Blocking up fox holes

[Xlthlx]

As far as I am aware these are harrier packs only that hunt un Sundays in Ireland (Republic of)



Traditionally Fox Hunting was never about earadicating all foxes but removing those who were predating livestock, sick etc. Where I live there was a healthy fox population when hunting was allowed. Now fox numbers would appear to be declining rapidly due to the promotion of shooting as the only permitted method of control. Farmers no longer feel any requirement to maintain coverts. I have found foxes that were inexpertly shot - dying in ditches - slowly. I personally prefer an animal to have a quick death and by my experience this is not by shooting.

Of course the best way to ascertain these things is through scientific studies which the Labour Government having promised to legislate on the basis of 'principle and evidence' steadfastly refused to undertake.

Never mind LACS in their latest report rolled out a study to 'prove' that deer numbers had not suffered in the wake of the ban. The only problem being that that study covered the period 1972 - april 2005

The most recent data suggests red deer numbers have halved in the quantocks ...

 

[Herne]

We are being told that the hunts want to repeal the Act so they can continue culling the old and sick and keep a healthy fox population

Reading through this thread it is clear the idea that the fit and healthy foxes will escape is utter nonsense! A return to blocking is desired amongst posters leading to exhausted foxes with no hiding place being torn apart by hounds for the sport. If nothing else the Hunting Act banned a bloodsport and left in place exemptions for actual pest control.

What an extraordinary piece of reversed logic.

If you want to select the fit and healthy foxes, (talking in pre-ban terms here) then obviously you have to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that they are fit and healthy.

If you leave the holes unblocked, then all the foxes, fit and unfit, will go straight down the nearest hole, completely untested, and you will end up using the terriers on all of them - which is no more selective than using a rifle at night.

By blocking up the holes, the fox has to run accross country to get away from the hounds - something that a young, fit fox can easily do. Foxes are faster than hounds. The old, sick and injured, however, get caught.

Lord Burns estimated that the average length of a hunt is 15 minutes. This is because young foxes can get enough of a lead in that time to be able to throw the hounds off the scent permanently and the infirm get caught up with - often because they are simply slow or lame rather than because they are exhausted.

The longer hunts are rare because the circumstances of scenting conditions and quarry only rarely combine to lengthen the the hunt in that way.

 

[Daisychain]

The answer to the question

". Can someone tell me if it is legal to trap foxes, then transport them in a horsebox to another hunt????"

is no and I don't think most people would think it ever should be.

Well this is my problem.... So if you new your hunt were doing this, then releasing foxes in strange territory, not mentioning the fear and stress of a journey in a horsebox, would you still go??? Does that make it right then???

I got no problem with genuine pest control, and i have lost fair amounts of chickens etc to foxes, but i could never justify this. Its so easy to turn a blind eye for a nice ride in the countryside.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Well this is my problem.... So if you new your hunt were doing this, then releasing foxes in strange territory, not mentioning the fear and stress of a journey in a horsebox, would you still go??? Does that make it right then???

I got no problem with genuine pest control, and i have lost fair amounts of chickens etc to foxes, but i could never justify this. Its so easy to turn a blind eye for a nice ride in the countryside.

A few people on here seem to think hunters are all out to kill foxes as a passion which is just not so, we love to see a healthy fox,out of season around and about but to say that hunts release foxes to a new territory, this utter tosh and i'd like to know where this story has come about- we are plagued by van loads of foxes, mainly covered in mange dumped in the countryside, now how cruel is this, they cannot fend for themselves and ultimately starve. Watching either Countryfile or Countrytracks a few weeks back as stated there was a lovely fox at the back of some houses, noone mentioned it being covered in mange from top to tail--grrrr, the ignorance of some people !!!

 

[combat_claire]

So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event? What exactly is it that the chase and kill supporters are trying to protect and get back? I just don't get it except having something imposed on them...
There wasn't this fuss when hitting children was banned.

I'm not trying to be provcative (but no doubt am) I genuinely don't understand.

