitably end up in foxes being killed makes it absolutely indistinguishable in practice, as opposed to semantics, whether you kill animals for sport or follow scent for sport.
		
Click to expand...

Semantics?  Really?  Would you also suggest that a lothario would be happy to spend his life,  following a "scent"?  Unlikely,  I'd suggest.  We all need our rewards,  and that includes hounds. 

Alec.


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Apologies, Alec, it was not meant to come over as a further argument (although I admit I did stray into that territory!), but as a sort of 'why did you bother, now go away' type of post. 
I'm sure that no matter what any fox did the OP would still be defending their 'right to life'. For anyone arguing under this rather strange hypothesis, I still can't see what gives foxes more of a right to life than anything they are killing, and the to-ing and fro-ing between the 'nature' argument and the 'present day' argument - as suits the OP - is driving me mad. Let's hope that's the end of it!


----------



## Gone hunting (21 January 2013)

It cant be justified. Its just down right inhuman. Hunting an animal to death is not exceptable in todays society. People who do it just find reasons to justify a sick sport.


----------



## Springy (21 January 2013)

Gone hunting said:



			It cant be justified. Its just down right inhuman. Hunting an animal to death is not exceptable in todays society. People who do it just find reasons to justify a sick sport.
		
Click to expand...

 Why is your user name Gone Hunting


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Gone hunting said:



			It cant be justified. Its just down right inhuman. Hunting an animal to death is not exceptable in todays society. People who do it just find reasons to justify a sick sport.
		
Click to expand...

What sort of idiot writes something 8 years late don't you realise the ban is here we only hunt a rag covered in fox piss wake up and smell the snow prefferably the yellow patches then crawl back under your rock


----------



## Gone hunting (21 January 2013)

Because i hunt legally with the draghounds. It is brilliant fun and hey we dont need to kill anything


----------



## Littlelegs (21 January 2013)

If I could just pick you up on a small point Alec, you say either a troll or a fool. I would suggest in this case the two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Gone hunting said:



			Because i hunt legally with the draghounds. It is brilliant fun and hey we dont need to kill anything
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I hunt LEGALLY by following a trail, it is indeed very good fun and no foxes get killed. 
You have just proved the point made many, many times in this thread that the Field are not there for the killing and don't take any pleasure in it.

However, my husband shoots foxes because there is a clear need to control the population in this area. This is also LEGAL. It is a separate activity to riding out with the hunt but the end product, pre-ban, was similar. 

You don't 'need' to kill something to have fun. The fun comes from the fast cross-country ride, the friendship shared, etc etc. But we DO need to control foxes. Sorry, but we do. My husband doesn't take any pleasure in it, just as he doesn't enjoy humanely dispatching our home-bred geese, or similar activity. 

So you can see why most of us don't think that this legislation makes any sense. I don't engage in any illegal activity and neither does my husband. But we still kill foxes.


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Gone hunting said:



			Because i hunt legally with the draghounds. It is brilliant fun and hey we dont need to kill anything
		
Click to expand...

Look we don't knock your drag hunting so don't knock our sport after all hunting a bloke wearing a dress is what you want do in your spare time is not everyone's cup of tea either.


----------



## Gone hunting (21 January 2013)

At least we arent breaking the law


----------



## cptrayes (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			What sort of idiot writes something 8 years late don't you realise the ban is here we only hunt a rag covered in fox piss wake up and smell the snow prefferably the yellow patches then crawl back under your rock
		
Click to expand...

I can, but won't on a public forum though I have previously PMd Judgemental, name you five fox hunts just about within travelling distance of me, which are openly (to the field) hunting fox.

If your hunt is sticking to the law, it might even be in a minority, who knows?


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Gone hunting said:



			At least we arent breaking the law
		
Click to expand...

And in your little world and tiny mind any one who does nt hu t men wearing dresses is! How do you justify hunting transvestits. Poor little confused men what have they done to deserve being chased by big doggies and women in breeches that's cruel.


----------



## cptrayes (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			And in your little world and tiny mind any one who does nt hu t men wearing dresses is! How do you justify hunting transvestits. Poor little confused men what have they done to deserve being chased by big doggies and women in breeches that's cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find even transvestite men wouldn't mind being chased by women in breeches and leather boots


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I think you'll find even transvestite men wouldn't mind being chased by women in breeches and leather boots 

Click to expand...

Oh this was a sensible thread untill you lowered it to a sexist and totally unnecessary level.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I think you'll find even transvestite men wouldn't mind being chased by women in breeches and leather boots 

Click to expand...




Vulpinator said:



			Oh this was a sensible thread untill you lowered it to a sexist and totally unnecessary level.
		
Click to expand...

cptrayes, 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			Oh this was a sensible thread untill you lowered it to a sexist and totally unnecessary level.
		
Click to expand...

Errm, I think you may find you did that yourself with your posts...


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Errm, I think you may find you did that yourself with your posts...

Click to expand...

Sarcasm lowest form of wit but often the funniest . Ha ha


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			Sarcasm lowest form of wit but often the funniest . Ha ha
		
Click to expand...

No, I really was being serious!

Personally, I would think someone who fails to know how to use correct grammar, or where to place a comma or full stop is in little position to comment on somebody else's wit or intelligence.


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			No, I really was being serious!

Personally, I would think someone who fails to know how to use correct grammar, or where to place a comma or full stop is in little position to comment on somebody else's wit or intelligence.
		
Click to expand...

No stupid i was being sarcastic not you. A lesson in grammar and punctuation is not required. Nor wit and intelligence. Note to diary, must remember to go back to school. Maybe you should have spent more time. In the countryside and less time playing with words.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			No stupid i was being sarcastic not you. A lesson in grammar and punctuation is not required. Nor wit and intelligence. Note to diary, must remember to go back to school. Maybe you should have spent more time. In the countryside and less time playing with words.
		
Click to expand...

Err, no you're alright cheers, I would rather have a basic grasp of the English language.

By the way, you appear to be now adding full stops everywhere - even when they're not needed!


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Err, no you're alright cheers, I would rather have a basic grasp of the English language.

By the way, you appear to be now adding full stops everywhere - even when they're not needed!  

Click to expand...

I. Think. Its. All. In. The. Name. Moomin. Away. With. The. Fairies. Thank fully i spent my life learning about the countryside and not grammar punctuation and politics. Even foxes are grateful your an academic not a country dweller.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			I. Think. Its. All. In. The. Name. Moomin. Away. With. The. Fairies. Thank fully i spent my life learning about the countryside and not grammar punctuation and politics. Even foxes are grateful your an academic not a country dweller.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm and what a lovely person it turned you into!  Your previous few posts regarding chasing 'men in dresses' just made you look stupid tbh, and pretty aggressive in your attitude.  Then of course, you tried to turn the tables and suggest that CPTrayes 'lowered the tone' by talking of transvestites!  It was you that brought it up, CPtrayes was just responding!


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Then of course, you tried to turn the tables and suggest that CPTrayes 'lowered the tone' by talking of transvestites!  It was you that brought it up, CPtrayes was just responding!  

Click to expand...

My interpretation of this, Moomin, was a friendly bit of 'banter' between the two posters. Well, it made me smile anyway...

PS - I am a bit of a grammar Nazi myself, but I can assure you that wit has little to do with the ability to use correct spelling and grammar.


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			My interpretation of this, Moomin, was a friendly bit of 'banter' between the two posters. Well, it made me smile anyway...

PS - I am a bit of a grammar Nazi myself, but I can assure you that wit has little to do with the ability to use correct spelling and grammar.
		
Click to expand...

Oh at last someone with a sense of humour pity some people can't be tempted to lighten up and take themselves too seriously may be you were brought up in the countryside am i right.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			Oh at last someone with a sense of humour pity some people can't be tempted to lighten up and take themselves too seriously may be you were brought up in the countryside am i right.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe if you could type correctly and learn to use the correct grammar then everybody would be able to interpret your meanings correctly.

It does make me laugh all this 'countryside' talk, do people in the 'countryside' not go to school?!


----------



## Springy (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			It does make me laugh all this 'countryside' talk, do people in the 'countryside' not go to school?!
		
Click to expand...

Nope they are all out hunting, lambing and farming with their combine harversters 

hehe


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Maybe if you could type correctly and learn to use the correct grammar then everybody would be able to interpret your meanings correctly.

It does make me laugh all this 'countryside' talk, do people in the 'countryside' not go to school?!
		
Click to expand...

Ohah ohah ohah we have humour punctuation and grammar are for school children and the observation of those without humour


----------



## Moomin1 (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			Ohah ohah ohah we have humour punctuation and grammar are for school children and the observation of those without humour
		
Click to expand...

Now that is funny!


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Actually, Vulpinator, I have to confess that I was born a Townie, and a council house Townie at that. But my father came from a family of Polish farmers, loved hunting and used to be a gamekeeper when he lived in Poland, so I suppose the rural blood was always in me. 

I moved to a rural area and started to find out things for myself, and that was when all my years as an 'anti' came to an end. I may be a grammar Nazi, but I'm good at spotting banter and I enjoy indulging in such behaviour myself from time to time...


----------



## Springy (21 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Actually, Vulpinator, I have to confess that I was born a Townie, and a council house Townie at that.
		
Click to expand...

Booo hiss  lol


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Springy said:



			Booo hiss  lol
		
Click to expand...


Oh Springy, you elitist, you!! It's toffs like you that give us all a bad name.


(BTW, for anyone wondering, this is all light hearted stuff...)


----------



## Springy (21 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Oh Springy, you elitist, you!! It's toffs like you that give us all a bad name.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I am a Toff  

Know your place 

ROFL


----------



## Vulpinator (21 January 2013)

Springy said:



			Yes I am a Toff  

Know your place 

ROFL
		
Click to expand...

How very dare you just  because you were born in a stable don't make you a horse. Punctuation, ha ha , sense of humour required. I hunt with people who were born in barns and manor houses some even both ha ha and we all have a sense of humour.


I can,t read and I cant punctuate but I can drive a tractor.


----------



## Nancykitt (21 January 2013)

Vulpinator said:



			I can,t read and I cant punctuate but I can drive a tractor.
		
Click to expand...

I am not worthy....seriously... can't even reverse my townie Rav4 down the lane to the passing place. I should surely be banished back to the council estate from whence I came, never again to drink the stirrup cup.


----------



## Springy (21 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			I am not worthy....seriously... can't even reverse my townie Rav4 down the lane to the passing place. I should surely be banished back to the council estate from whence I came, never again to drink the stirrup cup.
		
Click to expand...

The shame


----------



## happyhunter123 (22 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Name you five fox hunts just about within travelling distance of me, which are openly (to the field) hunting fox
		
Click to expand...

Last time it was four! Have you been out with them all recently then?


----------



## Countryman (22 January 2013)

If a hunt did hunt illegally, not that any do, I'd suggest the entire field would be well aware of it, as would foot and car followers...


----------



## Nancykitt (22 January 2013)

My experience is very limited. I've only ever been out with three packs. On two occasions, with two of those packs, the huntsman worked tirelessly to get hounds off the scent of live quarry (and succeeded). I was pretty impressed that they went to so much trouble to do this. One of the packs was very aware of the likelihood of being monitored and too absolutely no chances at all.


----------



## AnaV (22 January 2013)

Why, oh why you change the subject?

I am much opposed to the methods used within the racing industry as I am killing animals for no reason. Yet racehorses have nothing to do with people going out and murdering animals.


----------



## Nancykitt (22 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Why, oh why you change the subject?
		
Click to expand...

Because we can! Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't own this forum, or even this thread. If it takes a different direction then fine, that's what happens in 'real' conversations.

Plus, I thought enough of us had made it clear that there is absolutely no point whatsoever entering into any further arguments about the original point. Nothing that any of us say will make the slightest difference. You use phrases like 'murdering animals' but apparently it's only murder if you don't eat the animal. So if I start to acquire a taste for fox pie, presumably that will make killing foxes OK? Actually, no, please don't answer that question. I really not interested as there has been so little sense in your other 'answers'. 

May I suggest that you put your energy into tackling some of the truly appalling abuse of animals, including horses, that takes place and that so many of us are actively campaigning against? Putting so much energy into trying to stop the control of vermin is such a waste.


----------



## bubbilygum (23 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Why, oh why you change the subject?

I am much opposed to the methods used within the racing industry as I am killing animals for no reason. Yet racehorses have nothing to do with people going out and murdering animals.
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on, surely everyone knows the historic and maintained link between National Hunt racing and fox hunting?!


----------



## Countryman (23 January 2013)

Well in racing, people take part in, watch, and enjoy an activity which may involve the death of an animal - but doesn't have to for them to have a good day. Sounds remarkably similar to hunting to me...


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			Well in racing, people take part in, watch, and enjoy an activity which may involve the death of an animal - but doesn't have to for them to have a good day. Sounds remarkably similar to hunting to me...
		
Click to expand...

Hardly!

In the first case the death of the horse is not desired nor the objective of the activity.

In the second case it very much is.


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

bubbilygum said:



			Oh come on, surely everyone knows the historic and maintained link between National Hunt racing and fox hunting?!
		
Click to expand...

What, that point to pointers have a few half-hearted half-days hacking about at the back of a hunt to get their card marked?

Hardly much of a link, and one which would be easily abandoned at the drop of  a hat should all hunting become impossible or illegal for some reason. 

It may be historic, but it's hardly strong enough to bring horse racing into the discussion of the ethics of fox hunting.


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			My experience is very limited. I've only ever been out with three packs. On two occasions, with two of those packs, the huntsman worked tirelessly to get hounds off the scent of live quarry (and succeeded). I was pretty impressed that they went to so much trouble to do this. One of the packs was very aware of the likelihood of being monitored and too absolutely no chances at all.
		
Click to expand...

Were you out on a Saturday?

As a drag hunter, with two packs, our Huntsmen have little trouble getting the hounds back off a live scent. They certainly don't "work tirelessely" to do it.

I would suggest that the reason the packs you went with have more trouble is that other days, possibly midweek, the hounds are being encouraged to hunt live scent. So come Saturday, with more people who are not hunting die-hards out and with a great chance of monitoring, they still want to hunt live scent and the Huntsman has to "work tirelessly" to stop them.  That's certainly how it works with one of the ones I know of.


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			If a hunt did hunt illegally, not that any do, I'd suggest the entire field would be well aware of it, as would foot and car followers...
		
Click to expand...

Oh pull the other one! If you like, I'll PM you with the name of four. 

And the followers are well aware of it, they talk to me about it.


----------



## Countryman (23 January 2013)

Please do go ahead and PM me. Yes that's what I meant, all followers would be aware of, and support, the illegal hunting...

