# Ipsos mori poll



## VoR (27 December 2013)

So it seems that LACS have commissioned a poll which 'proves' that 80% of the British public are against fox hunting, the question was introduced with the line;

"Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them....."

So not an emotive question then! The interesting thing is, that there aren't 80% of the public who understand the reasons for hunting and when it is placed in the same category as dog fighting and badger baiting as it was in this survey AND the question is asked in this was, hardly surprising that the outcome is so against!

So, I've done my own 'straw poll'. Yesterday, at Boxing Day meet there were huge crowds on foot  who saw us off with loud cheers and applause.....so that's a good number in support. On the way to the first 'draw' we travelled along a busy road, roughly 100 cars passed us on the way, I estimate 70 of the occupants were smiling, waving and taking photos.....hardly anti....20-28 either ignored us completely or simply acknowledged that we moved over for them....lets call them 'don't knows', 2 gave not very complimentary hand gestures and or looked pretty angry.....unclear if that was because we held them up or because we were 'hunting'.

Hardly seems to back up the massive swing against hunting with hounds now does it!! :wink4:


----------



## VoR (27 December 2013)

Oh and this was a HUGE poll of 1983 people.......................in a population of over 60million!!!???


----------



## Countryman (27 December 2013)

And of course, their definition of "rural areas" might well be the one used by some agencies, to mean almost everywhere that isn't an officially recognised city...


----------



## pansy (27 December 2013)

For what its worth - I went on foot to Boxing Day meet yesterday - the hunt has recently merged & had 2 meets there were an awful lot of people there showing support, I have also seen pictures & videos on fb from the other meet & another local Hunts meet they also looked very well supported x


----------



## marianne1981 (27 December 2013)

You can pretend all you like, but the majority of the public in the UK are against it. In essence, although emotively worded, in fox hunting, you are indeed setting one animal on another!


----------



## Sherston (27 December 2013)

It is interesting how the LACS always rely on "a majority of the population..........." as the basis for their position. Other important issues are never resolved by a "majority of the population........" position, such as economic and foreign policy because the population are not suitably educated to make an informed decision.

In the instance of fox hunting I would say that less than 1% of the population actually know enough about hunting with hounds or its alternatives to make an informed contribution to the debate (and the 99% actually includes quite a few people who do hunt), as Marianne proves with her inept simplification, not that she hunts of course. 

The problem is that when you present an uneducated 99% with an uninformed 80% reaction most people are not even in the conscious incompetence position but are in the position of unconscious incompetence.

As the Labour party admitted (Prescott)- "the fox hunting ban had nothing to do with foxes", and Skinner "that's one back for the miners".


----------



## Countryman (27 December 2013)

I suspect if a truly representative survey were done, without skewed weighting of voting intention, definitons of rural areas etc, it would be more like 60% against in urban areas, and 80% for in rural areas. Of course, of the 60% in the cities who might be against, only 10% actually care about it enough to even sign a petition or cross the street to read a leaflet, most who claim to be against it are fairly indifferent. 

In any case, we do not have absolute democracy-thankfully! That would result in tyranny by majority.
After all, if 51% of the population voted to execute all illegal immigrants in England, the government would not carry it through - thankfully.


----------



## marianne1981 (27 December 2013)

Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.


----------



## Countryman (28 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.
		
Click to expand...

No Marianne-Hunting is not about setting an animal on another. It is about setting an animal on the scent of another. That is what hunting is about.


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2013)

QUOTE=Countryman;12224509]No Marianne-Hunting is not about setting an animal on another. It is about setting an animal on the scent of another. That is what hunting is about.[/QUOTE]

This whole subject has not been thought through to the end, because and in the very unlikely event a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The aftermath would be hideous.

The Sabs and Antis would become even more militant.

Once given their 'holy chalace' of a ban, they will fight with venomous agression to regain that which they had.

Frankly I would not wish to be anywhere near a pack or a participant in any pack of hounds hunting a live quarry post repeal. Largely for my own safety.

Those who peddle the notion of a repeal are deluding themselves and many others. I suspect for financial gain.


----------



## Patterdale (28 December 2013)

Judgemental said:



			This whole subject has not been thought through to the end, because and in the very unlikely event a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The aftermath would be hideous.

The Sabs and Antis would become even more militant.

