Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
Well Jeremy, to maintain a healthy population in the wild you need to prevent it getting too large or too small
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Artificial Earths. What's that all about?
- Thread starter Ereiam_jh
- Start date
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
To maintain a healthy population you need to cull the weak and encourage the strong, healthy foxes to breed.
RS, take a look at the Deer herds on Exmoor - before this ban affects how they looked pre-ban.
RS, take a look at the Deer herds on Exmoor - before this ban affects how they looked pre-ban.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
Then you hunt them for the fun of it.
That's what JP would say.
That's what JP would say.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
Actually, I'd find that all much easier to believe if it a) didnt come from someone who likes hunting foxes and b) had done proper studies into the animal populations and distribution.
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
Why would he say that?
When shooting you are killing off healthy, strong foxes too. We've used snares a couple of times, when we had a particular problem with losing chickens, we had such a nice dog fox, no mange, a good weight, a really big strong fox that shouldn't have died. I have yet to see one like that caught by the hounds....
When shooting you are killing off healthy, strong foxes too. We've used snares a couple of times, when we had a particular problem with losing chickens, we had such a nice dog fox, no mange, a good weight, a really big strong fox that shouldn't have died. I have yet to see one like that caught by the hounds....
flying_change
Well-Known Member
You cant see the obvious contradiction between ' I have to kill foxes to save my sheep' and 'I want to encourage them to breed'... ? Hmmm, and I was the one called 'blinkered' today....
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
I think she wants to keep them at a level where they don't cause a problem to her, without getting rid of them altogether.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
Very altruistic. Not that anyone put hunters in charge of the countryside and wildlife though. And if this came from anyone apart from hunters, it would t be so hard to believe it.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
'Huters' aren't in charge of wildlife. However traditional fox and stag hunting is not what threatens the populations of foxes and deer. It's people shooting them all. Hunts will cross one part of the country maybe once or twice a year and they will take out a few animals, it's almost impossible for them to take them all out. take my neighbour and his forty dead foxes a year on his farm.. Wouldn't it be better if he was hunting
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
I am not saying I am encouraging them to breed, if you read my posts you'll see that I wrote 'even without providing AE's a vixen will still breed'.
Though, yes, I think its important to encourage the strong, healthy foxes to breed.
Once again, go and look at the deer herds on Exmoor.
Though, yes, I think its important to encourage the strong, healthy foxes to breed.
Once again, go and look at the deer herds on Exmoor.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
"Hunts will cross one part of the country maybe once or twice a year and they will take out a few animals, it's almost impossible for them to take them all out"
Which makes a complete mockery of the idea of 'controlling' the population.
I dont know any form of animal control what works on the basis of 'provide- habitat- and- continually- randomly- cull'. And I've watched a lot of wildlife programmes on the TV, believe me.
Which makes a complete mockery of the idea of 'controlling' the population.
I dont know any form of animal control what works on the basis of 'provide- habitat- and- continually- randomly- cull'. And I've watched a lot of wildlife programmes on the TV, believe me.
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
Why? Controlling doesn't mean wipe out or making extinct. You control it to a number which can live successfully in any given area without disrupting farms with young lambs, poultry or game birds.
As AA(or AE?) says if you cross a certain area of your hunt country a few times a year and have a brace of foxes (sometimes more, sometimes less) then you leave a manageable number of foxes in that area. If you have a small hunt country then why would you want to take out more than 4 foxes in say a 2.5mile radius (without what was shot or lamped) in one season?
As AA(or AE?) says if you cross a certain area of your hunt country a few times a year and have a brace of foxes (sometimes more, sometimes less) then you leave a manageable number of foxes in that area. If you have a small hunt country then why would you want to take out more than 4 foxes in say a 2.5mile radius (without what was shot or lamped) in one season?
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
Just noticed its now EJ!
Boudicea
Well-Known Member
Second mistruth is simple. Why does their have to be excuse after excuse after excuse? Just say you get a kick out of it, you enjoy a days socialising and being outdoors with the death of an animal at the end of it. Stop with the pathetic excuses and reasons for it. Its a dying way of life anyway, public opinion will see to that. This is 2006 not 1806.