I do find it hard to believe in this conspiracy you talk of! In which hunts trail hunt on Saturdays and hunt foxes in the week. I very much doubt there's any difference between Saturday and Mid-week hunting with most packs! 

However, while I wouldn't condone breaking the law I can certainly see why some packs may be tempted to, especially when keepers and the like put pressure on them.


----------



## JanetGeorge (23 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			What, that point to pointers have a few half-hearted half-days hacking about at the back of a hunt to get their card marked?

Hardly much of a link, and one which would be easily abandoned at the drop of  a hat should all hunting become impossible or illegal for some reason.
		
Click to expand...

  And WHO is going to take over running 200 odd point-to-point meetings every year if the hunts stop doing it???

There's not enough money in pt2pt for a commercial organisation to take it over (if they did, the cost would double/treble and pt2pt would die!)  For hunts, their pt2pt is a useful fund-raiser - and there are plenty of KNOWLEDGEABLE helpers available (so no, the local findraising group for a local hospice is unlikely to take over a pt2pt!)  It's also an opportunity to extend some local hospitality to good hunt-supporting farmers!

Your knowledge of hunting - and the role it plays in rural communities - is a bit 'lacking'!


----------



## Nancykitt (23 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Were you out on a Saturday?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I was out on a Saturday - I've only ever hunted midweek on two occasions and the main difference was that the field was much, much smaller and it was a shorter day. 

As I've admitted, I'm not very experienced. But on one occasion the huntsman really was working hard to sort things out - it was tricky moorland terrain and it did involve him (and a few others) being on foot at one point and doing quite a bit of running around. 

On the other occasion, with a different hunt, the land made things less tricky and the huntsman had less of a problem in getting the hounds off the scent. But the main point is that on both occasions the huntsmen and whips  did take it very seriously and reacted extremely quickly. 

I'm not saying that it's like this everywhere on every hunting day, but that was just my experience.


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



  And WHO is going to take over running 200 odd point-to-point meetings every year if the hunts stop doing it???

There's not enough money in pt2pt for a commercial organisation to take it over (if they did, the cost would double/treble and pt2pt would die!)  For hunts, their pt2pt is a useful fund-raiser - and there are plenty of KNOWLEDGEABLE helpers available (so no, the local findraising group for a local hospice is unlikely to take over a pt2pt!)  It's also an opportunity to extend some local hospitality to good hunt-supporting farmers!

Your knowledge of hunting - and the role it plays in rural communities - is a bit 'lacking'!
		
Click to expand...

Janet we weren't talking about the future of point to pointing, we were talking about whether the link was strong enough to justify diverging from the original poster's point about hunting fox to include justifying national hunt racing. 

Point to pointing hasn't ended, it still carries on in spite of the ban, so clearly point to pointing does not require live animals to be hunted on horseback either. But I still don't think it's part of this discussion, racing is far too big a topic on its own and for many other reasons than hunting fox.


----------



## JanetGeorge (23 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Janet we weren't talking about the future of point to pointing, we were talking about whether the link was strong enough to justify diverging from the original poster's point about hunting fox to include justifying national hunt racing. 

Point to pointing hasn't ended, it still carries on in spite of the ban, so clearly point to pointing does not require live animals to be hunted on horseback either. But I still don't think it's part of this discussion, racing is far too big a topic on its own and for many other reasons than hunting fox.
		
Click to expand...

YOU were dismissing/trivialising the link between hunting and jumps racing - in particular point-to-pointing!  If you are SO unaware of the link - you needed correcting!  We have totally exhausted the OP's original point - and - um - who made YOU the judge of what should be discussed on any particular thread??


----------



## cptrayes (23 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			YOU were dismissing/trivialising the link between hunting and jumps racing - in particular point-to-pointing!  If you are SO unaware of the link - you needed correcting!  We have totally exhausted the OP's original point - and - um - who made YOU the judge of what should be discussed on any particular thread??
		
Click to expand...

No-one, and it is not a role I have taken on. You addressed me directly with your post and I have simply responded that I do not think the connection between racing and hunting is strong enough to compare the two from a moral point of view.

I don't think I have trivialised the link in particular. I think it genuinely is trivial in the context of discussing the morality of fox hunting.


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I don't think I have trivialised the link in particular. I think it genuinely is trivial in the context of discussing the morality of fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Foxhunting was not banned because of 'immorality' (let's face it, adultery is 'immoral' but it's not banned!)  It was banned on grounds of alleged cruelty.  Therefore - morality is trivial in discussing whether foxhunting should be legal - or not!


----------



## Alec Swan (24 January 2013)

Deleted.  Second thoughts!!


----------



## happyhunter123 (24 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			However, while I wouldn't condone breaking the law I can certainly see why some packs may be tempted to, especially when keepers and the like put pressure on them.
		
Click to expand...

Quite true. We find getting permission to trail hunt much harder, especially with farmers who are less supportive of hunting (by that I don't mean anti, I mean that they have no interest in hunting and only like us crossing heir land if we're killing foxes). This is more so with areas where shooting takes place. We haven't actually been denied access to many areas, but many landowners allow us to hunt fewer days over their land than in the past. My pack carries out no form of fox control, for a number of reasons. 

Trail hunting is unsustainable at its current level. Before the ban, we warned that hunts would close and hounds put down. It could still happen. So it is understandable why some packs may chose to break the law.


----------



## cptrayes (24 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Foxhunting was not banned because of 'immorality' (let's face it, adultery is 'immoral' but it's not banned!)  It was banned on grounds of alleged cruelty.  Therefore - morality is trivial in discussing whether foxhunting should be legal - or not!
		
Click to expand...


You and I both know that it was not banned because of cruelty but for political vote-catching reasons. 

You spent a long time educating me about fox hunting on a hunting  thread a couple of years back, for which I have always been grateful. I understand your passion for your sport. I do not condone breaking the law to continue it.


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			You and I both know that it was not banned because of cruelty but for political vote-catching reasons. 

You spent a long time educating me about fox hunting on a hunting  thread a couple of years back, for which I have always been grateful. I understand your passion for your sport. I do not condone breaking the law to continue it.
		
Click to expand...

Ah - but cruelty was the excuse!  I confess I no longer have 'a passion' - in fact I no longer hunt unless I have to get a youngster out to show him the ropes (and then I don't stay out long!)  But I DO retain a certain passion for argument!


----------



## AnaV (24 January 2013)

Although the racing industry exploits animals it does not kill them on the track intentionally. Yes, the animals go out, get run into the ground and killed but that is not the aim of the game. That is why it has nothing to do with a game which requires the death of animals. You were speaking of 'core values'. I would love to hear them. 
For surely the 'Core value' of a hunt for humans goes back to the time when we would hunt to eat- for survival. You also yourself kindly mentioned the introduction of foxes back into Australia for the sheer thrill of 'the chase'/pleasure.


----------



## Star_Chaser (24 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Although the racing industry exploits animals it does not kill them on the track intentionally. Yes, the animals go out, get run into the ground and killed but that is not the aim of the game. That is why it has nothing to do with a game which requires the death of animals. You were speaking of 'core values'. I would love to hear them. 
For surely the 'Core value' of a hunt for humans goes back to the time when we would hunt to eat- for survival. You also yourself kindly mentioned the introduction of foxes back into Australia for the sheer thrill of 'the chase'/pleasure.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV why are you bringing a comparison between horse racing and fox hunting neither bare any resemblance to the other? 

Horses are bred at great expense to run a specific distance sometimes over fences others on the flat, anything with a fence no matter what it is carries a risk, anything with a horse that gallops at speed carries a risk to horse and rider, we have known that since the first day man tamed horses and got up on their backs.  The main difference if you are going to make a comparison is that horse racing is an enormous global industry carried by the gambling of man with a high turnover of excess/unusable stock.  Fox hunting is tiny in comparison and indigenous in some respects, rather than a first past the post it does serve a function to the community, countryside and to our wildlife as a whole.  Foxes are still killed to protect OUR food.

If you must make a comparison at least make a valid one.

I will add I support horse racing as a past time but I would like to see more to be done to help with an alternative life once their careers are over.


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

Star_Chaser- Do keep up. One of your fellows asked what the difference was between fox hunting and horseracing, shooting and fishing therefore, I did not bring them into the conversation.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Although the racing industry exploits animals it does not kill them on the track intentionally. Yes, the animals go out, get run into the ground and killed but that is not the aim of the game. That is why it has nothing to do with a game which requires the death of animals. You were speaking of 'core values'. I would love to hear them. 
.......
		
Click to expand...

Were you to have any experience of hunting,  an experience which was of value and was based upon fact,  you may well have learned that the pleasure of hunting,  as racing,  is not actually dependant upon an animal dying.

Alec.


----------



## micki (25 January 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Were you to have any experience of hunting,  an experience which was of value and was based upon fact,  you may well have learned that the pleasure of hunting,  as racing,  is not actually dependant upon an animal dying.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

And that's where drag hunting hunting comes in! No animal dies. I really hope the OP doesnt lose her passion.


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

I'm not sure what 'passion' you are referring to?


----------



## micki (25 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			I'm not sure what 'passion' you are referring to?
		
Click to expand...

Her passion for life. I hope life doesn't knock it out of her and she continue to fight her corner even when others don't agree with her.


----------



## cptrayes (25 January 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Were you to have any experience of hunting,  an experience which was of value and was based upon fact,  you may well have learned that the pleasure of hunting,  as racing,  is not actually dependant upon an animal dying.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

No Alec, but it is dependant upon an animal running for its life, sometimes for exhausting distances, and even if it were not killed that would, to me, be unacceptable.

It is also the case that it is impossible to follow a fox hunt without foxes being killed, and your sub is paid in the full knowledge that it will be used to finance the killing of foxes, therefore your pleasure is directly connected to the killing of foxes.

To suggest that the two can be disconnected in some way is disingenuous to say the least.


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

I think we can safely assume that she will continue to bounce back given her resilience...and her resistance to consider any of the reasons/ arguments put forward at her request.


----------



## Countryman (25 January 2013)

"Hunting ia dependent on an animal running for its life sometimes for exhausting distances"

Racing is also dependent upon animals running, sometimes for exhausting distances! 

"It is impossible to follow a fox hunt without foxes being killed" Well no, very unlikely but not impossible. In the same way it's impossible to attend every race at a racecourse without a horse being killed some day. 

"Your sub is payed...to finance the killing of foxes" 
No it is payed to finance hunting which doesn't necessarily involve killing! Just as a racing season ticket is payed to finance racing not the killing of horses but some will die. 

Therefore the pleasure people take from hunting is not directly related to the kill at all!


----------



## cptrayes (25 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			"Hunting ia dependent on an animal running for its life sometimes for exhausting distances"

Racing is also dependent upon animals running, sometimes for exhausting distances! 

"It is impossible to follow a fox hunt without foxes being killed" Well no, very unlikely but not impossible. In the same way it's impossible to attend every race at a racecourse without a horse being killed some day. 

"Your sub is payed...to finance the killing of foxes" 
No it is payed to finance hunting which doesn't necessarily involve killing! Just as a racing season ticket is payed to finance racing not the killing of horses but some will die. 

Therefore the pleasure people take from hunting is not directly related to the kill at all!
		
Click to expand...

Nope, that argument doesn't work for me at all 

I spent probably hours discussing fox hunting with JanetGeorge among others and the argument that was put to me which I found most credible was that fox hunting actually conserves foxes and creates a healthy population. It was also made clear  during those discussions that conservation by using hounds cannot be finanaced without the followers. There is a direct connection between paying your sub and the death of foxes by being chased by hounds.  I'd go so far as to say that anyone who hunts and refuses to recognise that connection is suffering from cognitive dissonance, trying to persuade themselves that the pleasure of their chosen passtime is harmless while actually feeling either consciously or unconsciously uncomfortable about how their fun is obtained.


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

Tenacious it is fair to say I am for I am still waiting for you to tell me these 'Core Values'. It is people like Micki who keep my faith alive knowing that there are in fact real horsemen out there; those who genuinley care for animals. Well said Cptrayes, I can agree there for despite the amount of horses which die due to injuries sustained on the track and at home, those in the industry who work with them do not intend for the circumstances to arise the way they do. They do not breed animals to kill them before their 'careers' are over, short of them reaching double digits. The matter of horse slaughter after the game ends is one of great difference however and one which I do not wish to go into on this thread.


----------



## Countryman (25 January 2013)

Look I absolutely agree that paying your sub or cap or supporters club fee or whatever does support the chasing of foxes yes, but not necessarily their killing.

It's a silly or rather minor point to make I know, but you just seem unable to grasp that people who enjoy hunting enjoy the chase not the kill. 

Yes, hunting does involve killing. Sometimes foxes will get killed and that's not a bad thing. But people's personal enjoyment of a run isn't really affected by the kill (or lack of)


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

AnaV, If I valued your opinion I would be insulted by the inference that I do not 'genuinely care for animals'. Anyone who knows me will know just how much I do care. But as you have shown yourself incapable of reasoned discussion I refuse to be insulted.

And while I do not claim to be a 'real horseman' in so far as I am a novice, I can truly say that some of the finest horsemen and horsewomen you will see have been out on the hunting field - people who are not just brilliant riders but have an amazing affinity with horses.

It is interesting that you are referring to people on this thread as 'genuinely caring about animals' and 'real horsemen' simply on the basis that they appear to agree with you. You have no idea about anyone, what they do or their ability as a 'horseman'.

(BTW this is not to offend anyone, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is a monster - just making the point that because someone agrees with you, it does not make them a saint).


----------



## cptrayes (25 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			Look I absolutely agree that paying your sub or cap or supporters club fee or whatever does support the chasing of foxes yes, but not necessarily their killing.
		
Click to expand...

I am at a complete loss to see how you manage to disconnect the two in your own mind. Fox hunts only existed because they killed foxes. The chase is inseparable from death.




			It's a silly or rather minor point to make I know, but you just seem unable to grasp that people who enjoy hunting enjoy the chase not the kill.
		
Click to expand...

I grasp that totally but I have absolutely zero respect for the argument "I love the chase, I don't love the killing " when you cannot have the chase without the killing. 





			Yes, hunting does involve killing. Sometimes foxes will get killed and that's not a bad thing. But people's personal enjoyment of a run isn't really affected by the kill (or lack of)
		
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the two can be disconnected.  Of course their enjoyment of a run is not, for most people, affected by the kill or lack of a kill. But they cannot have the run in the first place without the prerequisite of an intention to kill. The two are so closely linked that it is, I think, totally fair to connect the two.