Once given their 'holy chalace' of a ban, they will fight with venomous agression to regain that which they had.

Frankly I would not wish to be anywhere near a pack or a participant in any pack of hounds hunting a live quarry post repeal. Largely for my own safety.

Those who peddle the notion of a repeal are deluding themselves and many others. I suspect for financial gain.
		
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. 
Having hunted lots I was very worried about what would happen post ban. But now that the ban is firmly here, surprisingly I don't think that hunting has been in a better place for years. 
It is seen as more inclusive, modern, and less divisive than ever before. More people are hunting now than pre-ban. 

Plus, I think that the point about sabs becoming dangerously militant if the ban was repealed is a very good one. They've killed at least one hunt supporter while the ban is in place - how many more if it were repealed?

The only loser to the ban that I can see is the fox. They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die. Some farmers will resort to putting snares out at lambing time and more and more foxes are being shot (and not always cleanly). 
At least hunting with hounds is selective, and helps to promote a healthy but controlled fox population.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 December 2013)

I once lived with a lady who managed a large Market Research company.  To achieve the results that they wanted,  certain sections of the population were targeted,  and questioned.  When the drinking habits of those who imbibe were needed,  for instance,  then pubs were the target area.  

Such research was never intended to be all encompassing,  and it clearly wasn't.  The lacs have a targeted and carefully selected group,  and to now claim that their results are the general view,  of the general public,  is nonsense.  And before anyone offers Mori up as being above suspicion of collusion,  then we need to ask the question "Who were funding the research,  and would it be conceivable that parameters were issued along with the opening agreement"?  Of course they were,  and to suggest that this is a justly achieved or accurate report,  is nonsense.  

Once again the lacs are wasting money on biased,  worthless and distorted "research".

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2013)

SnowOnSnow said:



			I actually agree with this. 
Having hunted lots I was very worried about what would happen post ban. But now that the ban is firmly here, surprisingly I don't think that hunting has been in a better place for years. 
It is seen as more inclusive, modern, and less divisive than ever before. More people are hunting now than pre-ban. 

Plus, I think that the point about sabs becoming dangerously militant if the ban was repealed is a very good one. They've killed at least one hunt supporter while the ban is in place - how many more if it were repealed?

The only loser to the ban that I can see is the fox. They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die. Some farmers will resort to putting snares out at lambing time and more and more foxes are being shot (and not always cleanly). 
At least hunting with hounds is selective, and helps to promote a healthy but controlled fox population.
		
Click to expand...

For some time I have been thinking that it might be better to forget about any repeal.

Just accept the position and tell the 'movers and shakers' in Parliament that there is no appetite for any repeal.

The too right of right, vain glorious drivers for repeal, will be redundant which will present hunting in a far better light. 

In which case I believe the pressure from 'Hunt Monitors', Sabs and Antis will simply diminish.  

If the war is over and peace has broken out, what is there to fight about. Indeed I am certain that all hunts who follow a trail will have far more enjoyable days.


----------



## VoR (28 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that, when hearing any argument or explanation human nature will always be that your own views and opinions will override them and largely, due to many things within your past which have made you what you are will mean that any arguments will be futile. 

For what it's worth I wasn't born in to a hunting family or within a particularly 'hunt focused area' although it was rural. My background is extremely working class, my parents ultra-staunch socialists, therefore I understand how and why the class issue affects any views on hunting, just look at any discussion forums outside HH to see comments about 'Toffs' and so on. I have in the past mixed with others who have anti-bloodsport, highly animal rights supportive views, so can understand their views and feelings. 

That said having started to ride late in life and finding hunting slightly later, I have been exposed to those that hunt, listened to their views and on balance, feel that hunting is not as 'cruel' as people believe, that the strong healthy fox will, on most occasions 'out-wit' the hound and therefore believe that the majority of foxes that would be 'taken', should hunting be allowed, would be the ill and aged, those in fact that are most likely to cause a 'nuisance' to stockholders. Furthermore, most I have met within hunting circles cannot be described as 'Toffs' and for the most part have a healthy respect for wildlife and the environment.....maybe NOT what you want to hear.

Whilst a repeal would be good I agree a) it is unlikely and b) might lead to carnage as those with 'extreme' views would appear from the woodwork, ably supported by 'rent-a-mob' who fancied 'having-a-go' at the 'Toffs' and/or the Police. We should maybe let 'sleeping hounds lie'!!