Faggus. See above.
Faggus. See above.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
"Why? Controlling doesn't mean wipe out or making extinct"
Do you know of any other wildlife management that provides habitat and also does random culling ?
"If you have a small hunt country then why would you want to take out more than 4 foxes in say a 2.5mile radius (without what was shot or lamped) in one season? "
Is shooting/lamping an effective way to control foxes ?
Do you know of any other wildlife management that provides habitat and also does random culling ?
"If you have a small hunt country then why would you want to take out more than 4 foxes in say a 2.5mile radius (without what was shot or lamped) in one season? "
Is shooting/lamping an effective way to control foxes ?
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
What a muppet you are!
Public support is stronger than it has been for a long time!
Wake up and smell the roses darling.
So what is your excuses for sabbing then? I think you enjoy trying(but failing) to have a ruck with the terrier boys, I bet you love hearing the hounds in full cry, I'm sure you're in denial.....
Public support is stronger than it has been for a long time!
Wake up and smell the roses darling.
So what is your excuses for sabbing then? I think you enjoy trying(but failing) to have a ruck with the terrier boys, I bet you love hearing the hounds in full cry, I'm sure you're in denial.....
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
In my opinion no.
As for the first comment, who culls randomly?
If we're talking about going back to basics then before humans took over the world then foxes would have starved to death due to lack of food when numbers got to high (nice death I'm sure you will agree), that will never happen nowadays as there is an abundance of food due to farming and human waste (bins/skips e.t.c). We are culling the weak, misfits but encouraging the strong healthy foxes to breed, where is the problem in that?
When breeding horses you choose quality mares and stallions that have had to go through a series of gradings, so you're only producing quality animals, this obviously doesn't happen in the fox world, any fox no matter how weak/poorly bred it is can breed so we cull the rubbish and the old foxes during the winter.
As for the first comment, who culls randomly?
If we're talking about going back to basics then before humans took over the world then foxes would have starved to death due to lack of food when numbers got to high (nice death I'm sure you will agree), that will never happen nowadays as there is an abundance of food due to farming and human waste (bins/skips e.t.c). We are culling the weak, misfits but encouraging the strong healthy foxes to breed, where is the problem in that?
When breeding horses you choose quality mares and stallions that have had to go through a series of gradings, so you're only producing quality animals, this obviously doesn't happen in the fox world, any fox no matter how weak/poorly bred it is can breed so we cull the rubbish and the old foxes during the winter.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
"In my opinion no."
I assume that was re lamping. In your area, how many fox kills are from hunting and how many from lamping ?
"As for the first comment, who culls randomly?"
Do you go after a specific fox or do you chase the one that the hounds scent ? The latter. All very random.
I assume that was re lamping. In your area, how many fox kills are from hunting and how many from lamping ?
"As for the first comment, who culls randomly?"
Do you go after a specific fox or do you chase the one that the hounds scent ? The latter. All very random.
severnmiles
Well-Known Member
That depends, if a fox is causing a farmer a particular problem then no we don't randomly chase just any scent.
"I assume that was re lamping. In your area, how many fox kills are from hunting and how many from lamping?"
Difficult question seeing as pre-ban very few guns were used for lamping down this way, it was all lurchers.
"I assume that was re lamping. In your area, how many fox kills are from hunting and how many from lamping?"
Difficult question seeing as pre-ban very few guns were used for lamping down this way, it was all lurchers.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
I've read over and over again on this forum that the success of a hunt depends mainly on the scenting conditions on the day.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Why does their have to be excuse after excuse after excuse?"
I can't remember making any excuses !!!!
"Just say you get a kick out of it, you enjoy a days socialising and being outdoors with the death of an animal at the end of it."
Well, I get a kick out of it and I enjoy socialising. I am outside most of the time (alright if I have lunch ?), and yes an animal dies hopefully. That is the point of it.
"Stop with the pathetic excuses and reasons for it."
No excuses. The reasons might be pathetic to you but not me. That is what matters.
"Its a dying way of life anyway, public opinion will see to that."