I say this as a person who has fox hunted, who believes foxes need culling,  and who found the chase immensely enjoyable, but decided that morally I could not continue to chase live quarry. I now drag hunt. If I could not drag hunt I would not hunt at all, because . I.  simply cannot, as you so easily do, disconnect my pleasure in galloping and jumping in company from chasing and killing of foxes.


----------



## micki (25 January 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			AnaV, If I valued your opinion I would be insulted by the inference that I do not 'genuinely care for animals'. Anyone who knows me will know just how much I do care. But as you have shown yourself incapable of reasoned discussion I refuse to be insulted.

And while I do not claim to be a 'real horseman' in so far as I am a novice, I can truly say that some of the finest horsemen and horsewomen you will see have been out on the hunting field - people who are not just brilliant riders but have an amazing affinity with horses.

It is interesting that you are referring to people on this thread as 'genuinely caring about animals' and 'real horsemen' simply on the basis that they appear to agree with you. You have no idea about anyone, what they do or their ability as a 'horseman'.

(BTW this is not to offend anyone, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is a monster - just making the point that because someone agrees with you, it does not make them a saint).
		
Click to expand...


She may know someone who has replied on this thread!!





cptrayes said:



			I am at a complete loss to see how you manage to disconnect the two in your own mind. Fox hunts only existed because they killed foxes. The chase is inseparable from death.



I grasp that totally but I have absolutely zero respect for the argument "I love the chase, I don't love the killing " when you cannot have the chase without the killing. 




I do not believe that the two can be disconnected.  Of course their enjoyment of a run is not, for most people, affected by the kill or lack of a kill. But they cannot have the run in the first place without the prerequisite of an intention to kill. The two are so closely linked that it is, I think, totally fair to connect the two.

I say this as a person who has fox hunted, who believes foxes need culling,  and who found the chase immensely enjoyable, but decided that morally I could not continue to chase live quarry. I now drag hunt. If I could not drag hunt I would not hunt at all, because . I.  simply cannot, as you so easily do, disconnect my pleasure in galloping and jumping in company from chasing and killing of foxes.
		
Click to expand...


This i can i totally agree with. It is why if i ever go hunting again it will be with my local drag hunt and NOT my local fox hunt.


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

micki said:



			She may know someone who has replied on this thread
		
Click to expand...

Well, it's possible. But I doubt she'd know everyone, and I'm sure you can see that the point I was trying to make was that it's foolish to infer that someone doesn't care about animals and isn't a 'real horseman' just because they don't share your views. Similarly, it's naive to imply that someone is a paragon of virtue simply because they express agreement on an Internet forum.


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

You presume I do not know someone on this thread and you are wrong. Not steering from the topic at hand but I know of only a couple of true horsemen from the many I have met and worked with.  

Now the hunting 'Core Values?'


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

I di not 'presume' you didn't know anyone on the thread, but I did say that you couldn't know everyone and you certainly don't know me. You have no right to judge that people don't care about animals just because they don't share your beliefs.

And as for only knowinf a few real horsemen - depends on your definition of 'true horseman' I suppose.

And I may not know everyone on this thread - but I know some and I know how much they really do care about animals.


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

'You have no idea about anyone'. Please don't make a presumption just because I do not know you. 
After working with different people I have a fine definition of 'horseman' but I shall not share it here as it means sidetracking from this thread. 

Once again...the 'Core Values' of a hunt?


----------



## Nancykitt (25 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			'You have no idea about anyone'. Please don't make a presumption just because I do not know you. 
After working with different people I have a fine definition of 'horseman' but I shall not share it here as it means sidetracking from /QUOTE]

aaaaaarrrgghhhh Yet again you are missing the point completely!

I was making the point that it's wrong to infer that people don't care about animals just because they din't share your views!!! Do you understand that? 

As for the 'true horseman' thing - it was you that brought it up, so if you regard it as sidetracking why mention it?

Out of interest - these few true horsemen - had any of them ever hunted? If they had, did it make them any less of a horseman? Does a person's potential to be regarded as a horseman depend upon their attitudes towards foxes?

As for the core values - they are mentioned throughout the 50- odd pages of this thread and have been highlighted by many. Why not go back and do a bit of research? 

The fact is, you don't really want to know what they are. You are not in the slightest bit interested. You have made up your mind, but not content with that you have to try to 'convert' people on here. Well, don't bother. I can think for myself.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

I mentioned the horsemen point simply because I found it necessary due to the fact you kept making invalid presumptions about me and I was getting bored of waiting for a reply on the question I put forward a while back.
Both in fact, of these people I know have hunted and no it has not made them any less true for they have since then never participated in the sport due to their beliefs of its methods. 

Hunting-
Is this thing, listen carefully now all of you...
which happens in nature to kill an animal for consumption. 
Humans used to hunt to eat- for survival. That would be a 'Core Value' of a hunt to kill an animal to feed on. Other animals have managed to stick by the 'Core Values' of hunting for they only have one, which is to kill and eat. It is as simple as that. Nature. 
Many on this thread have been proposing the point that the 'Core value' of a hunt is to kill an animal to keep their numbers down because you see their species as vermin when that is not the reason animals hunt.

Also for instance...
Why cull deer? The fact they feed on endangered plant species which are on the brink of extinction is not the job of man to interefere with. It is natures way. If we did not coexist with other animals the plant species would naturally become extinct, so why take it upon yourself to end the lives of other animals?


----------



## E13 (25 January 2013)

Um, we as humans removed the deer's natural predator, thereby causing an overpopulation of deer, which causes the problems with plants. If we did not interfere, the natural predators would still be around so the deer would be naturally controlled as would the plants, so no they wouldn't become extinct. Culling is considered necessary to control population as we have removed mother nature's method of population control.


----------



## YorksG (25 January 2013)

Also for instance...
Why cull deer? The fact they feed on endangered plant species which are on the brink of extinction is not the job of man to interefere with. It is natures way. If we did not coexist with other animals the plant species would naturally become extinct, so why take it upon yourself to end the lives of other animals?[/QUOTE]

Often because the deer is actually an introduced species, an escapee from private collections in the first instance. Therefore there is nothing natural about the plant becoming extinct.


----------



## AnaV (25 January 2013)

Please take into account the whole of my arguements when answering. Such as the whole fact it is not part of a 'core value' of a hunt to kill an animal which is not needed to eat.


----------



## Nancykitt (26 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Please take into account the whole of my arguements when answering. Such as the whole fact it is not part of a 'core value' of a hunt to kill an animal which is not needed to eat.
		
Click to expand...

Actually it's very difficult to take into account 'the whole' of your arguments as the various strands are so disparate and fragmented it's impossible to gather them together into a coherent whole.

The only presumption I have made about you is that you are most definitely not interested in considering any point of view that doesn't chime with your own. If you'd have called this thread 'Tell my why you enjoy hunting but I'm going to ignore or discard any view I don't like' then that would have been much more appropriate. 


Your latest tack appears to be based on some sort of 'definition' of hunting, ie, that it's about killing for food, and if it isn't for food, then it's not justified. But not everyone has to go with your definition. My neighbour's cat 'hunts', she catches mice, she doesn't eat them. She brings them into the kitchen and puts them on the floor. So does that mean she isn't hunting simply because she didn't eat what she caught?

You keep on and on and on about 'nature's way' and 'this is nature'. The truth is that the natural environment has been altered so radically over time that it HAS to be managed in order to conserve and maintain. As you yourself have pointed out, man caused a lot of problems - and while I am fully aware of the disdain you have for your own species, I would suggest that neither you nor I, as individuals, were directly responsible. But the best we can do now is to try and manage the situation as best as we can. We have to keep numbers in check and protect those things that are seriously endangered. You cannot just 'leave it to nature' because the situation simply wouldn't have arisen if predators hadn't been removed, habitats hadn't been destroyed, etc. In effect, it is not 'nature' at all.

Why 'hunt' the fox? (I put 'hunt' in inverted commas because the lampers don't say that they are 'hunting' even though they are out to kill foxes). Because the fox has no natural predator any more and the population needs to be kept in check. The over-population of foxes in some areas leads to serious problems for farmers and for other animals, such as ground nesting birds.

Why hunt the mink? Because a bunch of idiot animal rights activists decided to release them into the wild without a second thought about the consequences. The mink is not indigenous and causes massive problems in certain areas, killing all sorts of wildlife.

Why hunt the deer? The deer, like the fox, has no natural predator in this country. Also, as others have pointed out, several species of deer are not indigenous. Deer breed rapidly and overpopulation is a problem. 
But wait a minute - we eat deer! I'm a big fan of venison! So, does that make it OK to shoot deer?

Or should we only eat meat that has been farmed - factory farmed, even, slaughtered in a commercial abbatoir and sent on the production line, possibly to be mixed with all sorts of things before it appears neatly wrapped on our supermarket shelves?

I've heard the anti-hunt arguments a thousand times, but what is slightly unusual about your approach is this rather strange view on eating meat, and how it's dreadful to take an animal's life in principal but OK if you're going to eat it. I have to say that's a new one on me.

However, as I keep saying, you're not interested in what anyone says unless they are on 'your side'. And the only reason I've responded is that I've got half an hour to kill before I go up and muck out.


----------



## Marydoll (26 January 2013)

TarwinBate said:



			Exactly, farmers and such want them gone, and whilst hunting with dogs may cause suffering, controlling fox numbers by other means is even more cruel. For example, shooting foxes can cause either an instant kill, or lengthy periods of agony for wounded animals which can die of the trauma within hours, or of secondary infection over a period of days or weeks.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there


----------



## Marydoll (26 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Thats ok then SO1? the fox should be caught instead by the pack of 50 odd dogs and tossed around like a rag doll? Thats perfectly alright is it? It 

Foxes hunt for survival. They will not just kill a brood of chickens for no reason. The way foxes feed is once they find a food source they will try and kill as much of it as they can. They will then eat one or two and bury the rest so they can return to it when need be. Do we not do the same? We raise cattle for ourselves, its planned out feeding. We know there will food tomorrow, the day after and the day after that. 

With the brains we have we should look for ways around foxes getting poultry such as improving chicken runs, hen houses.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry AnaV  but thats a crock !!
Having seen a yard littered with bodies of hens and geese, that was clearly done for nothing more than the fact it could if id seen the fox id have shot it myself


----------



## Nancykitt (26 January 2013)

Marydoll said:



			Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there
		
Click to expand...

It's not always to do with the skill of the marksman, Marydoll - I've known some excellent marksman take a shot and the fox move slightly within a split second, meaning that they will still the fox but get a limb rather than a vital organ leading to a quick death. 

That's why most pro-hunting people will say that at least if hounds manage to get a fox, it will die - foxes don't escape wounded once they have been caught by hounds.

Agree with you totally about the poultry attacks - the devastation caused by a single fox can be incredible. I can't believe the old thing about they kill everything and then return to take what they can't carry - I've no evidence of this at all.


----------



## JanetGeorge (26 January 2013)

Marydoll said:



			Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there
		
Click to expand...

That IS cloud cuckoo land thought!  We just don't have tribes of 'marksmen' running around the countryside shooting foxes!  Gamekeepers can do a reasonable job - as can some 'sporting' shooters - but it can be damn hard getting a licence for a decent calibre rifle for fox control purposes.  Some police forces won't go past a .22 - others MIGHT let you have a .222 if the land is suitable.

A .22 HAS to mean lots of wounded foxes - even a .222 in the hands of a good shot isn't guaranteed!


----------



## Marydoll (26 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That IS cloud cuckoo land thought!  We just don't have tribes of 'marksmen' running around the countryside shooting foxes!  Gamekeepers can do a reasonable job - as can some 'sporting' shooters - but it can be damn hard getting a licence for a decent calibre rifle for fox control purposes.  Some police forces won't go past a .22 - others MIGHT let you have a .222 if the land is suitable.

A .22 HAS to mean lots of wounded foxes - even a .222 in the hands of a good shot isn't guaranteed!
		
Click to expand...

Youve your opinion, ive mine, my brothers and uncle can do the job no probs, if they cant dispatch it they shouldnt be there, thats my opinion


----------



## AnaV (27 January 2013)

Nancykitt- 
As incoherent as you may find my arguement, I find yours. Funny how your arguement does not connect to that of others? I have not only been told that hunting kills off 'vermin' but that it has a core value still to this day? I am still waiting to hear it. The core value of a hunt is to kill another organism to consume. That is not the reason you have given me as to why hunting still occurs to this day. When humans first begun to hunt there was no predatoration absence problem for foxes meaning their population had to be maintained. 

I agree the environment has to be maintained and looked after now but killing other animals is a backward mentality. How does the human race have the right to call any other organism on this planet 'vermin' or a pest when we have caused the most damage by far. 

If you are so worked up about maintaining a balanced population because you deeply believe it is the role of humans to do so, why the methods you choose? It would cost less to grow grain to feed endangered bird species and monitor them than to spend thousands of pounds on dogs to kill fox and men to sit on horse (who are incapable of using a firearm to their best ability). 
Why not make more stable living conditions for your poultry? We are on top of the foodchain afterall and did not get there through strength alone. The minds 'some' of us possess whilst we are on this earth should be able to prove fair justice to all other organisms without killing. If having to resort to hunting as we did back then, why, we may as well pack up our cars and modern technology and go back to live in caves.



Marydoll-
 If you knew of how foxes hunt you would know that when foxes find a food source they will kill it; all of it if they can. They then take as much of it as they can and bury it, before coming back and retrieving the rest to store. It much reminds you of how we eat. We breed animals so that when need be we have them to kill and eat. Foxes survive by using the same method of planning also.


----------



## Nancykitt (27 January 2013)

I was a teacher for many years and I don't think I ever had as much difficulty getting through to anyone...

One of MY core values of hunting is conservation. Before you start telling me I'm wrong, don't bother, you stick to your view if it makes you happy but don't keep throwing the same rubbish at me. Don't you realise that if any of your supposed conservation methods worked then we would be doing them? Yes, we can keep chickens from foxes by keeping them in cages. But Imdon't agree with that, I want my chickens to be free range and that"s where the problem comes when there are too many foxes in an area.

The ground nesting birds aren't endangered because they haven't got enough 'grain', they're endangered because fox and mink eat their eggs and chicks, for goodness sake! Waders and stone curlews are insectivorous, they don't even eat grain! How stupid. I don't know which google page you got that from but don't bother with it again. The idea that feeding a prey animal will stop predation is so barmy I can't find the words to describe it. If you want to learn about such birds try the RSPB, who recommend that in areas where stone curlews nest farmers should use predator control because eggs and chick are at high risk where there is a large fox population. The RSPB is a conservation organisation.