I'm going to have a crack at answering this. I am not deliberately ignoring the other points you raised, but I think other posters have addressed them.

To set the context I am an amateur whipper-in for our local minkhounds. Mink are a non-native and destructive species that cause massive damage to our native wildlife including the water vole. Some research also suggests that they have been partly linked to the decline of the otter, but this isn't conclusive.

The Hunting Act states that we can hunt rats with hounds but not the mink. It further states that we can shoot a mink that has been put up a tree by the pack or that we can use terriers below ground in order to protect shooting interests. I fail to see how this can be considered logical or more humane.

You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.

 

[AengusOg]

It's not legal to transport foxes to another area for the purposes of hunting them.

By the same token, it should be illegal to trap foxes in towns and transport them to the country. The bunny huggers don't seem to grasp the fact that these relocated cutesy little foxy woxies are doomed, as they are easily killed by anyone with an interest in doing so, owing to their not knowing the land on which they were dumped. They are easily recognised too, as they are generally mange-ridden and malnourished.

 

[amandap]

I'm going to have a crack at answering this. I am not deliberately ignoring the other points you raised, but I think other posters have addressed them.


You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.

Thankyou very much combat_claire. I do take on the points about the Act itself being a mess it seems and I am beginning to see the need for clarification. I probably am in favour of 'proper' wildlife protection rather than a state of total confusion and inconsistancy. However, I would find it hard to feel hunting the fox in the traditional way with dogs and horses is needed as a method of pest control. It seems the act has reeked more havoc and cruelty on foxes by people without knowledge and skill taking matters into their own hands which is highly unsatisfactory to me personally.

For me paying honour and tribute to Tradition (by drag hunting etc.) along with our current awareness of need to protect habitat for wildlife and manage that habitat and wildlife is a situation that I personally would like to see. However, I think this may not be possible if the 'sides' insist on their extremes. I have generally kept away from these debates because they often end bitterly. I feel posters on this thread have remained polite and tolerant (in the main) and I am glad of that I must say.

 

[combat_claire]

However, I would find it hard to feel hunting the fox in the traditional way with dogs and horses is needed as a method of pest control. It seems the act has reeked more havoc and cruelty on foxes by people without knowledge and skill taking matters into their own hands which is highly unsatisfactory to me personally.

For me hunting with hounds will always be the best method of fox control - it is the only method grounded in the principles of natural selection, where the weakest, oldest and sickest are removed, leaving a healthy population at levels that can be tolerable. I have concerns that lamping at night is not as accurate as it could be and that snaring and trapping is too indiscriminate. Other methods used in the past such as poisoning and gassing are no more selective. The same arguments apply for deer, mink, hare or any other quarry formerly hunted by hounds.

For me paying honour and tribute to Tradition (by drag hunting etc.) along with our current awareness of need to protect habitat for wildlife and manage that habitat and wildlife is a situation that I personally would like to see.

I am in a fairly unique position of also having been involved in drag hunting - not as a mounted follower but running the drag. I am not sure how dragging using a piece of dead fox that has been tied to a piece of baler twine can claim no impact on the welfare of foxes. Still at least the next time someone from the other side of the argument smugly asks 'how would you like to be chased for miles across country by a pack of hounds?' - I can tell them that I have been there, done that and got the cuts and bruises...

On your final point research from the Durrell Institute has found that those involved in country sports are far more likely to manage habitat, plant hedges, trees and pay for works on their land than those who have no sporting interests. The papers published in Nature can be read here:

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

 

[Binkle&Flip]

I personally would like to see the Hunting Axt replaced with a wide ranging law against all cruelty to any wild mammal howsoever caused. ie with or without dogs.

I'd be interested to know if you support or oppose that.

If you want to tow the party line don't forget LACS oppose it as do a lot of the anti hunting fraternity.

That is a double edged sword Xlthlx You would like to know if I support or oppose a wide ranging cruelty law but should I oppose for any reason I am towing the LACS party line?!!! Okay, I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it.