I can't see the evidence of that. I hunted on Wednesday and will again tomorrow. You believe what you want !
"This is 2006 not 1806."
You are joking!
I still have several n'er do wells from the village in service.
I had better get rid of them!
I can't remember making any excuses !!!!
"Just say you get a kick out of it, you enjoy a days socialising and being outdoors with the death of an animal at the end of it."
Well, I get a kick out of it and I enjoy socialising. I am outside most of the time (alright if I have lunch ?), and yes an animal dies hopefully. That is the point of it.
"Stop with the pathetic excuses and reasons for it."
No excuses. The reasons might be pathetic to you but not me. That is what matters.
"Its a dying way of life anyway, public opinion will see to that."
I can't see the evidence of that. I hunted on Wednesday and will again tomorrow. You believe what you want !
"This is 2006 not 1806."
You are joking!
I still have several n'er do wells from the village in service.
I had better get rid of them!
wireweiners
Well-Known Member
Hello, I am an American who doesn't know much about fox hunting. I have been reading y'all's posts and I have read about American hunting. It seems that the principle difference is that in the UK y'all aim to kill the fox at the end of the hunt while in the US the hunters just chase them to ground. I have heard that in hunt country in the US hunt members actually promote proper fox habitat to increase the numbers.
I have gathered from reading y'all's posts that hunters feel that it is necessary to kill the foxes as they are a problem predator for farmers. I find this curious as they don't seem to be that big a problem here. They may take a chicken occasionally from a back yard flock but they aren't big enough to take a healthy lamb from a properly managed flock. US foxes live primarily on field mice, rats and rabbits. Are the foxes in the UK bigger than US foxes? Are there so many free range or backyard chickens that foxes are a major problem?
In my part of the country the coyotes far outnumber the foxes. Coyotes can be a problem in that they are large enough to take lambs and newborn calves as well as poultry, cats and small dogs. They also tend to hunt in packs. Some hunts in the west run their hounds on coyotes but they seldom kill them as the coyotes can outrun the hounds plus a grown coyote might take a hound or two with them. Coyotes do control their population. If food is scarce their litters will be small. If food is plentiful the litters are larger. Are foxes the same?
Mostly I would like to know why UK hunters seem to insist that a kill is a necessary part of the sport while US hunters are content to enjoy the chase. Also, if UK hunters didn't kill the fox do you think the ban would have been passed?
A final question, what breed of terrier is used to bolt the fox? I am a terrier fan having wirehaired dachshunds myself.
I have gathered from reading y'all's posts that hunters feel that it is necessary to kill the foxes as they are a problem predator for farmers. I find this curious as they don't seem to be that big a problem here. They may take a chicken occasionally from a back yard flock but they aren't big enough to take a healthy lamb from a properly managed flock. US foxes live primarily on field mice, rats and rabbits. Are the foxes in the UK bigger than US foxes? Are there so many free range or backyard chickens that foxes are a major problem?
In my part of the country the coyotes far outnumber the foxes. Coyotes can be a problem in that they are large enough to take lambs and newborn calves as well as poultry, cats and small dogs. They also tend to hunt in packs. Some hunts in the west run their hounds on coyotes but they seldom kill them as the coyotes can outrun the hounds plus a grown coyote might take a hound or two with them. Coyotes do control their population. If food is scarce their litters will be small. If food is plentiful the litters are larger. Are foxes the same?
Mostly I would like to know why UK hunters seem to insist that a kill is a necessary part of the sport while US hunters are content to enjoy the chase. Also, if UK hunters didn't kill the fox do you think the ban would have been passed?
A final question, what breed of terrier is used to bolt the fox? I am a terrier fan having wirehaired dachshunds myself.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
"I dont know any form of animal control what works on the basis of 'provide- habitat- and- continually- randomly- cull'. And I've watched a lot of wildlife programmes on the TV, believe me. "
My neighbour spends a lot of time enhacing the habitat on his farm. He runs a pheasant shoot. At night he drives around shining a bright light and gunning down every fox he comes across.
£250,000,000 is spent every year in the UK doing pretty much this. That's five times the budget of the RSPB and encompasses an area of land the size of Wales.