I really have had enough of your nonsense now. You came on a hunting forum supposedly to start a reasoned discssion but your real motive is to try and 'convert people to your ridiculous way of thinking, no matter what anyone says or what anyone has experienced.

Other posters- the OP is so child-like in her approach it would not surprise me if it's a case of her having to have the last word as this will somehow make her feel she has 'won'. Well, she is welcome to the last word. The whole thing has served only to strengthen my own views.


----------



## Simsar (27 January 2013)

Predatoration...... how funny.......... making up new words the OP must be from Essex, Reem


----------



## SueD (27 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Nancykitt- 
As incoherent as you may find my arguement, I find yours. Funny how your arguement does not connect to that of others? I have not only been told that hunting kills off 'vermin' but that it has a core value still to this day? I am still waiting to hear it. The core value of a hunt is to kill another organism to consume. That is not the reason you have given me as to why hunting still occurs to this day. When humans first begun to hunt there was no predatoration absence problem for foxes meaning their population had to be maintained. 

Anyone else waiting for the English version of the "debate"?
I can't make head nor tail of this pony.....
		
Click to expand...


----------



## AnaV (28 January 2013)

Nancykitt- The alternative I gave to you about feeding endangered birds was a mere preposition you could say to encourage a narrow mind like yours to 'think outside the box'. I also did not at any point suggest keeping chickens in small confined spaces/cages. 
You are telling me it is impossible to buy or make a large, secure run for poultry? Amusing that is, for I know of not only one but two people who have made their own large runs and have not experienced a fox issue since.

^^My post prior to this should have contained the word 'predator', I made a typing error due to the fact I was writing something slightly different before.


----------



## cptrayes (28 January 2013)

Marydoll said:



			Youve your opinion, ive mine, my brothers and uncle can do the job no probs, if they cant dispatch it they shouldnt be there, thats my opinion
		
Click to expand...

Plenty of good people around here to shoot foxes too Marydoll, and I've never seen a shot one still alive. This area has not been fox hunted with hounds in over 20 years, control has been by gun.

We had a couple of shooters come onto a similar discussion once a couple of years back. They were absolutely livid because they supported the fox hunters in trying to stop the ban, only to find out that they were being told that they maim foxes and leave them to a miserable death.


----------



## JanetGeorge (28 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			We had a couple of shooters come onto a similar discussion once a couple of years back. They were absolutely livid because they supported the fox hunters in trying to stop the ban, only to find out that they were being told that they maim foxes and leave them to a miserable death.
		
Click to expand...

No RESPONSIBLE shooter lets a fox get away wounded if he can possibly avoid it!  But there are plenty of irresponsible lads around popping off at foxes with unsuitable weapons, from too far away!  Sadly, that is a FACT!


----------



## cptrayes (28 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			No RESPONSIBLE shooter lets a fox get away wounded if he can possibly avoid it!  But there are plenty of irresponsible lads around popping off at foxes with unsuitable weapons, from too far away!  Sadly, that is a FACT!
		
Click to expand...

And they always have, even when there was fox hunting. There may even be some basis to the argument that now hunts are not conserving fox there are fewer foxes in the countryside for the irresponsible lads to maim.  I've certainly heard at least one hunter claim on this forum that there are fewer around.


----------



## YorksG (28 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			And they always have, even when there was fox hunting. There may even be some basis to the argument that now hunts are not conserving fox there are FEWER foxes in the countryside for the irresponsible lads to maim.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly that is not the case locally, as we have had a number of 'urban' foxes, with recently healed operation wounds, released to go on to be shot at by local lads with shotguns


----------



## Nancykitt (28 January 2013)

AnaV said:



			Nancykitt- The alternative I gave to you about feeding endangered birds was a mere preposition you could say to encourage a narrow mind like yours to 'think outside the box'. I also did not at any point suggest keeping chickens in small confined spaces/cages. 
You are telling me it is impossible to buy or make a large, secure run for poultry? Amusing that is, for I know of not only one but two people who have made their own large runs and have not experienced a fox issue
		
Click to expand...


A mere preposition to encourage a narrow mind like mine to think outside the box?????
Hahahahaha, yes, my narrow mind and all the narrow-minded conservationists out there! All those narrow minded ornithologists, why can't they be more creative just like you!
So the suggestion that we should protect animals from foxes by feeding them wasn't  serious then?
What a pity, I'm sure that Mr Fox would thank you for proving nice fat birds to eat rather than thin ones!!

If you haven't got a valid suggestion to make, don't make one. Fact is, you haven't got the answers at all.

You'll be suggesting that I build a seven - acre pen for my sheep next. Or is that just me thinking outside the box about keeping them inside a box? 

You're just hilarious, really. Just when I think you can't possibly come up with anything dafter, you do. I'm just cracking up. Excuse me while I go and feed some endangered birds...


----------



## cptrayes (28 January 2013)

YorksG said:



			Sadly that is not the case locally, as we have had a number of 'urban' foxes, with recently healed operation wounds, released to go on to be shot at by local lads with shotguns 

Click to expand...

I don't see the relevance to the hunting debate Janet, bad boys have been a problem since time immemorial.


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I don't see the relevance to the hunting debate Janet, bad boys have been a problem since time immemorial.
		
Click to expand...

And when foxhunting was legal, many didn't get permission to shoot on many farms!  It was a polite way of telling them 'no way' - when it was your neighbour's son!  If you were a hunting supporter, it was ok to say 'Sorry, no, I'd get drummed out of the hunt!' when he asked for permission (when what you would have liked to say was: "I wouldn't let you on my land wih a gun if you paid me!" - but it wouldn't be neighbourly!)

Many farmers preferred to leave fox control to the hunt - they didn't want foxes exterminated - just numbers kept in check.  

And - of course - hunts found wounded foxes and despatched them!  Just as they provided a tracking service when lambs were being killed - NOT as part of 'sport'.  The huntsman and terrierman would take a couple of hounds around to where a lamb had been lost and track the guilty fox back to its earth - and deal with it!  Foxhunting was never JUST sport - it was only 'sport' for the followers.


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

I understand your reasoning completely, thanks for that. 

But I do wonder why I never see these problems around me, where there has been no hunting of fox with hounds for 20 years and more, in an area of open countryside within easy reach of exactly the kind of bad boy populations you would expect to be causing the problems. They deal drugs from a car in a layby up the road


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I understand your reasoning completely, thanks for that. 

But I do wonder why I never see these problems around me, where there has been no hunting of fox with hounds for 20 years and more, in an area of open countryside within easy reach of exactly the kind of bad boy populations you would expect to be causing the problems. They deal drugs from a car in a layby up the road 

Click to expand...

Ah - I'd guess you're somewhere near a busy urban area - different sort of 'bad boy' altogether.  There's no MONEY in shooting foxes - the lads who are keen are farmers' sons, ag.workers' sons, etc.  They think they're good (and the odd one IS a good shot) but too many don't take enough care about what they're shooting at, the distance away they are, and what's behind the quarry (if they miss!)

Thankfully I now have enough horses on my land that I can decline politely for fear of shooting by spotlight upsetting pregnant mares or youngstock.  And although our local hunt IS abiding completely with the law, the fox population hasn't increased - rather it's decreased noticably - because of the number of gamekeepers around now (I have 5 shoots within earshot) and they no longer have ANY reason to go easy on foxes now the hunt isn't 'needing' them.  Before the ban, gamekeepers were a bit more tolerant of foxes - and shooting and hunting worked hand in hand.  Gamekeepers kept numbers down - but didn't aim to kill them ALL (as so many of their friends hunted.)  Now - EVERY fox is fair game!


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

I'm on the open moorlands of a National Park Janet   I don't have a neighbour in sight.


----------



## happyhunter123 (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I'm on the open moorlands of a National Park Janet   I don't have a neighbour in sight.
		
Click to expand...

Then I'm really surprised you don't have any hunting around you! Or is it just fox hunting you don't have? Which NP?


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

Some key  landowners refused to allow the Staffs Moorlands, who used to hunt the area, to come across the land because they caused too many problems. This was 20 years ago and they have not been back since. 

The foot beagle pack stopped with the hunting ban.

The Peak Park, western side.


----------



## happyhunter123 (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			The foot beagle pack stopped with the hunting ban.
		
Click to expand...

I think there are still beagle packs (the Colne Valley I can think of) that hunt parts of the Peak District, but maybe they don't hunt your area. What about the High Peak Harriers? 
Sorry, this is irrelevant I know, but I'm just interested as I don't know this piece of country (and the packs which hunt it) very well!


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

Nobody hunts this area with hounds. High Peak Harriers hunt the High Peak and down the other way, not the western side of the  Peak Park. I assume the beagle pack have folded, I haven't heard the dogs bark or seen the guys in green coats out on foot since the ban.


----------



## happyhunter123 (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I assume the beagle pack have folded
		
Click to expand...

I don't think any registered beagle pack has actually folded (some have amalgamated) since the ban, but it may be that they just don't visit your end any more.


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			I don't think any registered beagle pack has actually folded (some have amalgamated) since the ban, but it may be that they just don't visit your end any more.
		
Click to expand...

The kennels were only a mile away. I don't hear the dogs any more, they've gone. If they "amalgamated" it was more of  a takeover and they have disappeared.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			The kennels were only a mile away. I don't hear the dogs any more, they've gone. If they "amalgamated" it was more of  a takeover and they have disappeared.
		
Click to expand...

....... and you still manage to maintain and support a problem?  HOW? 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (29 January 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			....... and you still manage to maintain and support a problem?  HOW? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Could you translate that into English for me Alec?


----------



## happyhunter123 (29 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			The kennels were only a mile away. I don't hear the dogs any more, they've gone. If they "amalgamated" it was more of  a takeover and they have disappeared.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, I reckon that it's a pack called Mr Elliot's Beagles. They were a private pack. Apparently, they are now called Mr Elliot's Harriers, although where they are based I do not know.


----------



## AnaV (29 January 2013)

Nancykitt- You are excused. Continue believing you are right to kill other animals.


----------



## cptrayes (30 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			Ah, I reckon that it's a pack called Mr Elliot's Beagles. They were a private pack. Apparently, they are now called Mr Elliot's Harriers, although where they are based I do not know.
		
Click to expand...

They were a harrier pack (is that a given with beagles?) but that confused me. The brown hare is almost an endangered species, so I couldn't understand why they were allowed to hunt them, if that's what they were hunting.

The High Peak are Harriers too, but I don't know if they hunt(ed) hare or fox.

Do you know what the situation was with hunting hare? Clearly it's illegal to hunt them now with dogs, but was it legal then to hunt a species where numbers were dangerously low?


----------



## Vulpinator (30 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			They were a harrier pack (is that a given with beagles?) but that confused me. The brown hare is almost an endangered species, so I couldn't understand why they were allowed to hunt them, if that's what they were hunting.

The High Peak are Harriers too, but I don't know if they hunt(ed) hare or fox.

Do you know what the situation was with hunting hare? Clearly it's illegal to hunt them now with dogs, but was it legal then to hunt a species where numbers were dangerously low?
		
Click to expand...

The brown hare is no where an endangered species it is running rife in most parts of east anglia and most arable areas of the country trouble is in other areas its diet for crops rather than grass makes it a more palatable sport for gypsies


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Was it legal then to hunt a species where numbers were dangerously low?
		
Click to expand...

Hare numbers are *not* dangerously low-that is a huge misconception. Go to East Anglia and you'll see hundreds (every field it seems has a few) of them. In other areas, (such as the South West) they are lower (although I do know of areas in the South West where they are actually very high). Numbers tend to fluctuate greatly every year. Hare hunting was perfectly legal, and in areas where the hare population was fairly low low probably did more good than harm.




			They were a harrier pack (is that a given with beagles?) but that confused me.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't understand . If they're a pack of beagles, they're a pack of beagles. If they're a pack of harriers, they're a pack of harriers. I'm guessing that this pack changed the type of hounds that they used. 
The High Peak hunted hare and foxes.


----------



## Countryman (30 January 2013)

Lots of people tend to think beagle packs kill lots of the hares they hunt, like foxhound packs do (or rather used to). That's not so-in my experience, before the ban my local foxhound pack killed around 200 foxes a year. While my local beagle pack killed precisely 7 hares! 7 Hares in 60 days hunting isn't really going to damage population numbers at all, but it may well kill a few diseased crippled hares, and it will also help encourage landowners and farmers to preserve hares, not to shoot them, and to provide hare-friendly habitat.


----------



## cptrayes (30 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			Hare numbers are *not* dangerously low-that is a huge misconception. Go to East Anglia and you'll see hundreds.
		
Click to expand...

I don't live in East Anglia, this site refers to my general area of the country and measures which have been taken to conserve brown hare because population numbers in the area were more severely hit than in other areas:

http://www.merseysidebiobank.org.uk/BrownHare/


----------



## cptrayes (30 January 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			Sorry, don't understand . If they're a pack of beagles, they're a pack of beagles. If they're a pack of harriers, they're a pack of harriers. I'm guessing that this pack changed the type of hounds that they used. 
The High Peak hunted hare and foxes.
		
Click to expand...

But beagles don't hunt fox, do they? I am only asking for information here, I don't see the need to laugh at that? When I saw the pack out on my hillside, what else might they have been hunting but hare?

Surely harrier only describes their prey, not the kind of dog they are? I assume that the High Peak used to hunt hare and fox with a foxhound pack, since they had mounted followers?


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			But beagles don't hunt fox, do they? I am only asking for information here, I don't see the need to laugh at that? When I saw the pack out on my hillside, what else might they have been hunting but hare?

Surely harrier only describes their prey, not the kind of dog they are? I assume that the High Peak used to hunt hare and fox with a foxhound pack, since they had mounted followers?
		
Click to expand...

Beagles are bred to hunt hares. In some unusual circumstances they have been used to hunt foxes (although they all too often they riot on them ).

Harriers are a separate breed -they are bred to hunt the hare, but many packs switched to hunting foxes owing to a decline in the hare populations in some areas. Harrier packs need high populations of hares to hunt, whereas beagles don't. They tend to have short hunts on hares, and catch them frequently. If hare population is low around you, I'm guessing that the High Peak probably hunted foxes mainly. Harriers are larger than beagles, but smaller than foxhounds. Some packs that I have known have called themselves 'harriers' but were actually packs of foxhounds. 