Finally, those good people who feel that the hunting act has been a great success might like to speak to one or two 'young guns' I have heard about who are having a wonderful time running around the countryside in certain areas shooting foxes regardless of health or age........35 in a week is apparently their current record locally. Would this have happened pre. ban? Who knows, but farmers might be less welcoming of them if hunting were allowed perhaps.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.
		
Click to expand...

The problem I suspect,  is that along with others,  you want the world that we live in to be sanitised,  and acceptable to you,  and you believe that it's your views,  and yours alone which matter,  regarding how I live my life,  and I assure you,  that for as long as I have breath in my body,  I will resist your attempts at such tyrannical structure.

Do you eat meat?  Assuming that you do,  would you be prepared to acquiesce to the wishes of those who would have us all living a meat free life,  and whilst we're at it,  perhaps you could consider the views of the most extreme of vegans.  Let's face it,  they have views which would cover your perceived and evil ways.  How would you justify your behaviour to a vegan (assuming that you'd bother)?

Your point that most of us have grown up without questioning what we appear to condone,  is a long way off the mark.  We do (those of us with a conscience),  question what we do,  constantly some of us,  and it's those questions which have modelled our level of conduct and we refer to it as our standards,  which also cover our attitude towards our prey.  I wouldn't expect you to now have a clue what I'm on about.  That isn't intended as a patronising remark,  even if that's how it sounds,  it's just born of listening to those who refuse to,  themselves listen.  

In your post you accept that you don't understand,  there are things in life which I don't understand either,  but I accept them for what they are,  perhaps you could do the same.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2013)

VoR said:



			. We should maybe let 'sleeping hounds lie'!!
		
Click to expand...

Wise and prudent words.


----------



## marianne1981 (28 December 2013)

I am a long time vegetarian (20yrs since 12), not vegan as I do eat cheese but dont eat fish, gelatin etc. For those of you who say that hunting takes out the sick and old-what about the many healthy foxes that simply go to ground and are dug out and shot by the terriermen anyway, even after outwitting the hounds? That isnt right, there is no sporting chance there!! As I had said some time ago, if foxes were such a threat to livestock, why would anyone be stupid enough to introduce them to the Isle of Wight? To hunt them of course!! I dont get that do you?!!


----------



## Alec Swan (28 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			I am a long time vegetarian (20yrs since 12), not vegan as I do eat cheese but dont eat fish, gelatin etc. .......
		
Click to expand...

So as you're just a modest veggie,  how would you counter the argument of the vegan?  How would you explain to the vegan that you are right,  and that they are wrong?

Serious question,  and I'd be grateful for your explanation.

Alec.


----------



## marianne1981 (28 December 2013)

I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products. As long as the animals are kept in good, humane conditions. I will pay more for example, to make sure my eggs are truly free range, not just "barn fresh". What I object to is the manner in which hunting is carried out. What do you think, Alec, about foxes being introduced to the Isle of Wight if they are a pest more than anything? By the way Alec and Judgemental I do admire your posts as you speak very well about this.


----------



## MrsNorris (28 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products. As long as the animals are kept in good, humane conditions. I will pay more for example, to make sure my eggs are truly free range, not just "barn fresh". What I object to is the manner in which hunting is carried out. What do you think, Alec, about foxes being introduced to the Isle of Wight if they are a pest more than anything? By the way Alec and Judgemental I do admire your posts as you speak very well about this.
		
Click to expand...

You may not need to kill an animal to eat dairy products, but as any vegan will tell you, the dairy industry is responsible for the large-scale slaughter of very young male calfs, which are of no use, in order to keep the cows producing milk. 
There are far worse abuses of all types of food animals going on worldwide which, IMO, would be far more deserving of peoples attention, rather than the death of a relatively small number of foxes, who, after all, have lived a wild and free life, and are killed quickly once caught.


----------



## Starbucks (29 December 2013)

I would really like to know where all these people come from. I used to be scared of telling people I hunt but I don't know why. I work in finance with city folk and general responses tend to be 'awesome' or 'I don't give a *****/care/understand enough to make a comment'

Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2013)

Starbucks said:



			........ I work in finance with city folk and general responses tend to be 'awesome' or 'I don't give a ****/care/understand enough to make a comment'

Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!
		
