another anti huint chav up before the beak

Bunce the figures for recovered prey are of course not representative of actual (total) kills but instead represent a sample of total kills and can therefore be used to extrapolate actual no's. Either which way, foxes make up a very small proporation of lynx diet and could in no way be said to be a main prey target for lynx. It would be extremely unlikely that lynx influence their pop numbers.
 
With the greatest respect the study does not conclude that only 37 foxes are killed by 29 foxes in ten years.

I have done the maths and it is as follows (with precise figures)

Kill percentage of foxes in a sample of 617 kills = 37/617 = 5.9967585

Average period between each kill = (5.9+5.2)/2 = 5.55


Total kill over a ten year period for 29 lynx = (365/5.55)*29*10 = 19072.07207207

Total foxes killed over a ten year period = 19072.072072072* .059967585

total foxes killed over a ten year period by the 29 lynx = 1143.706103108

Total foxes killed per lynx over 10 years = 1143.706103108/29 = 39.438141486

Total fox kill per year per lynx = 3.9438141486
 
Bunce the figures for recovered prey are of course not representative of actual (total) kills but instead represent a sample of total kills and can therefore be used to extrapolate actual no's. Either which way, foxes make up a very small proporation of lynx diet and could in no way be said to be a main prey target for lynx. It would be extremely unlikely that lynx influence their pop numbers.
Click to expand...

Ah I apologise I thought you were attempting to use the figures to suggest that 29 lynx killed 37 foxes in 10 years rather than over 1000
 
Read my last post.

Point is lynx were shown in this study to take very small numbers of foxes which would most likely not influence their numbers.

This article also states lynx have a hunting strategy unlike that of dogs and so fox hunting does not replicate a natural hunt.

And I'm sure 37 foxes are not killed by 29 foxes every 10 years. :grin:
 
I wonder what the population of Lynx in the UK was. If it was say 20,000 that would mean that about 80,000 foxes were being killed per year by Lynx in the uK.
 
That is highly speculative Bunce.

80 000, large as it may seem, is still not enough to influence fox numbers. Currently I think it around 250, 000 deaths needed per annum to maintain current population size (will dig out exact figures).
 
The point is, as I am sure we would both agree that the current means of control ie shooting and road deaths are far more humane.
 
Exactly. Foxes are adequately controlled by the more humane methods of shooting and RTAs. There is no need for the more cruel means of fox hunting.
 
Road deaths are unfortunatly unavoidable. Is shooting more humane than hunting? It certainly is more effective as it kills more foxes. I don't think there's any concrete figures on wounding rates (if anyone does have any please let me know - only if they are independant though) so jury's out on whether it's more humane.
 
Whether you consider it more effective depends on the effect you want to achieve.

On the question of humaneness shooting kills 5 times more foxes than hunting so it would have to be five times as humane per fox to be as humane.

I'd like to see less foxes killed for the effect I wish to achieve which is maintaining a healthy fox population while taking out problem animals.

Predation naturally weeds out sick animals because healthy ones are better able to escape.

The obsession with numerical control totally mnisses the point. Good wildlife management is qualitative not quantitative.
 
That is highly speculative Bunce.

80 000, large as it may seem, is still not enough to influence fox numbers. Currently I think it around 250, 000 deaths needed per annum to maintain current population size (will dig out exact figures).
Click to expand...

And populations are generally in equilibrium in a natural balanced system which means that 250,000 foxes do die every year as they did then.

So how exactly do you think those 250,000 foxes used to die every year? Do you think they just got old and weak and pootled around until they keeled over?

Where there are predators about animals most commonly die by getting caught and eaten. If they do get sick then they become easy prey which massively increases their chances of getting caught.
 
Foxes are known to control their own populations by adapting birth rates and delaying dispersal rates in response to factors such as habitat and food availability.

How do you think animals at the top of a food chain with no predators regulate their numbers? This mechanism exists and foxes are known to display it.
 
Do you accept that 250,000 foxes have to die every year in order to maintain an equilibrium of fox numbers?

You state that you don't know if hunting is more or less humane than shooting them. Why ban it then?

Let's for the sake of argument say it is AS humane. Saying it should be banned because it kills LESS foxes is ridiculous.
 
I need to double check that figure but it's roundabout that number.

I dont think hunting with hounds OR shooting is particularly humane. Which is the lesser of two evils? I'd say hunting with hounds is more inhumane but accept that I have no evidence to back this up so lets just say I don't think we need either of them.
 
So if you think that hunting with hounds is the lesser of two evils do you think it was right to ban it and leave shooting legal?

And do you think that it is more humane for a fox to die over weeks from a disease or for it to be caught and killed by a predator?
 
Regarding wolves killing foxes, do you still claim that they don't as you used to claim that lynx don't? Or have you changed your position on that too?
 
I have never read anything on wounding rates so have no opinion on them. I am happy to read over anything you want to put my way. Providing they weren't complied by the Shooting Times orwhatever
 
Ps I love the way you do complete about turns.

1) you denied that lynx kill foxes
2) you denied the relevance of research in sweden to britain proving that they do
3) you quote research in switzerland as relevant and claim it shows each lynx kills approx 1 fox every 10 years
4) you accept that actually it shows each lynx kills 40 foxes in 10 years

and you're a student of environmental science!

Why the [****] are my taxes being wasted producing such incompetance?
 
No I don't think wolves hunt foxes. I'm sure they'll pick the odd one off if the opportunity arises but I wouldn't expect foxes to make up a huge part of their diet. i certainly dont think they hunt them in packs.

still waiting for your evidence on lynx hunting in packs....

how many different names do you post under by the way??
 
I have never claimed that lynx hunt in packs though have I. So what is the relevance of that FFS?

I pointed out a video of wolves hunting a coyote in a pack.
 
I have never read anything on wounding rates so have no opinion on them. I am happy to read over anything you want to put my way. Providing they weren't complied by the Shooting Times orwhatever
Click to expand...

Research was commissioned by Middle way Group but has been peer reviewed and methodology found to be valid. It's published in Animal Welfare journal if you're interested.

Summary here

http://www.themiddlewaygroup.org.uk/welfare_improv.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top