Sorry, I was laughing because I was confused by your post, not at you for not understanding, so please don't worry


----------



## cptrayes (30 January 2013)

Thanks for that, I had no idea at all that there were foxhounds and harrier hounds.  Are beagles always hunted on foot? The local pack was very smart, green coats and Pateys, but only foot followers, so I'm guessing that beagles don't run far or fast enough to follow on horseback?


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 January 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Thanks for that, I had no idea at all that there were foxhounds and harrier hounds.  Are beagles always hunted on foot? The local pack was very smart, green coats and Pateys, but only foot followers, so I'm guessing that beagles don't run far or fast enough to follow on horseback?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they are normally only hunted on foot (although unusually according to Baily's 94/95 the pack we are talking about here, Mr Elliot's, was 'occasionally hunted mounted'). There is also one pack in the US also that hunts cottontails using beagles, mounted.  But yes, because they don't run great distances you don't need a horse. Harriers are much faster hounds, owing to their size and so they are usually hunted mounted in this country. In Ireland there are both mounted packs and numerous foot packs of these hounds.


----------



## Carefreegirl (10 February 2013)

See / listen to today's news.
4 week old baby loses a finger after a fox got into the house. This is in London.


----------



## TarwinBate (10 February 2013)

Carefreegirl said:



			See / listen to today's news.
4 week old baby loses a finger after a fox got into the house. This is in London.
		
Click to expand...

Not such 'sweet' and 'innocent' foxes now are they.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2013)

I reckon that there should be packs standing in London.  How about we suggest some names?

The Belgravia,  would be quite smart,  The Pimlico perhaps a little avant garde.

Anyone else? 

Alec.

Ets,  my OH has just suggested that Urban Gang Members could be given a free hand.  If they want to kill something,  they could have their very own bit of "Country"!


----------



## Simsar (10 February 2013)

Alec its Sarah I suggest The Belgravia I would love to be your Whip please I can stable my horses at Eaton Mews xxx


----------



## Countryman (10 February 2013)

The good old Maida Vale would have to be included! Maybe the Hackney Marsh (Harriers), the Pentonville Foxhounds? Also how about the Clapham Farmers?


----------



## missroses nanna (10 February 2013)

Ask the parent of the 4 week old baby !!!!!!!


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			The good old Maida Vale would have to be included! Maybe the Hackney Marsh (Harriers), the Pentonville Foxhounds? Also how about the Clapham Farmers?
		
Click to expand...

Love it,  with the Maida Vale having a stallion hound called Elgin! 

The Clapham Farmers,  venerable,  at the very east!! 

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (11 February 2013)

You still do not understand after 60 pages. A fox referring to 'one' fox. That does not mean you get on your high horse and kill 'foxes'. If, a large cat such as a tiger 'wandered' into your home, that too would try to kill your young to eat. The point is those who are for hunting do not have a real reason behind what they do but try to justify the murder. Pathetic.


----------



## Countryman (11 February 2013)

It must really annoy you that nobody else sees the killing of animals as Murder, like you seem to...


----------



## Alec Swan (11 February 2013)

AnaV,

apart from generally sounding off,  which you've done,  what else do you hope to achieve on this forum?  Is it your intention that you would be able to explain your points,  in an attempt to get others to agree with you?  

You've failed to accept the well reasoned arguments of others,  just as there are those on here who've ridiculed your claims,  claims I might add which are becoming ever more bizarre.

There is no progress to be made,  by either camp,  as this is a PRO-hunting forum.  Are you a member of any Anti Field Sport forums?  Would they be open to my membership application?  Shall I join with them and continually drone out  the same lines about how I'm really in to killing living creatures?  Were I to do that,  would the rest of the board consider me to be a Troll,  as most do you?

As a matter of interest,  are you a member of the league against cruel sports,  or any other such campaigning group?

Why continue with your campaign on here,  when you've no chance of success?  

Alec.


----------



## Vulpinator (11 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			You still do not understand after 60 pages. A fox referring to 'one' fox. That does not mean you get on your high horse and kill 'foxes'. If, a large cat such as a tiger 'wandered' into your home, that too would try to kill your young to eat. The point is those who are for hunting do not have a real reason behind what they do but try to justify the murder. Pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV 

When will you realise after 60 pages we actually don't want to be lectured by one crazy mixed up fur loving mad person we love our sport you love foxes there lays the fundamental issue you are different to us and don't want to enjoy the things we do we don't want to enjoy your lifestyle sorry no punctuation don't enjoy it


----------



## AnaV (11 February 2013)

No clearly Countryman you do not believe it is murder but I beg to differ on 'other' peoples opinion. Darling there those of us who respect other living things.
Many a time I have heard hunting folk say 'oh we do not intend to kill the fox, it just happens to be there.' Unusual how many of you have different views as to why you have the right to slay animals nowadays. You plan to kill the animal because you can and want to then you go ahead and do the deed.

Alec, in which way bizarre? Yes I am part of the League Against Cruel Sports and Cinservatives Against Fox Hunting. 
It would as you say, be the same if you were to come and share your opinion with those who possess something which you do not called 'humanity'. I started this thread to hear the latest petty pleas of those like yourself. Your attempt to justify why you have the right to deny an animal its life has been rather amusing.


----------



## Molasses (11 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			has been rather amusing.
		
Click to expand...

Yay! AnaV's happy at last
Does that mean the thread is finally over now


----------



## Vulpinator (11 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			No clearly Countryman you do not believe it is murder but I beg to differ on 'other' peoples opinion. Darling there those of us who respect other living things.
Many a time I have heard hunting folk say 'oh we do not intend to kill the fox, it just happens to be there.' Unusual how many of you have different views as to why you have the right to slay animals nowadays. You plan to kill the animal because you can and want to then you go ahead and do the deed.

Alec, in which way bizarre? Yes I am part of the League Against Cruel Sports and Cinservatives Against Fox Hunting. 
It would as you say, be the same if you were to come and share your opinion with those who possess something which you do not called 'humanity'. I started this thread to hear the latest petty pleas of those like yourself. Your attempt to justify why you have the right to deny an animal its life has been rather amusing.
		
Click to expand...

Well that says it a zealot say no more hope you enjoy your time in the gas chamber


----------



## Alec Swan (11 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			.......

Alec, in which way bizarre? Yes I am part of the League Against Cruel Sports and Cinservatives Against Fox Hunting. 

........
		
Click to expand...

As a member of lacs,  presumably you will be able to speak with authority about the debacle at Baronsdown Wood,  which is laughingly referred to by those who are indeed,  lax,  as a Sanctuary.

I'd welcome your justification of entrapping,  illegally,  wild deer,  leaving them to multiply to proportions which the land can not cope with,  and then hiding behind the banner of "Welfare".  The lacs are an embarrassment,  as are those who support them.  If you support them,  then your interests in animal welfare are none existent and you should feel a deep and abiding sense of shame.

Alec.


----------



## Nancykitt (11 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			I started this thread to hear the latest petty pleas of those like yourself.
		
Click to expand...

What a very strange reason for starting a thread!

As many have said, you must have realised - by about page 2 - that you were dealing with people that have views fundamentally different to yours. Why not just leave it at that?

And as has also been said, if I went on an anti-hunting forum and started a thread 'just to hear the petty pleas' of those fanatics then I doubt that I would be treated with any respect. But actually I just wouldn't bother. I've no wish to hear anyone's 'petty pleas'. I've got better things to do with my life.


----------



## YorksG (11 February 2013)

I am presuming that the OP of this thread is a strict Vegan, as the killing of any animal is classed as murder by her. If she is not a strict vegan, then her entire argument is spurious.


----------



## Nancykitt (11 February 2013)

I don't think that she is a strict vegan - apparently it's OK to kill an animal if you intend to eat it, but everything else is murder.


----------



## Littlelegs (11 February 2013)

According to op, meat eating is ok because humans need it for survival.


----------



## YorksG (11 February 2013)

Littlelegs said:



			According to op, meat eating is ok because humans need it for survival.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I missed that pearl of misinformation somewhere in the rest of the drivel.......
I know I should leave this alone, but what about killing rats? Mosquitos? Any other animal which carries dangerous bacteria etc?


----------



## Littlelegs (11 February 2013)

I imagine ops thoughts on killing rats etc will be based on whether rats inconvenience her, & how cute she finds them.


----------



## VoR (12 February 2013)

FFS is this thread STILL going on? Ok AnaV, you win, we are all a bunch of bloodthirsty toffs, who like nothing more than running around the countryside slaughtering 'innocent' little fluffy creatures for our own entertainment as we have so much money we don't need to work and have 'staff' to do everything for us and there is no benefit to the countryside to hunting anyway........... so says a member of the anti-hunt fraternity I had the displeasure of answering a question to some months ago on another forum. 
For good measure, my new 'good friend' pointed out that, anyone who goes hunting is in fact a 'wife-beater' (presumably as many women hunt they are husband-beaters although this wasn't confirmed by the genius I was 'debating' with), however, at the same time men that hunt are all homosexual (which causes a bit of confusion!). Not only this but most child-molesters are also indeed, so it appears, and I have no reason to doubt the expert opinion of this apparent academic,hunting folk, so there we admit it all, the anti-hunt brigade clearly win the argument that hunting has no place in countryside management, how could anyone argue with such a rational approach as this? Furthermore, having utilised 'Godwins Law', my new buddy drove home the advantage of his well-thought-out argument by wishing that I should fall from my horse and die or be paralysed and before wishing this on me asking that, if I was 'man-enough', I should make myself known to him so that he could come round and 'kick the ***** out of me'!! 
There is little doubt that some have strong feelings that hunting is 'cruel' (sic), there are undoubtedly some pro-hunters who do get pleasure from 'the kill', indeed there are probably wife and husband beaters, even pedophiles that hunt, JUST AS THERE WILL BE IN THE ANTI HUNT RANKS for we are all human and these are human failings unrelated to any beliefs!!! Let us NOT forget though that, whilst the majority of people that follow hunts are from a similar and probably at times, LESS 'fortunate' background than those that are against hunting, often the overriding motivation for antis (and this is based on the continual use of the word 'Toff' and the description of those that hunt as 'upper-class' by antis) is a class issue and nothing to do with the rights of the animals.
You clearly have your strong beliefs AnaV, we have ours, doubtless you had no intention of ever changing your stance with your OP, most pro-hunters will not be changing theirs, therefore, lets end this here and now, it is futile everyone!!!


----------



## AnaV (12 February 2013)

VOR: How odd you find there to be a need to go off on such a peculiar tangent. Yes, much can be said about the ways of humans, like you say, about the different people who participate in hunts. I can think of many things related to the foul actions of people such as paedophiles, however, would not find it necessary to share on this thread?? 
Once again another pro hunter who tries to divert the topic...

A class warrior I am not, so why bother wasting your time mentioning the meaning of the word 'toff?' You should have spoken of the definition of 'pleb' in that case.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			VOR: How odd you find there to be a need to go off on such a peculiar tangent.

.......

Once again another pro hunter who tries to divert the topic...

.......
		
Click to expand...

Ah,  AnaV,  you're back.  Now then,  as you are a supporter of lacs ( and I expect that you've checked for an appropriate response ),  could you answer my previous question which references your group's treatment of *illegally* trapped wild Red Deer,  which you continue to abuse within the area known as Baronsdown Wood?

Whilst we're at it,  could you explain how your previous directors have disowned your policies,  and how you continue to justify such neglect and cruelty?

Further more,  can you explain how in the light of such neglect,  that you've managed to silence not only the rspca,  but Trading Standards and DEFRA?  Explain these points to your waiting readers,  and we'll be all ears! 

Before you justify your group's behaviour,  I would explain to you that I've had a lifetime of interest in deer,  specifically Reds,  and the condition of those poor creatures,  judging by their disgracefully low body weights,  should be an embarrassment to those who would claim to be carers.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (12 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			VOR: 

Once again another pro hunter who tries to divert the topic...

....You should have spoken of the definition of 'pleb' in that case.
		
Click to expand...

Am I diverting the topic, is there a 'topic', you ask a question and then, whatever response you get you ignore it and carry on with your own agenda, ignoring and damning even a logical argument, that isn't a topic of discussion it is a way, much like my learned friend I referred to earlier, of attempting to annoy, enrage, provoke, call it what you will, people who don't have the same view as you without giving consideration to any argument, simply dismissing it as nonsense because it doesn't fit with your own views.

I have re-read my post and I can't see any definition of the word 'Toff', however: 'A member of the upper classes, especially one who is elegantly dressed', the second part might relate to those that hunt, the former, definitely NOT in most cases. Why would I want to speak of the definition of the word, 'Pleb'? One of the common people, in the end AnaV we are all just common people, we enter this great world with nothing, we go out with nothing and in but a short time too, your life maybe so lacking that you wish to waste it on futile 'discussion', if you think you've found a new 'quarry' to ensnare into the game you are playing, I'm sorry I am not the person for you, in a battle of wits it is unfair for me to fight with the unarmed, bless you.


----------



## AnaV (12 February 2013)

If you are in reference to something the league against cruel sports has done then I have not a view or will to justify them on the matter for I do not know about the Boronsdown wood one as you say. I only became a member of both of them a few weeks ago. I am not a fan of DEFRA due to an ordeal over passports with them. The RSPCA are in my eyes despite being one of the biggest animal welfare charities in the UK are not not fulfilling their potential. They are in other words useless. Many animals have persued suffering through their negligence. Big cases, they are more than happy to deal with, for they are publicised for all to see. However, be it a dog being left tied to a chain all year round, living in its faeces, neglected and suffering malnutrition it does not get a second look in. Would you care to tell me about this situation at boronsdown wood?


----------



## JDee (12 February 2013)

I apologise as this thread is so long I havent read all through it
Britain has no natural predator of the fox so they breed profusely and are extremely good at surviving whether it be scavenging in town bins or raiding someones hen house - without some form of control they rapidly become a nuisance, in fact I would say they have already passed that mark  - who would want to see packs of feral stray dogs roaming around the place? The fox is really no different. 
Hunting with hounds at least ensures that the animals is dead and that the fitter healthier foxes do stand a better chance of survival than an old, sick or injured one would so the remaining population does tend to stay healthier
I prefer to see that than having them shot but not killed and left to die somewhere days or weeks later suffering, poisoned or trapped.


----------



## AnaV (12 February 2013)

VOR: Reading through I found you were 'going off on one' in a weird direction. Had it have had anything to do with hunting and killing animals I would understand but I am sorry sweetheart it did not. You began bantering on and on about those who hunt and how they are commonly misconceived for evil people. Correctly said, they are often thought of very evil people, I know personally, you and I have a different way of thinking. Why you felt you had to keep repeating peoples view on those for hunting, in this particular thread I do not know. If you have nothing worthy to post please don't take up your time talking irrelevance.