What they are doing is randomly culling animals while providing habitat.
If you spend your time looking at wildlife programmes on telly then it's hardly surprising if you are completely ignorant of what goes on in the real world.
Hunting is the only form of pest contro., that DOESN'T randomly cull animals. This is because statistically fit strong foxes are more likely to survive.
My neighbour spends a lot of time enhacing the habitat on his farm. He runs a pheasant shoot. At night he drives around shining a bright light and gunning down every fox he comes across.
£250,000,000 is spent every year in the UK doing pretty much this. That's five times the budget of the RSPB and encompasses an area of land the size of Wales.
What they are doing is randomly culling animals while providing habitat.
If you spend your time looking at wildlife programmes on telly then it's hardly surprising if you are completely ignorant of what goes on in the real world.
Hunting is the only form of pest contro., that DOESN'T randomly cull animals. This is because statistically fit strong foxes are more likely to survive.
Nigel
Well-Known Member
Hi Flying change,
Do you know of any other wildlife management that provides habitat and also does random culling ?
Game reserves, are you sure about that question?
Is shooting/lamping an effective way to control foxes ?
A great question that requires a good discussion. Remember shooting involves all forms of shooting with a gun (Shotguns to beaters, Shotguns/ rifle to Bait, etc) and lamping only makes up a proportion of those culled. Like hunting with dogs, traditonal mounted only makes up a proportion of those culled by dogs. Original IFAW figures showed hunting with dogs killed approx 75,000 80,000 foxes and shooting killed 80,000 foxes. The clowns at the IFAW try and distance themselves from those figures for obvious reasons. So take it one step further according to Stephen Harris and his submission to the Burns report and the recent survey carried out by the middleway group 32% of the 80,000 shot are killed by rifle and that still has to be broken down those lamped at night and those shot in daylight.
And guess what, all though appears logical, I believe it to be complete Bollox, why? David Macdonald who had a major roll in the Burns inquiry implied to measure effectiveness you need to know the objective, and no research has ever been carried out. So if farmer A wants foxes eradicated from his land and they shoot 6 but 6 remain it has only been 50% effective. Farmer B has the hunt on his land and they cull 2 and he is happy with that it has been 100% effective. Get my point?
In the hunting debate effectiveness in the hunting debate has always been twisted only for the idiot moronic urban clowns that sit on the Labour Backbenches, we are above those loonies on this forum.
Cheers
Nigel
Do you know of any other wildlife management that provides habitat and also does random culling ?
Game reserves, are you sure about that question?
Is shooting/lamping an effective way to control foxes ?
A great question that requires a good discussion. Remember shooting involves all forms of shooting with a gun (Shotguns to beaters, Shotguns/ rifle to Bait, etc) and lamping only makes up a proportion of those culled. Like hunting with dogs, traditonal mounted only makes up a proportion of those culled by dogs. Original IFAW figures showed hunting with dogs killed approx 75,000 80,000 foxes and shooting killed 80,000 foxes. The clowns at the IFAW try and distance themselves from those figures for obvious reasons. So take it one step further according to Stephen Harris and his submission to the Burns report and the recent survey carried out by the middleway group 32% of the 80,000 shot are killed by rifle and that still has to be broken down those lamped at night and those shot in daylight.
And guess what, all though appears logical, I believe it to be complete Bollox, why? David Macdonald who had a major roll in the Burns inquiry implied to measure effectiveness you need to know the objective, and no research has ever been carried out. So if farmer A wants foxes eradicated from his land and they shoot 6 but 6 remain it has only been 50% effective. Farmer B has the hunt on his land and they cull 2 and he is happy with that it has been 100% effective. Get my point?
In the hunting debate effectiveness in the hunting debate has always been twisted only for the idiot moronic urban clowns that sit on the Labour Backbenches, we are above those loonies on this forum.
Cheers
Nigel
Boudicea
Well-Known Member
Severnmiles, darling and sabbing in one go are you confused? I am not a sab why do you presume that I am?
I have never had a ruck with terrier boys although I have heard they can be excellent in other quarters.