 

[amandap]

For me hunting with hounds will always be the best method of fox control - it is the only method grounded in the principles of natural selection, where the weakest, oldest and sickest are removed, leaving a healthy population at levels that can be tolerable. I have concerns that lamping at night is not as accurate as it could be and that snaring and trapping is too indiscriminate. Other methods used in the past such as poisoning and gassing are no more selective. The same arguments apply for deer, mink, hare or any other quarry formerly hunted by hounds.

I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth? I don't understand how this works as you say it does.

I am in a fairly unique position of also having been involved in drag hunting - not as a mounted follower but running the drag. I am not sure how dragging using a piece of dead fox that has been tied to a piece of baler twine can claim no impact on the welfare of foxes. Still at least the next time someone from the other side of the argument smugly asks 'how would you like to be chased for miles across country by a pack of hounds?' - I can tell them that I have been there, done that and got the cuts and bruises...

A bit of fox doesn't have to be used though does it? I think hunting humans instead is a much better idea myself. (joke)

I think it's time that the word sport was taken out of killing another animal and enjoying the thought and act of it. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport. I enjoyed a good gallop, jumping hedges etc. but that can still be done without hounding a fox.

Lamping is not my favourite thing either having had major problems with lampers scaring my horses at night. However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily. I hate gassing and snaring myself.
It's a personal ethics difference for me. I see killing as a necessity not as something to 'enjoy' and be an excuse for a 'good day out'... I think this is why I don't like chase quarry hunting.
There are of course ways of killing that are down right cruel that call themselves sport which are illegal, these also involve humans getting enjoyment from watching killing and even profit from it... It is the same principal for me I'm afraid.

 

[Fiagai]

That is a double edged sword Xlthlx You would like to know if I support or oppose a wide ranging cruelty law but should I oppose for any reason I am towing the LACS party line?!!! Okay, I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it.

"Cruelty Law" - I have never came across legislation that has enshrined "cruelty" as an objective. Perhaps this should be "Anti- cruelty"?

With reference to cruelty do you mean "cruelty" as defined as any hunting or culling even when it is required to control populations for pest control reasons or that have no natural predators and whose habitats can support only a set number?

Shooting isnt always the painless death for such animals that it has been made out to be. So what is the solution? Presuming that leaving all the bunnies and bambies running free is not a realistic option.

There is a double negative here as well as in " I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it".

Does that mean
a) You agree with the 2004 Hunting Act as is?
b) That you want another Act enabled?
C) You want to leglislate for animals not to prey on each other (ie foxes hunting rabbits?)

 

[combat_claire]

I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth? I don't understand how this works as you say it does.

An old or sick fox will be slower and thus less likely to escape than a healthy fox. That is how hunting works. A lamper with a rifle can turn up at a farm where there has been a predation problem, but there is no guarantee that the fox he shoots the following night, is the one guilty of the predation.

A bit of fox doesn't have to be used though does it? I think hunting humans instead is a much better idea myself. (joke)

The drag hounds in the main are retired fox hounds, following the dead fox scent is I guess a more certain thing for them than using a synthetic trail.
Please let me know what the cap is for a day with the Amanda Chav Hounds, I think it sounds quite good fun ;-)

I think it's time that the word sport was taken out of killing another animal and enjoying the thought and act of it. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport. I enjoyed a good gallop, jumping hedges etc. but that can still be done without hounding a fox.

It is hard to put into words but we don't take pleasure in the actual killing of an animal, but the knowledge that pre-ban we were assisting in ensuring a healthy population of animals in the fairest means possible. We also take pleasure from watching the hounds working and from the fast ride/cycle across country after the hunt staff. In my short experience there has always been an enormous respect for the quarry.

 

[Fiagai]

...Lamping is not my favourite thing either having had major problems with lampers scaring my horses at night. However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily. I hate gassing and snaring myself.
It's a personal ethics difference for me...

An unfortuante result of the 2004 Hunting Act is that this is now the only legal method to hunt foxes for the purposes of controling overpopulation / culling etc.