----------



## Molasses (12 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Why you felt you had to keep repeating peoples view on those for hunting, in this particular thread I do not know. If you have nothing worthy to post please don't take up your time talking irrelevance.
		
Click to expand...

It's a forum AnaV anyone can post what they like
Killer isn't it
Whoops bad choice of words

Given your distaste for repetition why do you keep repeating views where's it all going? Calling people sweetheart in one breath and pathetic in the next is rather scary though 

This thread is like a slow train wreck at Christmas, it just keeps on giving.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 February 2013)

AnaV,

if you google Baronsdown Wood,  you will learn.  When you've done your research,  come back and justify the existence of your recently found friends.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (13 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			VOR: Reading through I found you were 'going off on one' in a weird direction. Had it have had anything to do with hunting and killing animals I would understand but I am sorry sweetheart it did not. You began bantering on and on about those who hunt and how they are commonly misconceived for evil people. Correctly said, they are often thought of very evil people, I know personally, you and I have a different way of thinking. Why you felt you had to keep repeating peoples view on those for hunting, in this particular thread I do not know. If you have nothing worthy to post please don't take up your time talking irrelevance.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV - Some people have too little intellect to read anything and comprehend its meaning so I will spell it out for anyone in that position and this will be my last on the subject. 
My point as anyone with the ability to understand will see, is that, this and any other discussion where any one or both sides are at the extremes of views on a subject, is futile. Those at the poles of an argument will never accept any validity in the views of those at the other and may proffer abuse and or ill thought out random accusations at some point.
Perhaps you could, very clearly, through reasoned thought and in a comprehensible manner, justify to, probably the majority of us on this particular forum, exactly why hunting is NOT a sport (by definition) and should remain 'banned' as pro-hunters here are quite clearly, 'banging our heads against a brick wall' in trying to answer your original question, which you posed having already decided the answer, which in itself is nugatory.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 February 2013)

VoR,

that was a most courteous response.  To my shame I've been reduced to advising them that they're idiots.  We'll see if your kinder approach is any more effective! 

Alec.


----------



## VoR (13 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			VoR,

that was a most courteous response.  To my shame I've been reduced to advising them that they're idiots.  We'll see if your kinder approach is any more effective! 

Alec. 

Click to expand...

Don't think I'll hold my breath on that one Alec, however, I was 'dragged-up'  (to try at least) to be polite and attempt to understand and respect other peoples views or beliefs, sometimes that is made easy and one can have a decent two-way debate often ending with a better grasp of the other persons stance, other times.......well......not so! 

Cheers


----------



## AnaV (13 February 2013)

Alec: Jusitfy my friends existence? I will not be justifying the actions of others. You are diverting me to google? I see, no I am quite capable of carrying out my own enquiries. 


Molasses: Tis what you call sarcasm. 

VOR: Ok I see, your view on discussion. 'Great' you felt on sharing that. This is a debate, where opinions do not agree and are shared.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Alec: Jusitfy my friends existence? I will not be justifying the actions of others. You are diverting me to google? I see, no I am quite capable of carrying out my own enquiries. 


........
		
Click to expand...

Excellent,  so can we assume from your research,  that you have a view or an opinion about those WILD deer which have been trapped at Baronsdown Wood,  and by those who you support?  

I understand that you have only been a member of lacs for a few weeks,  but I'd point out to you that if you lay down with dogs,  then you catch fleas (that's an English term for,  if you associate with those who have no care for wildlife,  then you will be viewed as they are,  worthless).

If you are to rely upon your support of lacs for any degree of credibility,  you cannot then play the part of Judas and deny all knowledge of their actions.

I realise that advice isn't what you generally accept,  but were I you,  I'd check out the antics of lacs before you claim to be a supporter. 

Alec.


----------



## Nancykitt (13 February 2013)

VoR said:



			in trying to answer your original question, which you posed having already decided the answer
		
Click to expand...

Beautifully put, VoR - anyone who asks a question having already decided the answer deserves everything they get by way of a response.


----------



## combat_claire (14 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Alec: Jusitfy my friends existence? I will not be justifying the actions of others. You are diverting me to google? I see, no I am quite capable of carrying out my own enquiries.
		
Click to expand...

To speed things up here are the links to reports regarding the situation at Baronsdown. I apologise if people find the pictures disturbing. 

http://www.skyshot.co.uk/client/gap_bwm/bovine_page5.php

http://www.skyshot.co.uk/client/gap_bwm/league.php

And here is the video when their disgusting management practices came to light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgDclFnxdI

Like Alec I would be most interested in your views on this matter.


----------



## happyhunter123 (14 February 2013)

This is stuff from 10 years ago. However, I'm fairly local to Baronsdown and know some of the neighbouring farmers-the deer are apparently in just as bad a condition as they ever were. 
I honestly don't know why they don't sell it-it has surely served its purpose by now for them. The League have sold most (if not all) of the other pieces of land that they owned in this area. 

Still-cases like this show load and clear that the LACS do not understand wild animals or their management. These show the consequences.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 February 2013)

c_c,

thank you for your last post.  I hadn't read the reports from The Patrick Foundation,  and they made interesting reading.  I've seen the video'd film previously.

As h-h123 says,  these reports come from years back,  but the staggering point is that the situation remains unchanged.  Despite the protests of the BDS,  and the Relevant groups that deal with deer,  on a daily basis,  nothing seems to have changed.  The shear arrogance of the lacs,  by ignoring those who speak with experience,  and have a passion for their native wildlife,  beggars belief.

I wonder where the rspca are now,  with their abilities to prosecute.   I've asked of those supporters on here,  for a comment,  but they seem strangely quiet.  As there are those who are opposed to animal cruelty,  who seem more than happy to operate for the greater good,  and to operate outside the Law,  I'm surprised that in the dark of night these wretched creatures haven't been offered their freedom.

In the defence of the rspca,  I will say that they seem to be a rather naive bunch of people.  I see the lacs as being sinister.

Alec.


----------



## combat_claire (14 February 2013)

This also makes an interesting read, particularly the appendices listing confirmed cases.

http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov....13/133600/the_health_of_the_wild_red_deer.pdf

I saw a map somewhere that showed the TB hotspot with cases centred around Baronsdown, but damned if I can find it now.


----------



## JanetGeorge (14 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			And here is the video when their disgusting management practices came to light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgDclFnxdI

Like Alec I would be most interested in your views on this matter.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it was old news by then.  The Spectator ran a very good article in about 1995 about deer health problems at Baronsdown - although back then it involved severe worm infestation and LACS (unlawfully) putting out sheep wormer blocks in an attempt to control the problem.  It was a bit amusing because I had originally pitched the story at The Spectator but they thought it should be written by someone who wasn't 'pro'!  The journalist who finally wrote it was 'anti' when he started - but after he caught LACS out in a number of outright LIES, he started thinking again!


----------



## Luci07 (14 February 2013)

I am enjoying this thread. Now I can guarantee I will pretty much always agree with Alec and Janet. Have just added VoR to my list of likes!!

This "debate" is hugely reminiscent of conversations with my mother. She doesn't listen either!


----------



## happyhunter123 (14 February 2013)

On that map, there are a whopping 76 cases centred around Baronsdown and just 11 other cases in the (very large) surrounding area. This is from 2008. 

Here is what the report says about that:
_Specifically, 76 of the TB infected deer have originated from within an area of woodland and farmland represented by a 4 km diameter circle centred on the Exe valley at Baronsdown and Barlynch Farms.  Other veterinary records, and records of stalkers and deer managers, suggest that deer in very poor condition have been encountered in the area of the cluster since 1999_

The League are such a disgrace of an 'animal welfare' organisation. I bet hundreds of deer have died slow and painful deaths in there!


----------



## Alec Swan (14 February 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			....... I bet hundreds of deer have died slow and painful deaths in there!
		
Click to expand...

Ah,  but you've overlooked the fact that they,  and their kind,  have died for the greater good! 

Perhaps we could discuss with thelacs,  just how they see,  "The Greater Good",  and perhaps they could justify such an avoidance of the facts as expressed by the rest of those who's genuine wish is the well being of our native and South Country Reds.

FFS.

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (14 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Perhaps we could discuss with thelacs,  just how they see,  "The Greater Good",  .
		
Click to expand...

 A lot of things have been done by the LACS for the 'greater good' I feel.


----------



## VoR (15 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			VOR: Ok I see, your view on discussion. 'Great' you felt on sharing that. This is a debate, where opinions do not agree and are shared.
		
Click to expand...

Can anyone translate this in to English for me please?


----------



## Nicnac (15 February 2013)

AnaV vacillates between excellent English and English written using a foreign sentence structure - more than one person?


----------



## Alec Swan (16 February 2013)

I've suspected all the way through this,  that AnaV has many of her replies written for her.  The exceptions being when direct questions are asked of her sponsors,  and then we're greeted by silence.  Can't think why,  can you? 

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (16 February 2013)

There is a couple of well known repute in Wales who spend their time annoying the local hunts. The man has English as his first language while the woman doesn't. Hmmmm.


----------



## AnaV (16 February 2013)

Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.
 Now, as I await further information, may I remind you of the topic at hand? Killing animals for sport. Yes not for consumption. Killing other animals just because we have the 'know how.'

Nicnac & VOR; This is not a lesson of language nor literature, yet you are using it as invasion to the subject. Why? If we are to take that route, I have far a greater collection of remarks to make as to the 'english' I have had the joy of reading on this thread.


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.
		
Click to expand...

Listen AnaV, don't expect the LACS to tell you the truth. They've been trying to cover up the terrible treatment of those deer for years. 
Besides, they desperately need your cash!


----------



## Nancykitt (17 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Now, as I await further information, may I remind you of the topic at hand? Killing animals for sport. Yes not for consumption. Killing other animals just because we have the 'know how.'
		
Click to expand...

No, please, no - no more! We have thoroughly exhausted the 'topic at hand'. We've been through every conceivable argument, we've explored the thing inside out, upside down, back to front - but, as has already been pointed out, you'd already decided on the 'answer' to your question before you'd posted the topic. When you asked at one point 'why kill the deer' and I pointed out that they are consumed by humans, it may have put a spanner in the works for you but you seem to have dealt with this merely by repeating yourself.

Do your research on Baronsdown and consider the dreadful irony of how an organisation supposedly formed to tackle so-called 'cruelty' ended up causing so much suffering to these wonderful animals.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.

.........
		
Click to expand...

You've "Been in contact with the league".  Excellent,  I will sit and await your research.  It will make for fascinating reading.  

Whilst you have the attention of those who advise you,  perhaps you could enquire of them how they would explain the balance between a creature which stands a very good chance of escape,  and one which is trapped and committed to a life where it will be highly unlikely to reach any more than 60% of its more usual body weight,  and why such wretches have to endure the agonies of a diseased death,  and and at the hands of those with no principles.

Just a thought. 

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (18 February 2013)

Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them. 

Alec; Yes I have been in touch and awaiting their further response. I do not give them money, for have only recently become a member. I have no say on the baronsdown situation for have no real perspective of what is going.


----------



## Nancykitt (18 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them.
		
Click to expand...

But, according to you, we do need to eat meat.
So do we need to eat beef? Pork? Chicken?
What makes one type of meat OK and another not?
Is it that the deer is wild? If so, are you advocating eating factory farmed meat, with most animals having had a thoroughly miserable existence, rather than 'free range' food?

I do eat meat and I enjoy it. I am very careful about what I buy and eat.
 But my daughter has been vegetarian for 23 years and is fine.
So do you NEED to eat meat?
Of course not. You just make up the rules as you go along.

As for 'why bother'?, I suggest you do some serious research into wildlife management.

I'm just repeating myself now. Can you not see that this is going nowhere? You have absolutely no interest in anything I, or other like-mended people here, have to say.


----------



## maccachic (18 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them. 

Alec; Yes I have been in touch and awaiting their further response. I do not give them money, for have only recently become a member. I have no say on the baronsdown situation for have no real perspective of what is going.
		
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA I almost fell off my chair - hypocrite much? Are you really saying one life is different from another??

Oh no I get it there is already dead animals in the supermarket so why kill wild ones everyone knows the ones at the supermarket are already born dead right.


----------



## Nancykitt (18 February 2013)

Sorry, that should have said 'like minded' rather than 'like mended'. 
But I actually quite like it.


----------



## AnaV (18 February 2013)

We do not need to eat deer.


----------



## Vulpinator (18 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			We do not need to eat deer.
		
Click to expand...

AnaV

Why I must say you must have nothing in your life to do other than cause nuisance to people with opposing views to you. nuisance value 0 knowledge of the countryside 0 spelling and grammar 0 maybe you should take up dancing in sure your tango would get a 1 from Craig Revell Hallwood  

Please go and audition and leave us small minded simple folk to witter on about the things we know nothing about


----------



## Nancykitt (18 February 2013)

And once again the point is missed. 
Apparently we don't need to eat deer. But personally, I like venison.
We don't need to eat beef. But I love a nice piece of fillet steak.
We don't need to eat chicken. But a nice (free range) roast chicken dinner often hits the spot.
We don't need to eat pork. But our home-cured bacon is truly wonderful.

AnaV, what  sort of meat DO we NEED to eat? And if you have a theory behind this - eg, we need to eat lamb/beef/chicken but not pork/goat/deer/whatever - where is the research to back up your theory?

You can say 'I choose not to eat deer' in the way that I, personally, choose not to eat certain types of meat. But you can't possibly justify by saying we don't 'need' to eat deer.

Does a deer have more of a right to life than a pig/cow/lamb etc?
Who decides?


----------



## Littlelegs (18 February 2013)

It's really very simple from ops pov. Which animals have a right to life & which can die for a humans benefit, is no doubt based on how cute op finds them, & how many pretty pictures she has seen. Deer, foxs, bunny rabbits etc are all very cute filmed in their natural habitats. Whereas adult cows in a barn are pretty stinky. Also, the former have been portrayed well in films (bambi, fox & the hound, watership down). I assume their is no rational explanation of ops logic, as that would imply the ability for rational thought, which we can safely say is lacking.


----------



## JDee (18 February 2013)

If you had such an awful problem with deer ticks and Lymes disease in the UK as I'm now having to contend with in New England thanks to an out of control deer population you'd be begging the hunts to go out and kill them
Just because an animal is 'wild' doesnt mean that its population shouldnt be controlled


----------



## Nancykitt (18 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			We will not starve from not slaughtering them.
		
Click to expand...

And here's the irony, AnaV - lots of deer WOULD STARVE if we didn't 'slaughter' them.