Click to expand...

I think that this Hunting section of HHO should carry that as a banner heading!  Well said.

Alec.


----------



## Pale Rider (29 December 2013)

FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.


----------



## CaleruxShearer (29 December 2013)

Pale Rider said:



			FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.
		
Click to expand...

But it's not! Even the daily mail had to point out on Boxing Day the ways in which hunting is in fact legal! Hence why at every single meet you will hear the master say 'today we will be hunting within the law'.


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2013)

Pale Rider said:



			FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.
		
Click to expand...

You are correct. Indeed one is criminalised by association.

As I have advocated for some considerable time, only the use of the Statutory Instrument will ameliorate the situation.

However and sadly, those who drive the 'vehicle' are as thick as two short planks put together with a six foot gap in the middle. Thus any sort of accomodation is highly unlikely.


----------



## marianne1981 (29 December 2013)

It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! I very much doubt that the hunting ban will ever be lifted, it would seem a real step back in time, and I think this is why David Cameron is so reluctant to touch it (even though many pros blindly voted for him simply because he promised repeal).  He knows how out of touch he would appear to the majority of the British public. I know it's been banned in Germany for decades, it would be interesting to see how they now control foxes, or if they need to.


----------



## CaleruxShearer (29 December 2013)

marianne1981 said:



			It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! I very much doubt that the hunting ban will ever be lifted, it would seem a real step back in time, and I think this is why David Cameron is so reluctant to touch it (even though many pros blindly voted for him simply because he promised repeal).  He knows how out of touch he would appear to the majority of the British public. I know it's been banned in Germany for decades, it would be interesting to see how they now control foxes, or if they need to.
		
Click to expand...

I have just been googling this Marianne as I didn't realise there were no foxes on the Isle of Wight until they were introduced and it would appear you are absolutely right, they were introduced purely for hunting - although there was hunting on the island for many decades previous to the introduction of the fox. For those interested this is quite a good read: http://www.iwfoxhounds.com/history.php

I have to say, as much as I love my hunting I actually agree with you with regards to repeal, I suspect we won't see the ban lifted for the reasons you state. I am currently studying for an Agricultural Management degree and a couple of the guys on my course are from Germany, I shall ask them about methods of control there as they farm over there, one in the north and the other in the south. I didn't actually know it was banned in Germany as well.


----------



## marianne1981 (29 December 2013)

Yes can you believe, Hitler banned it, I dont get how he could think more of animals than people. It has been banned ever since! It's interesting, apparently they were introduced to America purely for hunting too!! Although the Americans do surprisingly give the fox a sporting chance, and if it goes to ground then it is left alone. You see, if if UK hunting was more like this, I may have more sympathy with it. An exhausted, healthy fox which has simply gone to ground, evaded the hounds, should not be dug at and shot anyway. That is not a sporting chance!! It goes to show though, if fox hunting was purely for fox control as many defend it, it would be lunacy to literally introduce them to a place that they wernt native to before, just for the "fun" of hunting. That is not conservation!


----------



## Countryman (29 December 2013)

It's true and fascinating that in centuries past, in some areas foxes were practically an endangered species-so it's true they introduced foxes on the IOW to hunt. They also did lots of other immoral things that nobody would consider now!

Marianne look you need to understand-you say hunting isn't pest control, but then, in the USA, where it is purely sport, you agree with it? 

Digging out only occurs if the landowner requests it, eg with a 'problem fox'. Essentially digging out=the pest control element, hunting with hounds=the selector management f the species, and the riding=the sport.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2013)

Reply to Thread
Post a reply to the thread: Ipsos mori poll
Preview
 Re: Ipsos mori poll
_ "Originally Posted by marianne1981  
It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! ........"
_

Whilst there will be hill areas where the depredation upon hill lambing sheep means that foxes have to be killed, and by any legal means possible, never run away with the idea that the fashionable packs are solely in place for vermin control. The hunting of the fox is sport, pure and simple, and the reason why foxes were introduced to the IOW, was for the very same reason that in the Quorn, the Pytchley and in the country of others, the coverts were heavily protected and all for the promotion of hunting, and quite rightly so, in my opinion. A healthy fox population was to the benefit of all, including curiously, the fox!