I do alot of field walking and have found foxes dead and dying from gunshot wounds - a lingering death, that I would prefer not be witness to.

An accurate head shot for an animal as small as a fox is not easy. If the shooter does not make a head shot then the chance of the fox being killed outright is quite slim.

Where fit and healthy foxes could out run hounds, a fox that was caught was not at risk of having a lingering death.

Fox hunting did not seek to erradicate foxes but to maintain a healthy population that had a healthy scepticism of humans. Coverts were maintained by landowners in conjunctions with hunts so that fox populations were known and maintained.

Non regulated shooting by disassociated individuals or groups means that there is no interest in maintaining a viable fox population. Coverts are no longer been maintained in conjunction with the hunt packs. Foxes are now vulnerable to total depopulation. Something which never happened when Fox hunting was legal.

It reminds somewhat of a short story written by John Wyndham his book "Consider Her ways and Others" where a biochemist formulates a permanent solution to the problem of rats that kills all male rats. Unfortuantley this mutates and wipes out male humans too.

Through supporting legislating against organised / vested interest in the maintenance of a viable fox population, animal rights groups may ultimely precipitate the complete demise of the rural fox.

 

[RunToEarth]

Actually I didn't quite say that if you read carefully. I said they kill to survive, I didn't specify livestock. I may well be 'silly' but I'm not totally stupid.

If foxes need controlling they should just be shot imo by experienced shooters. Same with badgers, quick and effective.

Just because you don't agree with my views that doesn't make them any less valid. I hate the idea of celebrating chasing and killing an animal for sport, entertainment or even tradition. The same as I hate bullfighting. These traditions can be honoured (if they have to be) in many other ways. You can still dress up, meet and gallop around following hounds. What's so fantastic about chasing a fox and dogs mauling or shredding it before it can be killed quickly and effectively. Is this really something we should 'enjoy' in the 21st centuary when we can eat meat from supermarkets so cheaply. Killing to eat by humans is ok by me so long as it's done quickly and effectively.

So what is so bad about hunting with the ban in force? What makes it a much less enjoyable event? What exactly is it that the chase and kill supporters are trying to protect and get back? I just don't get it except having something imposed on them...
There wasn't this fuss when hitting children was banned.

I'm not trying to be provcative (but no doubt am) I genuinely don't understand.

Sorry I must have read it wrong- sometimes it is extremely frustrating when people pull out the "foxes only kill to survive", because it isn't true.

Again, I'm sure no one would argue experienced guns controlling population of foxes is a bad idea, however, it is larely impractical. Control of the country fox post ban by shotgun is largely farmers, farm labourers, and farmers' sons, some of which are a lot less than an experienced gun, which is why population control becomes inhumane.
I can't comment largely on the snaring of foxes as I have only ever seen it done a couple of times on the grouse moors. I *think* legally you only have to check a snare once every 24hours, again doesn't scream extremely humane to me.
Hunting with hounds in contrast, to me seemed to have a place, and I believe it is more humane than the two above reasons, there are simply a lot of people who are opposed to the tradition and field sport element behind it all- personally I see snaring a lot more satanic.
With regards to foxes (and badgers) being controlled by a food chain- yes, but you cannot control a whole species by a food chain, there has to be predation as well, otherwise we will see what we have done since the introduction of badger protection- an increase in number. For all there is human predation for fox control, the only other species that is willing to knock a fox off is a golden eagle, I think it's pretty rare and it's certainly a scottish thing. Humans are a different predator to a fox's natural predator, they don't have the same dedication, because it isn't predation for survival, and the numbers of foxes present in the UK is surely a reflection of that?
Population control and protection of the species will always conflict- Botswana has a population of 200,000 elephants, the sustainable number for that country is 4-6000, which means there is a need to cull around 194,000 elephants. Slightly more controvertial than the country fox, however the principle remains the same- there needs to be an element of population control, but people who largely misunderstand the reason for population control oppose the idea.