Starvation - not a nice way to go at all...


----------



## arizonahoney (18 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			We do not need to eat deer.
		
Click to expand...

I'm starting to suspect you're a chatbot, not a real person.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 February 2013)

ArizonaH,  you have a point.  AnaV's posts are strangely robotic,  aren't they?

As I have no chance of facing our OP,  F2F,  so I have to consider her(?) a person who's up to mischief.  Nothing more,  or less.

Alec.


----------



## bubbilygum (18 February 2013)

arizonahoney said:



			I'm starting to suspect you're a chatbot, not a real person.
		
Click to expand...

 this would genuinely be the most logical explanation for all this...


----------



## AnaV (22 February 2013)

I respect cows, pigs and sheep as much as any other animal for those of you-weird and wonderful ones-who think different of me. I am however, a realist and humans still have to consume some good source of protein as intended by nature.

There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves. Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is. 

Good riddance to you small minded, backward people.


----------



## bubbilygum (22 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			I respect cows, pigs and sheep as much as any other animal for those of you-weird and wonderful ones-who think different of me. I am however, a realist and humans still have to consume some good source of protein as intended by nature.

There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves. Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is. 

Good riddance to you small minded, backward people.
		
Click to expand...


You KNOW there are sources of protein other than meat. You KNOW people don't need to eat meat to survive. Your belligerence is astonishing and tiresome. How you can continue with this completely opinion based argument, based entirely on your own ideas of what you think is right and wrong with no evidence to support your claims whatsoever, is frankly impressive. By eating meat YOU PARTAKE IN THE NEEDLESS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS, so stop being so pedantic. I equally partake in this, I have no qualms with this, but I am fully aware that meat eating is a choice I have made, I respect livestock and equally respect the farmers, slaughtermen and butchers involved in this trade. 

Good riddance to you also, AnaV. I am annoyed with myself for becoming drawn in by your mindless nonsense yet again.


----------



## happyhunter123 (22 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves.
		
Click to expand...

Says the one who never listened to anyone else's view, because they were (arrogantly) so certain of their own. AnaV, you clearly did not come here looking for a calm and considered debate, no matter how hard we tried. 




			Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is.
		
Click to expand...

You know nothing more of the topic of conversation than you did when you started, and you _still_ don't understand. Oh well. What difference is it going to make? I have plenty of morals, whatever you think! And I'm not backward either 

I think we 'reasoned' quite well.


----------



## VoR (24 February 2013)

Now AnaV, you earlier in this thread accused me of going 'off the point', abusing people of whom you have no knowledge of their true morals, education, beliefs, occupation and standing in a community has nothing to do with 'Justifying hunting as a sport' does it? 

I am sorry, you are hilarious in your support right here of bigoted and generalised opinions.


----------



## Nancykitt (24 February 2013)

At least the vegans can claim to divorce themselves completely from the slaughter of animals. What we have here is someone who has decided that it's perfectly OK to kill certain animals because we apparently need 'some good source of protein', but not acceptable to kill others, presumably at the poster's discretion. 
Actually, it's worse than that - it seems it is perfectly acceptable to raise and slaughter certain animals (possibly with limited attention to their welfare) while at the same time being utterly barbaric to kill others.

Nuff said. It's been good fun at times, but the sheer illogicality of the OP's 'argument' in this thread has left me shaking my head.


----------



## AnaV (25 February 2013)

VOR;
 Abusing other people? Nothing of the sort.


Nancykitt;
 I did leave but felt it necessary to point this out.

*Slaughtering animals for consumption*; involves animals being raised in good conditions, slaughtered the same pain free way (in well run abbattoirs) and in the end killed for an actual reason-necessary consumption .

*Slaughtering animals whilst hunting*; involves the killing of animals and in the end for no reason. 

Still hard to grasp in your narrow mind?


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			VOR;
 .....

Nancykitt;
 I did leave but felt it necessary to point this out.

*Slaughtering animals for consumption*; ....... and in the end killed for an actual reason-necessary consumption .
.......

Still hard to grasp in your narrow mind?
		
Click to expand...

I feel quite sure that with your moral and high handed stance,  that you'll actually doubt the need for the slaughter of animals for consumption.  Only the narrow minded would fail to grasp the concept of vegetarianism.  I find the two parts of your post strangely at odds with each other.

Whilst we have your gracious attention,  could you let us know how your enquiries with the lacs went,  specifically the questions posted about Baronsdown Wood?  You did say that you'd make enquiries,  and report back.

As a matter of further interest,  you did claim to be a member of  that body.  Could you enquire,  is membership open to all?

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (26 February 2013)

Alec; 

I have spoken to the Supporter Group Relations Officer, who informed me that the deer at Baronsdown wood are free to roam in and out of their 'sanctuaries.' Therefore he means they are not trapped. Whether this is as true as he makes out I have not a clue for I have not been down there to witness it yet. Thus, if I find I have been misinformed incorrect data I shall discontinue my support for them.


----------



## Josie Joe (26 February 2013)

Do you know, I would just like to say a huge thankyou to all the articulate and eloquent people who have posted in support of hunting on this thread.  I can see how extremely frustrating it has been to some but it has given me more ideas to express myself better and the nuances of arguments from posters like JanetGeorge, Alec Swann, Combat Claire and plenty of others (sorry can't remember all the names) are a delight to read.  I don't know what AnaV is up to but in a weird way he/she/them/it has enabled all you fine people to put your thoughts down in such a way I am greatly relieved about the future of hunting.  The sense of community that we see round here, over and above the role of pest control is obviously spread in a similar way across the country - hurray!  So thank you again.


----------



## JanetGeorge (26 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Alec; 

I have spoken to the Supporter Group Relations Officer, who informed me that the deer at Baronsdown wood are free to roam in and out of their 'sanctuaries.' Therefore he means they are not trapped. Whether this is as true as he makes out I have not a clue for I have not been down there to witness it yet. Thus, if I find I have been misinformed incorrect data I shall discontinue my support for them.
		
Click to expand...

They CAN wander in and out - but they are encouraged to stay with feed provided - meaning there are too many animals at close quarters - seriously increasing the risks of passing TB - and worm infections!  It was about 1995 that The Spectator exposed the LACS 'treatment' (illegal) of deer on their sanctuaries with sheep wormer blocks (because the animals CAN leave before they had consumed a full 5 day dose, chances are the treatment was ineffective and added to the problem of wormer resistance.)

The increase in the incidence of bovine TB in the area makes the practice of encouraging close congregations of deer even MORE damaging to the health of the wild deer!


----------



## happyhunter123 (26 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			I have not been down there to witness it yet.
		
Click to expand...

Don't expect to be able to. Baronsdown is very private and is kept well away from the eyes of the public.


How much long, I wonder, will it be before they sell it?


----------



## AnaV (26 February 2013)

Josie Joe;

I had held my tongue throughout the entire thread. However, I cannot retain from dealing with this utter codswallop. Whilst you have all been preaching of fine 'english' and although I have tried to avert the subject due to the topic being based upon hunting, now feel it is once again necessary to mention this. If one is to post a finale reply on behalf of other fellow murderers, one must at least ensure that it is well formulated literature. The touching paragraph you gave was nothing of the sort. 

JanetGeorge;

It sounds as though the Baronsdown Wood deer are about as wild as the 'wild' ponies of the New Forest. It shows that they should perhaps change their current tactic as to how the wormer is administered.


----------



## Springy (26 February 2013)

Christ is this STILL rambling on 

Can I just bring peoples attention to the fact that this is the...

HORSE AND HOUND forum...... 

ie pro hunting???? ​
What responses did you expect

Honestly drop it now 

>>>>> wanders off shaking head


----------



## Nancykitt (26 February 2013)

AnaV - you are the queen of double standards! If you farm an animal and kill it for meat then that's perfectly acceptable. If you kill a wild animal for any reason - including meat - then you are a murderer. Fantastic. 

Josie Joe - thank you so much for your post. I reckon that if some of the general public could see the tripe that's been spouted on this thread by the likes of the OP, we'd have a lot more support for hunting! I have one friend who's already been converted!


----------



## AnaV (26 February 2013)

Springy; 


We are all well and truly aware that this is a website where many will be pro hunting, and many on the fence, which is why I initially chose this particular website.


Nancykitt;

Oh dearest when will you learn to read? Tis necessary consumption that is the fine reason as to why farmed animals may be killed. For when you hunt wild, animals it is merely for sport, not necessary consumption. Do read up on my footnotes I left for you particuarly. Queen of double standards I may be to you, yet that is in the eyes of you and those around you who too share your opinion. I have already stated the the mere truth, which appears to be what you cower from. I for one have also shared this invigorating yet petty thread with fellow acquaintances who have always been on the fence in terms of hunting, and your replies have made them ripple with laughter.


----------



## Molasses (26 February 2013)

Josie Joe said:



			Do you know, I would just like to say a huge thankyou to all the articulate and eloquent people who have posted in support of hunting on this thread.  I can see how extremely frustrating it has been to some but it has given me more ideas to express myself better and the nuances of arguments from posters like JanetGeorge, Alec Swann, Combat Claire and plenty of others (sorry can't remember all the names) are a delight to read.  I don't know what AnaV is up to but in a weird way he/she/them/it has enabled all you fine people to put your thoughts down in such a way I am greatly relieved about the future of hunting.  The sense of community that we see round here, over and above the role of pest control is obviously spread in a similar way across the country - hurray!  So thank you again.
		
Click to expand...

Bravo! Big Community Hugs!
Except for AnaV. No hug for AnaV


----------



## Littlelegs (26 February 2013)

I'm sorry op, but I have come to the conclusion you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, & incapable of reasoned debate. I have an image of you as one of the loons I regularly saw in Tescos pre ban, wearing 'ban the hunt' propaganda, whilst buying battery farmed eggs & factory farmed meat. As such you really aren't worth engaging with further. Completely & utterly bonkers.


----------



## Nancykitt (26 February 2013)

Hahahahaha! I cower from the truth? - NOT!!!  Well, we're all murderers, apparently. I can live with that. 

Oh, but I do love a bit of venison. So am I allowed to eat it, if it's from a wild deer that has been shot? Or, if I want to eat venison, do I have to buy it from someone who farms it? 
If I eat the former, I'm a murderer, right? But if I eat the latter I can be part of your circle of approval? I'm really struggling with this concept, probably due to my 'narrow mind.'
Sorry, but I've eaten venison from wild deer and at least I knew what it was, where it came from and how it died. I'd much rather eat that than the dubious stuff that's been knocking about recently, most of which is of uncertain origin to say the least. How do you know - absolutely 100% for sure - that the animals you're eating didn't suffer at some stage? Be honest, you can't know for sure. 

AnaV, it doesn't surprise me that your friends - imaginary as well as real - are amused by our writing. But you're obviously mistaking me for someone who gives two hoots.

I cannot speak for anyone else on this forum, but I was once very, very anti-hunting and even considered joining LACS. So as far as your 'truth' is concerned - I've been there, done that, listened, learnt, researched - and made up my own mind. It might be a 'narrow mind' to you, but the way I see it, I've been in your shoes and now I'm more than one step ahead.


----------



## happyhunter123 (26 February 2013)

Now, I'm concerned that things may be getting a little personal here, so let's remember to keep it nice (but firm)! We need to calmly and politely try and educate AnaV, not offend them! AnaV, the same to you! 

AnaV-the definition of 'narrow mindedness' is not 'someone who has a differing opinion to me'. If you want to see narrow mindedness, look no further than the hate-filled hunt sabs and LACS members. You should try and make up your own mind!


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			Oh dearest when will you learn to read? Tis necessary consumption that is the fine reason as to why farmed animals may be killed. For when you hunt wild, animals it is merely for sport, not necessary consumption. .......
		
Click to expand...

Ah,  I see,  we seem to be making progress (some hope of that ).  So let me get this right;  that an animal spends its life in a cage,  for we humans to eat,  is OK with you,  but should an animal enjoy a life of freedom,  and in the cases of Hares and Deer,  should it run the risk of losing its life,  in the name of sport and to be consumed by man,  that's wrong,  is it?

anav,  your level of intellect and your level of reasoning are beyond the reasoning of the common man.  I am such a man,  common,  and will now leave you to your irrational and amusing vagaries!! 

Alec.


----------



## AnaV (26 February 2013)

Littlelegs; 

Do stop fantasizing about my image, when your imagination (which has proven miraculous and non stereotypical) can be used elsewhere.

Nancykitt;

Why not be less selfish and be grateful for what you already have farmed and ready to eat? Choosing to eat venison is unecessary killing. Speak for yourself, you clearly do not give two hoots for keep returning and posting.

No one is for sure how livestock/cattle is raised and lives its last moments in the abbatoir unless undercover cameras are equipped at all times. I do believe England as a nation is working toward the better upbringing of our farmed food, but you would have to be the pessimist amongst the nation of realists. Instead of focusing energy on helping a better future for cows/sheep/pigs and so on you would rather eat venison, a minority, just for taste. 

As for you having been one to stand up for animals, that's fantastic, where is 'gunna?' going to get you/people? Not far. I too have done my research, learnt and made up my mind. Having grown around those who hunt, I know of your ways, however, was never subdued into your way of thinking, and I too am one fond of galloping across fields on my horse. To me Nancykitt you and your fellows are simply, one step behind, whereby you are happy to end a life, not yours, but another beings. That to me is backward.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

AnaV said:



			....... To me Nancykitt you and your fellows are simply, one step behind, whereby you are happy to end a life, not yours, but another beings. That to me is backward.
		
Click to expand...

Unless of course,  you have it arrive in a sanitised package,  and you want to eat it.  That's OK is it?

Come along now  ana dear,  wake up. 

Alec.


----------



## maccachic (27 February 2013)

Oh dear (scuse the pun) but really what if someone can't afford the pretty meat in shiny packages from the supermarket and instead hunts their own, then what? Is this allowed under your rules.

What about all the chemicals that farmed animals are exposed to? 
Treatments to prolong the shelf life of meat etc.

Really think it is better for you?


----------



## Nancykitt (27 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Ah,  I see,  we seem to be making progress (some hope of that ).  So let me get this right;  that an animal spends its life in a cage,  for we humans to eat,  is OK with you,  but should an animal enjoy a life of freedom,  and in the cases of Hares and Deer,  should it run the risk of losing its life,  in the name of sport and to be consumed by man,  that's wrong,  is it?

anav,  your level of intellect and your level of reasoning are beyond the reasoning of the common man.  I am such a man,  common,  and will now leave you to your irrational and amusing vagaries!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Very nicely put, Alec. This is what I'm struggling with. Presumably AnaV is OK with the 'unecessary' killing of bull calves, the intensive farming of pigs, etc etc - and as for lamb, very tasty, but some of the newborns are just going to have to put up with suffering an awful death in the jaws of the fox so that she and her friends can enjoy it?