I worked, back in the mid 1970s at Cornbury Park, as a game keeper, and my employer was Lord Rotherwick. Lordy was joint master of the Heythrop, and the killing of foxes was frowned upon. We (the 'keepers), still did it, but didn't actually publicise the fact!

The debate which surrounds hunting is a pointless exercise. Those who are opposed, either through welfare or perceived ethical grounds, when laying out their stall, will list simple facts which cannot be denied. They are reliant upon those facts, and for those who hunt to wriggle and squirm their ways around the facts, achieves nothing. No sensible conclusion can be reached without Hunting being considered as part of a complete picture, and as such and when seen in it's entirety, then hunting is a positive thing, and the countryside benefits form the pastime.  

Those who separate the differing issues of the debate,  and rely upon them solely,  have a flawed and weakened argument.  It may interest those who are opposed to hear that I don't hunt,  I never have,  and I never will,  but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the benefits to the countryside.

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (30 December 2013)

For pity's sake, fox hunting is banned. Hunting is more popular than ever, there is evidence to strongly suggest this is because more people now feel comfortable with the idea. Things change, it happens every day. 
Both sides can release distorted polls any time they like but it will be extremely unlikely that the ban will be repealed. Pretty sure everyone knows that but it's human nature to 'be right'. Pathetic


----------



## RunToEarth (30 December 2013)

Starbucks said:



			Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!
		
Click to expand...

I agree - I stopped "debating" fox hunting ages ago because most people are just so badly informed on anything to do with it, it would be a waste of my breath. 



			I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products.
		
Click to expand...

As for the veggie who refuses to eat meat on ethical grounds and still eats dairy products and no doubt eggs - absolutely laughable and proves my point of people being badly informed/ignorant to suit their own cause. The really ironic thing is, if there weren't a wealth of bunny huggers refusing to eat veal on "ethical" grounds there would be a market for it and we would not be shooting the large amount of bull calves which we do in the dairy industry.


----------



## Templebar (30 December 2013)

To inform those that believe all foxes that go to ground are dug out and shot, you are indeed wrong, i am a daughter of a farming family and do go hunting myself, before the ban was put in place even then no foxes were dug out and shot as we had no problem with them in our line of farming. It was purely the land owners decision to have foxes dug out and shot and that was to be done if there was a problem with them.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2013)

Templebar said:



			To inform those that believe all foxes that go to ground are dug out and shot, you are indeed wrong, i am a daughter of a farming family and do go hunting myself, before the ban was put in place even then no foxes were dug out and shot as we had no problem with them in our line of farming. It was purely the land owners decision to have foxes dug out and shot and that was to be done if there was a problem with them.
		
Click to expand...

Templebar has it exactly right. (This is all pre-ban obviously). Digging out is the pest control aspect of Hunting -  it is not the sport side, and it is not the selective management of a wild population side. It is pest control. By varying the proportion of foxes put to ground that you dig out and shoot, you can roughly control the size of the fox population of an area - if it is an area with too many foxes, you cull more, if it is an area with a lack of foxes, you dig none.


----------



## fburton (30 December 2013)

SnowOnSnow said:



			They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die.
		
Click to expand...

Does that mean the fox population is lower than it was before?

(I agree the LACS poll is highly questionable.)


----------



## marianne1981 (30 December 2013)

OK, but when fox hunting started, there were no cars on the roads that kill thousands each year. Surely that is enough? I had been lead to believe that hunts, in the big scheme of things, did not kill nearly enough to make any difference in their overall population and that it is a very inefficient method of pest control? Run to Earth what is wrong in me eating free range eggs (and I dont mean barn fresh, true free range).


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2013)

No, the number of foxes killed by cars is not enough to reduce the population. In any case, it would be a very haphazard way of doing things-hoping that each year enough would be killed by cars. Certainly, in some areas, like motorway embankments, it might be enough, but everywhere else, no.

The idea that hunts do not enough to make any difference to the overall population is a false one, though it may have been true a few hundred years ago, and doubtless, many antis would like to imagine it is true. What is true is that the main aim of hunting is not to cull, it is not to drastically reduce the population - it is mostly about selective management of a fox population, but there are two other key aspects - pest control, and sport. The sport is provided by the thrill of hard riding across lovely countryside and watching hounds work. The pest control is not provided directly by ordinary hunting-it is carried out largely through digging out foxes who have been put to ground. Thus, you can reduce the population - while some foxes would be killed by hounds anyway, in a heavily overfoxed country, you can dig lots of foxes that go to ground. In a part of the country where there are few foxes, you can leave most of them.