 

[competitiondiva]

OK I never frequent this part of the forum i admit!! But a couple of questions i'd appreciate answers to for educational reasons please anyone!!??

a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns? If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

Thank you for any answers??!!!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Country folk can tell the difference between fox EARTHS and badger SETTS, in fact there is a vast difference between the two- anyway who is saying people are hunting illegally, i thought it was banned and hunts were drag hunting?

 

[Fiagai]

a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

Answer: Earths may currently stopped by anyone including landowners, individuals and for gassing (used by pest control companies) etc. Fox hunting in the past did use earth stopping, though not always. Currently stopping earths (blocking holes) in its own right is not illegal. The hounds were not used to help stop the earths. This act also covers those hunting foxes directly with terriers (ie not mounted Fox Hunting)

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns? If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

From the 2004 ACT there is no chase after flushing. The Act states that a marksman can shoot the fox.
Note: Foxes hunted in the past were not necessarily killed by hounds- they could outrun / evade hounds and often did so. Now the only option for the fox is death by shooting or bird of prey (this is a great advancement for the fox obviously)

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

In the past stopping Earths (Blocking holes!) was a function of a dedicated number of individuals. A foxes earth and a badgers den are very different in appearance. A fox would have been unlikely to head into a badgers set unless he was daft. The foxes earth (with holes!) were unblocked after hunting.

Hope this ansers your questions....

 

[Fiagai]

I ran out of time on my last post...here is the full reply.

Competiondiva - I am presuming you are asking these questions in relation to mounted fox hunting only and not falconlry, research, rescue, recapture or pest control? The Hunting Act 2004 has different controls for these activities

From the Hunting Act

Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied..
(2)The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of—.
(a)preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause—.
(i)to livestock,.
(ii)to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)),.
(iii)to food for livestock,.
(iv)to crops (including vegetables and fruit),.
(v)to growing timber,.
(vi)to fisheries,.
(vii)to other property, or.
(viii)to the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992),.
(b)obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption, or.
(c)participation in a field trial..

Note: the definition of flushing includes from out below ground

A dog (eg a terrier) may be used below ground to protect birds for shooting


Answers to your questions: in relation to current mounted hunting...


a) if you go out the day before a hunt to block holes, then you are intending to hunt foxes? With dogs? is this not illegal??!!

Answer: Holes may currently stopped by anyone including landowners, individuals and for gassing (used by pest control companies) etc. Fox hunting in the past did use earth stopping, though not always. Currently stopping earths (blocking holes) in its own right is not illegal. The hounds were not used to help stop the earths. This act also covers those hunting foxes directly with terriers (ie not mounted Fox Hunting)

b) if you send 1 soft terrier into a den to flush, how do the 'hunt' intend to kill said fox unless using nets and guns? If it is to chase once flushed, is this not illegal??????

From the 2004 ACT there is no chase after flushing. The Act states that a marksman can shoot the fox.
Note: Foxes hunted in the past were not necessarily killed by hounds- they could outrun / evade hounds and often did so. Now the only option for the fox is death by shooting or bird of prey (this is a great advancement for the fox obviously)

c) how many badger sets gets interferred with in doing this sort of thing (blocking holes?!)

In the past stopping Earths (Blocking holes!) was a function of a dedicated number of individuals. A foxes earth and a badgers den are very different in appearance. A fox would have been unlikely to head into a badgers set unless he was daft. The foxes earth (with holes!) were unblocked after hunting.

Hope this answers your questions....

I would suggest you read the Hunting Act 2004 - it will answet any other questions you may have

LINK to 2004 Hunting ACT

 

[Binkle&Flip]

"Cruelty Law" - I have never came across legislation that has enshrined "cruelty" as an objective. Perhaps this should be "Anti- cruelty"?

With reference to cruelty do you mean "cruelty" as defined as any hunting or culling even when it is required to control populations for pest control reasons or that have no natural predators and whose habitats can support only a set number?

Shooting isnt always the painless death for such animals that it has been made out to be. So what is the solution? Presuming that leaving all the bunnies and bambies running free is not a realistic option.