So many of the posts referred to 'nature' (eg, it's in the fox's nature to hunt, this is nature, etc etc). If anyone believes that humans are omniverous, then it must be acknowledged that, in 'nature', humans are hunters and have been for many, many years.


----------



## combat_claire (27 February 2013)

I wonder if AnaV wrote this letter to the papers!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/426164_313284388775255_925273789_n.jpg


----------



## EAST KENT (1 March 2013)

Hey..could any of you tell me how they "breed hares for coursing" in Eire??Latest idiot claim ,but apart from just leaving them alone I cannot quite see how this is achieved,anyone??


----------



## Alec Swan (5 March 2013)

EAST KENT,

I'm with you,  without question,  but one of the problems of our world is that if we don't respond,  if we don't defend our heritage,  if we allow the clowns who wont have clay pigeons shot,  because it's cruel,  to influence those with even less understanding (if that's imaginable),  then we will be seen to accept that the ridiculous claims made by those who have no interest in wildlife,  but rather their own distorted view points,  will have a degree of credibility.    

We stand against those who will direct our valued and worthwhile wildlife,  into the neatly apportioned but misdirected pigeon holes,  that they would persuade our world,  have a degree of morality.

I've had many lengthy,  face to face discussions with those who disagree with me,  and they always stumble at one important question and point,  to whit;  "How do you suppose that we have arrived at the current healthy and supported and vibrant state of our wildlife,  were it not for the management systems of centuries"?  I then ask them if they would have all that work change,  but only because of *their* opinion.  Generally silence follows.  

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (6 March 2013)

Seriously..HOW do you "breed" hares?knowing their habits just cannot see how that is possible myself,so apart from leaving downland etc for them to get on with it..what else is/can be done to encourage numbers?
The same rather overweight source suggested catching up and "spaying" badgers..all the while stuffing a beef sandwich down her face.So So Funny. 
   Why the concept of conservation and control being one and the same is completely beyond their ken just defeats me.However,winding them up is another form of sport


----------



## Alec Swan (7 March 2013)

EAST KENT said:



			Seriously..HOW do you "breed" hares?.......
		
Click to expand...

Actually,  it's a relatively simple process,  and what you do,  is this;  You create an environment which is conducive for them to reproduce.  I'll agree that by creating such an environment,  and by offering a sheltered and protected home-land,  it could be considered to be artificial,  but then with all Field Sports,  creating a habitat which suits our potential quarry,  ALSO fosters the same environment for all of our other and reliant wildlife.  

Go to the land where the Forester is king,  and I will show you near desolation.  Go to the land where the Gamekeeper is king,  and I'll show you wildlife,  in abundance.  

Strangely,  and I can't explain why,  all so many "Reserves",  where there is no thought about sport,  are limited and sanitised and somehow lacking.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (8 March 2013)

AnaV said:



			and live a content, life with no morals

small minded, backward people.
		
Click to expand...

Not abuse hey? You really are a one!


----------



## Serenity087 (11 March 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Actually,  it's a relatively simple process,  and what you do,  is this;  You create an environment which is conducive for them to reproduce.  I'll agree that by creating such an environment,  and by offering a sheltered and protected home-land,  it could be considered to be artificial,  but then with all Field Sports,  creating a habitat which suits our potential quarry,  ALSO fosters the same environment for all of our other and reliant wildlife.  

Go to the land where the Forester is king,  and I will show you near desolation.  Go to the land where the Gamekeeper is king,  and I'll show you wildlife,  in abundance.  

Strangely,  and I can't explain why,  all so many "Reserves",  where there is no thought about sport,  are limited and sanitised and somehow lacking.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think the jist is that a sportsman understands the circle of life and the importance of death when he creates an environment, so he factors it in.
A naturist will try and avoid death, so they factor it out.
But without death, there can be no life.

My father helps run a small pheasant shoot.  They have a deal with the owners that they are in charge of managing the gorse as it suits the shoot because they do a damn good job of it and they pay the owners for the privilage to do it!

So the owners end up getting paid for the pleasure of having one of the richest spots of wildlife around (and they have everything, I've seen woodcock, pheasant, redwing, tawny owls, sparrowhawks, deer, hare, rabbits, foxes...).

But it works out better because the owners couldn't have such a thriving reserve on their own if they paid someone to do it!


----------



## squidsin (12 March 2013)

Hello people. I am new to this forum, new to horse owning, my lovely mare is an ex-hunter and I've got friends who hunt so I've been thinking of giving it a go but I've always been opposed to the idea of fox-hunting - it's not natural for horses to do, either, they're prey animals themselves. I appreciate many of you will feel differently and that's fine - in the greater scheme of things, a few more or less foxes isn't a big deal - but I just wondered, isn't the fun of riding and jumping about with mates the point of hunting, rather than the kill? Am I the only person who thinks drag-hunting sounds a lot more awesome than fox-hunting? Also, if I do go drag-hunting, should I keep my anti-fox hunting views to myself?


----------



## combat_claire (12 March 2013)

squidsin said:



			Hello people. I am new to this forum, new to horse owning, my lovely mare is an ex-hunter and I've got friends who hunt so I've been thinking of giving it a go but I've always been opposed to the idea of fox-hunting - it's not natural for horses to do, either, they're prey animals themselves. I appreciate many of you will feel differently and that's fine - in the greater scheme of things, a few more or less foxes isn't a big deal - but I just wondered, isn't the fun of riding and jumping about with mates the point of hunting, rather than the kill? Am I the only person who thinks drag-hunting sounds a lot more awesome than fox-hunting? Also, if I do go drag-hunting, should I keep my anti-fox hunting views to myself? 

Click to expand...

There are probably as many reasons to go hunting as people who go hunting. I'd agree that that the kill is a very small part of the reasons. Reasons that range from foot followers like myself & Countryman who enjoy watching hounds work to the elderly gentlemen who follow sedately on horseback and enjoy the company through to the thrusters who like the challenge of crossing unknown country and the thrill of never knowing what is coming up next.


----------



## happyhunter123 (12 March 2013)

I've been thinking of giving it a go but I've always been opposed to the idea of fox-hunting - it's not natural for horses to do, either, they're prey animals themselves
		
Click to expand...

Hm, I'm not sure if you entirely understand what hunting is all about! The horses wouldn't hunt the foxes, and neither do you! The 'hunting' side of hunting, what the hounds do, is purely a spectator activity. The hounds are the ones that hunt, with assistance from hunt staff. All you do is gallop after them! 



squidsin said:



			sn't the fun of riding and jumping about with mates the point of hunting, rather than the kill? Am I the only person who thinks drag-hunting sounds a lot more awesome than fox-hunting? Also, if I do go drag-hunting, should I keep my anti-fox hunting views to myself? 

Click to expand...

Drag-hunting and fox hunting would look exactly the same from a non-experienced person's point of view. The idea is the same-you either follow the scent of a rag or follow the scent of a fox. However, following the scent of a fox is much more exciting, much more unpredictable, and far more interesting in terms of hound work. You go, basically, in the hope that you'll get a good run. The kill is important *only* to the hounds and the farmers. And fox hunting, of course serves (or served) as far more useful to the countryside than drag hunting!  
It is a common misconception that people hunt for the kill, and in my eyes that view makes _no sense_. Not if you have any experience of the activity. 

_By the way, I assume that you live in Eng/Wales/Scot, so hunting here will generally be trail (similar to drag) hunting. Foxes may also be killed during the day as part of legal fox control measures._


----------



## squidsin (12 March 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			Hm, I'm not sure if you entirely understand what hunting is all about! The horses wouldn't hunt the foxes, and neither do you! The 'hunting' side of hunting, what the hounds do, is purely a spectator activity. The hounds are the ones that hunt, with assistance from hunt staff. All you do is gallop after them! 



Drag-hunting and fox hunting would look exactly the same from a non-experienced person's point of view. The idea is the same-you either follow the scent of a rag or follow the scent of a fox. However, following the scent of a fox is much more exciting, much more unpredictable, and far more interesting in terms of hound work. You go, basically, in the hope that you'll get a good run. The kill is important *only* to the hounds and the farmers. And fox hunting, of course serves (or served) as far more useful to the countryside than drag hunting!  
It is a common misconception that people hunt for the kill, and in my eyes that view makes _no sense_. Not if you have any experience of the activity. 

_By the way, I assume that you live in Eng/Wales/Scot, so hunting here will generally be trail (similar to drag) hunting. Foxes may also be killed during the day as part of legal fox control measures._

Click to expand...

I live in Bucks, I think it's drag hunting round here - and yes I do understand the concept of hunting, although I've never been hunting myself. I'm aware the horses themselves don't actually hunt, as they can't, nonetheless they're involved in a hunt and I'm just not convinced that it's a happy environment for them, going against all their natural instincts as it does, surrounded by predators. That sort of puts me off - particularly as my own horse, although an ex hunter, is terrified of dogs, which possibly indicates a bad experience with one at some point. BUT drag hunting sounds like amazing fun. I'm not criticising people who want to hunt - I've no problem with shooting or culling so long as it's a quick death, but personally, I think being hunted down isn't a pleasant way to go. That said, my own opinion of the hunting ban is that it was primarily a smokescreen for the government at the time, distracting from more important issues but making them look as if they were doing something 'leftie' (and I say that as a leftie myself!) I'm just trying to work out if it's something I want to try, really.


----------



## happyhunter123 (12 March 2013)

squidsin said:



			I live in Bucks, I think it's drag hunting round here .
		
Click to expand...

Well, you have the Berks & Bucks Draghounds as well as the Kimblewick, the Bicester with Whaddon Chase and the Oakley as mounted packs around you. 



squidsin said:



			I'm aware the horses themselves don't actually hunt, as they can't, nonetheless they're involved in a hunt and I'm just not convinced that it's a happy environment for them
		
Click to expand...

That's completely untrue! Many (not all maybe, but a great many) horses absolutely _love_ hunting. They aren't 'involved in a hunt', they just follow. You must always consider being a member of the field as being a spectator of the actual hunting. 



squidsin said:



			I'm not criticising people who want to hunt - I've no problem with shooting or culling so long as it's a quick death, but personally, I think being hunted down isn't a pleasant way to go
		
Click to expand...

It's a violent, but very fast and therefore fairly painless way to go!

Why not give hunting a try? Chances are if you go with a foxhound pack it'll only be trail hunting anyway. Most packs are very welcoming to newcomers


----------



## cptrayes (12 March 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			However, following the scent of a fox is much more exciting
		
Click to expand...

You speak for yourself!

I've had more excitement drag hunting than I ever did fox hunting.


----------



## cptrayes (12 March 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			It's a violent, *but very fast* and therefore fairly painless way to go!
		
Click to expand...


Not if you count the chase, and especially not if you count putting in terriers to bring out one that's gone to earth after a long run. It can be a prolonged experience for the fox before it is killed, as the best celebrated runs in H&H magazine always were.


----------



## happyhunter123 (12 March 2013)

cptrayes said:



			You speak for yourself!

I've had more excitement drag hunting than I ever did fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

But you probably have no interest in hounds or hound work!


----------



## happyhunter123 (12 March 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Not if you count the chase, and especially not if you count putting in terriers to bring out one that's gone to earth after a long run. It can be a prolonged experience for the fox before it is killed, as the best celebrated runs in H&H magazine always were.
		
Click to expand...

We've had this exact same argument before! The longest chases, in my experience, often ended in the fox escaping! It was the short, twisting chases where he was likely to double back or make a similar mistake where you most often caught him. I still don't think that the fox knows he is being chased for most of the time. 
Terrier work is a different matter-it goes on alongside hunting. It is also very commonly practiced away from the hunting field anyway. Hunting can proceed without terrier work needing to take place-terrier work is purely a form of fox control and nothing else!


----------



## cptrayes (13 March 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			But you probably have no interest in hounds or hound work!
		
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.  You made a flat statement that fox hunting was more exciting than drag hunting. You didn't say "for me", you said it as if it was the same for everyone. I was pointing out that it is not the same for everyone and that I get more excitement from drag hunting.


----------



## cptrayes (13 March 2013)

happyhunter123 said:



			We've had this exact same argument before! The longest chases, in my experience, often ended in the fox escaping!
		
Click to expand...


And that's OK is it? All it means is that the death, when it finally does come, has been after many chases. That simply prolongs the death experience, don't you see that? You cannot reasonably, in my view, claim that a death from being hunted with hounds is fast. 




			I still don't think that the fox knows he is being chased for most of the time.
		
Click to expand...

I gave up hunting fox because I saw for myself one fox who knew for a certainty that he was running for his life. I could not go again after that.


----------



## langtonhighway (20 March 2013)

I have an interesting perspective on this having hunted extensively with several packs for all of my childhood.  Then as an adult becoming sickened at the digging out and other associated cruelty which does undoubtedly happen alongside "ordinary" hunting.

I stopped hunting.  then realising my hypocrisy i became vegetarian.  then vegan.

but i still loved hunting!!!  so I started bloodhounding.  Which is great, but not the same.

So, although i am anti=hunting, and know it is cruel, as is eating meat or otherwise using animals as if they were not sentient, I cannot bring myself not to thrill at the horn or the sound of hounds speaking......

I remain conflicted


----------



## cptrayes (20 March 2013)

EAST KENT said:



			Seriously..HOW do you "breed" hares?
		
Click to expand...




Alec Swan said:



			Actually,  it's a relatively simple process,  and what you do,  is this;  You create an environment which is conducive for them to reproduce.  I'll agree that by creating such an environment,  and by offering a sheltered and protected home-land,  it could be considered to be artificial

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

So how come you were so insistent earlier on with me, Alec, that you do not breed grouse to shoot?


----------



## EAST KENT (20 March 2013)

Oh I understood the idea of conserving environment to promote the breeding of species for shooting/hunting,but this person seemed to imagine battery farming the hare,and not many hares would oblige I feel.
   Houndwork is everything,totally fascinating to see how a breeze can carry a scent so that hounds follow fifty yards away from the actual scent layed.Real hunting is completely unpredictable, that is it`s charm.That is why for a lot of countries a huge jumping blood horse is not needed,even a handy cob can give the rider a good day out.
  No scent layer can replicate the wiley tricks a fox uses to throw his scent,personally witnessed,not hearsay,what an idiot law in an idiot country.


----------