Remember, the acceptable level of fox density varies from place to place, depending on what the land is used for and what food sources are available to the fox. In a patch of scrubland in a city railway embankment, a large number of foxes could be supported, while in the sparse Scottish highlands, very few can be. 

My point is, hunts can and do impact on the overall fox population, and the pest control element of hunting, is largely provided by digging out.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 January 2014)

Countryman said:



			.......

My point is, hunts can and do impact on the overall fox population, and the pest control element of hunting, is largely provided by digging out.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I'll agree with you that hunting obviously impacts on a rural fox population,  it probably wouldn't be simply because of the numbers that are killed by hounds.  I'll admit to having no supporting evidence,  but it's my belief that when our vulpine population was hunted,  and land was maintained for just that purpose,  then we had a vibrant and comparatively healthy population.  Now that everyone and his neighbour has a c/f .22,  and is out at all times of the night,  it seems that we now actually have a greater population,  and the overall health seems to have declined.

Alec.


----------



## Darremi (3 January 2014)

marianne1981 said:



			OK, but when fox hunting started, there were no cars on the roads that kill thousands each year. Surely that is enough? I had been lead to believe that hunts, in the big scheme of things, did not kill nearly enough to make any difference in their overall population and that it is a very inefficient method of pest control? Run to Earth what is wrong in me eating free range eggs (and I dont mean barn fresh, true free range).
		
Click to expand...

Emm...you do realise that animals are sometimes kept in captivity in less than savoury conditions in order to produce dairy products?? Just because it is kept alive does not mean the animal had a happy existence...


----------



## fburton (5 January 2014)

Countryman said:



			No, the number of foxes killed by cars is not enough to reduce the population. In any case, it would be a very haphazard way of doing things-hoping that each year enough would be killed by cars. Certainly, in some areas, like motorway embankments, it might be enough, but everywhere else, no.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't the point that, barring a thorough culling, mere decimation of the fox population (by whatever means) doesn't produce any lasting reduction because the numbers recover within a year or two? Conversely, the population doesn't "explode", i.e. increase exponentially and/or indefinitely, if mortality is reduced (by whatever means) for precisely the reason you gave - the availability of food sources in any given habitat type - along with the limiting effect of the foxes' territorial lifestyle.


----------



## Orangehorse (5 January 2014)

Years and years and years ago, long before the ban, but there was plenty of opposition to hunting I was asked what I thought would be the future.  

I replied that I thought all hunts would be drag/trail hunts as the countryside was getting so overpopulated and a trail means you know where the hounds are going to run, but that the hunts would still be fox control organisations, so would be available to farmers to go and kill by digging out and shooting any problem foxes.  Not that far from what has happened.  

I see far fewer foxes out and about since the ban, but the local gamekeepers see to it that they are kept very well controlled as they are a real menace to shooting.

Our local hunt always starts the day saying that they will be hunting within the law.  Exactly what that means I don't know; the day doesn't seem to be that much different, but I am only an occasional observer.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 January 2014)

Regardless of the claims of the 'keeper,  the fox needs a degree of tacit protection.  That's the way that it's always been.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (6 January 2014)

I am aware of areas around us where the fox population has been virtually wiped out in the last few years as 'over-zealous', usually young and gung-ho shooters are let loose across land as we, the hunt are not able to do the job we once did for farmers. The most I've heard of so far is 35 foxes shot and killed (no details of how many wounded and dying a slow lingering death) in a week by one 'young-gun', not selective management, just wholesale slaughter, would this have happened if fox-hunting in its true form was still allowed????


----------



## marianne1981 (6 January 2014)

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?


----------



## Alec Swan (6 January 2014)

marianne1981 said:



			VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?
		
Click to expand...

Tell me,  at what stage has VoR mentioned foxes going to ground,  and being dug out?  As part of your learning curve,  allow me to explain to you that foxes which have gone to ground,  are generally given best,  and it's only in areas where there is serious and unacceptable vulpine depredation where the land owner will request that foxes be killed,  rather than providing sport,  or in areas where the population has grown beyond a manageable level.