Nice to meet you from one muppet to another :grin:
I have never had a ruck with terrier boys although I have heard they can be excellent in other quarters.
Nice to meet you from one muppet to another :grin:
Boudicea
Well-Known Member
Master Tom you can hunt as much as you wish but within thirty years time there will be no foxhunting as you see it now or break the law as you see fit now. There is much things through history that were once accepted that you will now find slowly being deprived from your life.
The tories will not repeal the hunting act, forget it, he has a lot of public support to lose should he choose to. Or only four years in power. Biggest mistake in political history if they do.
The tories will not repeal the hunting act, forget it, he has a lot of public support to lose should he choose to. Or only four years in power. Biggest mistake in political history if they do.
Nigel
Well-Known Member
Hi Boudicea,
That is a silly answer. He could have 12 years in power, Cameron has already said he will ban the ban and given the stress of banning hunting for the Labour party, if repealed by the Tories in power I personally cannot see Labour revisiting the debate. The vast majority of the Public do not give a flying [****] about hunting and it does not influence their vote, quiet right to. As for the Biggest mistake in political history ..grow up.
Cheers
Nigel
That is a silly answer. He could have 12 years in power, Cameron has already said he will ban the ban and given the stress of banning hunting for the Labour party, if repealed by the Tories in power I personally cannot see Labour revisiting the debate. The vast majority of the Public do not give a flying [****] about hunting and it does not influence their vote, quiet right to. As for the Biggest mistake in political history ..grow up.
Cheers
Nigel
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
But the Hunting Act isn't popular. Most people think it's a very bad piece of legislation. A lot of people who don't like fox hunting still think the Hunting Act is bad law.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
"Is shooting/lamping an effective way to control foxes ?"
More over it's hard to think of a more random method than lamping. Which selects foxes on the basis of them having reflective eyes.
More over it's hard to think of a more random method than lamping. Which selects foxes on the basis of them having reflective eyes.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Master Tom you can hunt as much as you wish but within thirty years time there will be no foxhunting as you see it now or break the law as you see fit now."
Is this English?
Yes, I WILL hunt as much as I wish.
Why will there be no fox hunting in thirty years time?
Anti's have been saying this for 100 years but I was still hunting yesterday !!
And yes, I broke the law yesterday. I will continue to break idiotic laws.
No Anti's, No LACS, No policemen (well, two retired hunting) and no one cares.
"There is much things through history that were once accepted that you will now find slowly being deprived from your life. "
Is this English? Not sure what you mean. It was once accepted that the police were expected to chase criminals.
I can't really imagine what I can be deprived of.
"The tories will not repeal the hunting act, forget it, he has a lot of public support to lose should he choose to. Or only four years in power. Biggest mistake in political history if they do."
Don't really give a toss what a bunch of old Etonians do. If they want to keep an unenforced law on the books that is up to them.
But I HAVE enjoyed your insight into British politics. "Biggest mistake in political history" Sort of makes appeasement of the Nazi's, denying women suffrage, and invading Iraq while lying about Hussein's weapons pale into insignificance.
Jesus !!!!
Is this English?
Yes, I WILL hunt as much as I wish.
Why will there be no fox hunting in thirty years time?
Anti's have been saying this for 100 years but I was still hunting yesterday !!
And yes, I broke the law yesterday. I will continue to break idiotic laws.
No Anti's, No LACS, No policemen (well, two retired hunting) and no one cares.
"There is much things through history that were once accepted that you will now find slowly being deprived from your life. "
Is this English? Not sure what you mean. It was once accepted that the police were expected to chase criminals.
I can't really imagine what I can be deprived of.
"The tories will not repeal the hunting act, forget it, he has a lot of public support to lose should he choose to. Or only four years in power. Biggest mistake in political history if they do."
Don't really give a toss what a bunch of old Etonians do. If they want to keep an unenforced law on the books that is up to them.
But I HAVE enjoyed your insight into British politics. "Biggest mistake in political history" Sort of makes appeasement of the Nazi's, denying women suffrage, and invading Iraq while lying about Hussein's weapons pale into insignificance.
Jesus !!!!