There is a double negative here as well as in " I would never oppose any cruelty law that accepts it is wrong and illegal to set one animal upon another to fight or kill it".

Does that mean
a) You agree with the 2004 Hunting Act as is?
b) That you want another Act enabled?
C) You want to leglislate for animals not to prey on each other (ie foxes hunting rabbits?)

Where to start???? ..................... A 'cruelty', law would no doubt deem what is or isnt cruel by law. So the term cruelty or anti cruelty law making would only sadly matter on a forum
Do I want to legislate for animals not to prey on each other? You somehow gathered that from 'setting', one animal on another to fight or kill?? Unless the foxes are organising a World Wrestling Bunny Battle to the death, I am sure that is not my desire.
In principle I do agree with the 2004 Act and its attempt to prevent cruelty by making it illegal for one more animals/dogs being used to attack and killing wild animals.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

You ask why hunting cannot tick along without repeal. There is enormous pressure on the hunt staff on every hunting day to ensure that we comply with the law and the fear of a spurious prosecution by hunt monitors. Tony Wright who hunts the Exmoor faced a two year legal fight that went as far as the High Court based on his intentions when he left the kennels. The case amongst others was later thrown out but places an enormous stress on the defendants and their families in the meantime. This is something that no staff or master wants to find themselves experiencing. I can barely imagine the increased pressure that professional staff who go hunting 2 or 3 times a week face.[/QUOTE]

Training young hounds by Autumn hunting then using part of a dead fox for a trail in the countryside inhabited by live foxes......then taking a pack of hounds out and not expecting them to hunt foxes??? Who is creating the pressure and risk of prosecution if not the hunts in this situation themselves? If my only defence was 'it was an accident your honour', I wouldnt do everything I could in the first place to create the risk of such an 'accident'.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Country folk can tell the difference between fox EARTHS and badger SETTS, in fact there is a vast difference between the two- anyway who is saying people are hunting illegally, i thought it was banned and hunts were drag hunting?

Very true, they can. Sadly, some hunt members choose to break off from laying trails for the hunt to have a dig at the badger setts as in a recent conviction. It appears that whatever the law some people choose to break it with no regard for animal welfare

 

[amandap]

An old or sick fox will be slower and thus less likely to escape than a healthy fox. That is how hunting works. A lamper with a rifle can turn up at a farm where there has been a predation problem, but there is no guarantee that the fox he shoots the following night, is the one guilty of the predation.

Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more?
I would require evidence that it is only the sick and old foxes that hounds follow I'm afraid and I also would expect a hunt to be over very quickly if the chased fox was always sick or old.

The drag hounds in the main are retired fox hounds, following the dead fox scent is I guess a more certain thing for them than using a synthetic trail.
Please let me know what the cap is for a day with the Amanda Chav Hounds, I think it sounds quite good fun ;-)

All foxhounds are drag hounds at the moment though aren't they? Are you saying that foxes are shot and then dragged for the hounds to follow?
Surely hounds can be trained to follow any scent. Even mine lol Wouldn't give much of a day out as I'm too slow and wheezy these days, I'd be caught within five minutes.

It is hard to put into words but we don't take pleasure in the actual killing of an animal, but the knowledge that pre-ban we were assisting in ensuring a healthy population of animals in the fairest means possible. We also take pleasure from watching the hounds working and from the fast ride/cycle across country after the hunt staff. In my short experience there has always been an enormous respect for the quarry.

Yes I can see this. I still don't see how these same pleasures cannot be got without chasing and killing a fox... I can understand it is so closely linked by association but I wonder if it may be time to try and enjoy the thrill of the gallop and seeing hounds working for their own sake.

I fully agree that inexpert shooting, gassing, snaring etc. are not quick or humane ways of killing foxes or any animal or bird. Most lampers I've had contact with lamp for rabbits, clearing fields for farmers...

 

[Herne]

I still fail to see how the hounds can tell which is an old, sick fox from one just blocked out of it's earth? I don't understand how this works as you say it does.