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2014)

marianne1981 said:



			VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?
		
Click to expand...

Marianne, foxhunting in itself is indeed selective management. The hounds mostly catch the ill, weak and old.

However, Terrierwork is not selective management. This is why, in times gone by, many hunts used to "stop up" earths by putting a bundle of twigs in their entrance, to discourage foxes from going to ground, because it was - accurately - not seen as sporting or selective, to dig them out. 

Nowadays however, hunting provides a pest control function *in addition* to its main role as the selective manager of the fox population. 

This pest control function is just that - pest control. This element of it is not selective management, and as such, is not selective. Essentially, hounds sometimes put foxes to ground. As you say, whether or not a fox goes to ground is not terribly selective. In many cases, the fox will be left alone. Do not assume that all, or even most, foxes put to ground are dug. However, in some cases, particularly in areas where the hunt, as managers of the fox population, agree that there are too many foxes, or where the farmers say there are too many, or on a shooting estate where the keepers expressly demand all foxes put to ground are shot; then, the terrierman may dig out a fox and shoot it. 

I may not have been entirely clear, but I hope you have caught my drift so to speak. Hunting provides two quite different aspects of fox management - selective management of the population, and pest control where the landowner requests it due to the unsustainably high fox population in that area.

EDIT: Just to clarify that the unselective pest control service given to landowners suffering from unsustainably high populations, is terrierwork. My point is, it is a mistake to conflate hunting and putting foxes to ground with terrierwork. Terrierwork is a non-selective method of pest control designed to reduce a fox population.


----------



## marianne1981 (6 January 2014)

Thanks Countryman for being so patient with me! While I will probably never agree with hunting, you put a good case forward.


----------



## RunToEarth (7 January 2014)

marianne1981 said:



			VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?
		
Click to expand...

In addition to countryman's post, I think you also have to attribute the effectiveness of having a season. Foxhunting has always provided a season of sport and a closed season for breeding. It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.


----------



## Patterdale (7 January 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			In addition to countryman's post, I think you also have to attribute the effectiveness of having a season. Foxhunting has always provided a season of sport and a closed season for breeding. It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.
		
Click to expand...

Very good point.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			....... It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately,  as the vixen will produce her cubs,  just when ground nesting birds are sitting,  or importantly,  brooding their young,  and at the greatest risk,  so that is the most vital time for predator control.  That's the argument that the 'keeper in me will promote,  whilst the person who would support the argument of the Huntsman,  would say that there have historically been many first class shoots where the fox has received total protection,  and that as ground is now rarely 'keepered to the level which it once was,  so vermin control is an irrelevance,  one would simply rear more game,  and to compensate for the predation of vermin.

It's a tricky one,  because for the more game that we rear,  and the numbers are now approaching an obscenity,  in my view,  so with a more readily available food supply,  we're going to see an increase in vermin numbers,  and so we rear more game,  and so we go round in circles!

Where wildlife management is crucial,  and not just for the rearing of game,  but in those areas where all wild birds are part of a conservation plan,  then the killing of foxes,  along with that awful creature,  the Carrion Crow,  is vital.  Our wild Grey Partridge for instance,  cannot be successfully reared and released,  in an artificial sense,  so with the issuing of blanket laws,  we would smite the just along with the unjust,  and therein lies the problem,  I think.

My honest view is that _'generally'_,  the snaring of any creature is a crime against,  and sets back the arguments for wildlife management,  and as a 'keeper I snared more than I care to remember.

Were those who are so opposed to foxhunting,  to channel their efforts in to the banning of ALL snaring activities,  then I would suggest that their efforts would garner more public support,  than their opposition to Hounds.  The problem with that though,  is that there are very few perceived upper class twits who set snares,  so where would the accolades sit?

Alec.


----------



## Patterdale (7 January 2014)

I personally know a shoot that puts down around 60,000 birds a year. For the keepers on this estate, shooting or snaring a fox means instant dismissal. 
Now, I am sure there is the odd 'accident' from a frustrated keeper, but there are absolutely NO snares. 
The hunt and shoot have a great working relationship, and obviously the shoot is very successful. 

The reason that I believe this can happen, is that there is very good communication and understanding between the two parties. 
It's a brilliant model of how commercial shooting and hunting can coexist happily. 

(But don't get me started on my opinion of the moralities of driven game shooting....!)


----------



## RunToEarth (7 January 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			It's a tricky one,  because for the more game that we rear,  and the numbers are now approaching an obscenity,  in my view,  so with a more readily available food supply,  we're going to see an increase in vermin numbers,  and so we rear more game,  and so we go round in circles!


Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I do think pre ban a lot of hunts and shoots did coexist without any real issues, the problem around us is the amount of much smaller syndicate shoots which appear to be...everywhere. 

I love my shooting as much as I love my hunting and I have a huge respect for the keepers who do the job, I just don't like the thought of snaring sucked vixens and I don't think I will ever really get over that as I have a huge respect for the fox. 

I do think snaring on released shoots is a bit lazy, on grouse moors I can understand there is a much greater need.


----------



## Countryman (7 January 2014)

Patterdale said:



			I personally know a shoot that puts down around 60,000 birds a year. For the keepers on this estate, shooting or snaring a fox means instant dismissal. 
Now, I am sure there is the odd 'accident' from a frustrated keeper, but there are absolutely NO snares. 
The hunt and shoot have a great working relationship, and obviously the shoot is very successful. 

The reason that I believe this can happen, is that there is very good communication and understanding between the two parties. 
It's a brilliant model of how commercial shooting and hunting can coexist happily.
		
Click to expand...

This sounds really brilliant, and an example that many could do well to follow. The situation has definitely got worse post-ban, because the larger shoots and the farmers are understandably reluctant to leave the job of fox control to the hunt, and in some places, almost total extermination has resulted. The problem is, as Alec says, many keepers will snare during the birth-season, and many will also use this opportunity to dig out a vixen and all of her cubs in one fell swoop. I agree with what RunToEarth says re the smaller shoots - I can totally understand why they feel they have to do such intensive predator control, as they may only have a few days a year, and each lost pheasant means a lot to them; but with often just a couple of copses owned, it is very easy for them to ensure any fox in the vicinity is called out and lamped.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2014)

I once worked under a Head keeper who's father had been Head at Ragley Hall.  A vixen had acquired the knack of lifting birds from their eggs (greys that is),  and when enough was enough,  she was shot,  and so was the dog fox,  just to be certain!  Her cubs at the time would have been probably 6-8 weeks of age,  I expect,  so they were fed at the earth,  and daily.  Perhaps a couple of pigeons or a rabbit,  or maybe even a hare,  if they were lucky.  The Head who I worked under was only a lad at the time,  and a part of his duties was to feed the cubs.  He never got to actually handle them,  but by being quiet they often came out to greet him and grab their evening meal!!

I've fed a wood in the morning and known for certain that I've had 1000 birds on the feed ride.  That same wood has been drawn by Hounds at 11:00 and barely a bird has been put to flight.  Hounds don't disturb pheasants,  because they're not hunting them.  It's that simple.

Shooting and Hunting can and must work together,  field sports is the umbrella under which we all shelter.

Alec.


----------



## VoR (12 January 2014)

marianne1981 said:



			VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?
		
Click to expand...

Have read my post again and can't see any reference to foxes that have gone to ground, please see previous posts which quite adequately answer this issue. 
The fact is that a hunt in an area hunting say, twice a week might kill 4 or 5 foxes at best and those that are NOT killed are free. A 'shootist' can shoot every night and kill 4, 5 or more foxes a night and some of those that are NOT killed will be wounded and die a long slow death, far longer and slower than the average 17 minute (apparently there has been a study!) hunt by hounds and quick death at the end.
So, the fox population survives with traditional hunting, without out it farmers call in the guns and the population is wiped out/reduced by greater numbers than would be expected under traditional hunting.
Are the antis unaware of this or do they just turn a blind eye as their true motivation isn't cruelty or protection of wildlife but some misplaced belief that hunting is a sport for rich toffs so should be stopped? Just a question as the hunting act (in our area) has failed to protect foxes and led to the death of many more than pre.ban and every anti.hunt forum/website seems to fall back on the description of hunters as 'Toffs' and refers to their apparent 'wealth'!


----------



## s4sugar (12 January 2014)

Reading this thread reminded me of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA


----------



## VoR (13 January 2014)

s4sugar said:



			Reading this thread reminded me of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Click to expand...

Ahhh, 'Yes Minister', pure genius!


----------