It is the very basis of evolution istself. Natural selection. The hounds can't tell which are fit and which are unfit. They don't need to. They hunt all of them. The fit and the lucky survive and the unfit and the unlucky die.

In individual cases, there is always the chance for luck to intervene, but over a season, the law of averages will dictate that the (pre-ban) hunt kills many, many more sick, old and injured foxes than it does young and fit ones.

Just imagine if you decide to play tag in your local shopping centre with all of the people in it. You would find it a lot easier to catch the little old ladies and the people on crutches than you would the young, fit people in their prime.

In hunting, it's exactly the same. The antis try to confuse the issue, but it really is that simple. Hunting is selective because unfit foxes are easier to catch. There's no con, no trick - it really is that obvious.

Perhaps I'm a dinosaur but I can't take any pleasure in killing for whatever reasons and don't like it made to sound nicer by calling the human pack mentality a sport ... I see killing as a necessity not as something to 'enjoy' and be an excuse for a 'good day out'... I think this is why I don't like chase quarry hunting.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the people who go lamping are not crying into their cocoa overcome with shame and remorse when they get home. 99.99999% of people who go lamping do so because they enjoy it. It is their idea of a good night out. They do it because they think it is fun. A lot of them find it to be so much fun, they do it way more than is necessary for the fox population in the area.

However, finding foxes and killing with a gun done by experienced people surely can pick out sick and injured ones more easily.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. A fox walks into a spotlight beam a hundred yards away from you - it's just "a fox"; you aren't going to know anything whatsoever about it until after you have taken the shot.

 

[Herne]

Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more?
I would require evidence that it is only the sick and old foxes that hounds follow I'm afraid

You're sort of missing the point.

The selection isn't in which foxes the hounds follow - they follow all of them; it's in which ones escape from the hounds.

and I also would expect a hunt to be over very quickly if the chased fox was always sick or old.

Lord Burns found that the average length of a hunt is 15 minutes.

 

[Fiagai]

Where to start???? ..................... A 'cruelty', law would no doubt deem what is or isnt cruel by law. So the term cruelty or anti cruelty law making would only sadly matter on a forum
Do I want to legislate for animals not to prey on each other? You somehow gathered that from 'setting', one animal on another to fight or kill?? Unless the foxes are organising a World Wrestling Bunny Battle to the death, I am sure that is not my desire.
In principle I do agree with the 2004 Act and its attempt to prevent cruelty by making it illegal for one more animals/dogs being used to attack and killing wild animals.

Sorry B&F you have completly lost me again...I really didn't understand a word of that. I would suggest rereading the 2004 Hunting Act...it actually enshrines where animals (including us humans!) can kill wild animals including pest control, reseach, recapture, controling predation of other species and falconlry....Its has simply shifted the methods how animals are now culled / killed to shooting or bird of prey. This is of course a great improvement for the fox - obviously!

 

[Fiagai]

Yes I understand the principle but with earths blocked perhaps the sick and old ones are blocked in as they're resting much more? . ...

If there was a fox in an earth when they were closed then that fox would have been safe from the hunt! Earths were always unblocked directly after the hunt. Foxes tend to clearr out if humans are about so would be unlikely to hang about.

 

[combat_claire]

Training young hounds by Autumn hunting then using part of a dead fox for a trail in the countryside inhabited by live foxes......then taking a pack of hounds out and not expecting them to hunt foxes??? Who is creating the pressure and risk of prosecution if not the hunts in this situation themselves? If my only defence was 'it was an accident your honour', I wouldnt do everything I could in the first place to create the risk of such an 'accident'.

You obviously didn't read my post properly - the dead fox was used by the Drag Hound pack, nothing to do with the local foxhounds. Pre-ban they still hunted a drag line. I find it ironic as so many people who go drag hunting are anti-traditional forms of quarry hunting yet clearly have no idea what they are chasing.

Returning to the quarry packs, you still seem to have little idea of how the exemptions of the hunting act work. This is not a black and white world where everyone has switched to laying an artificial trail. There are many packs who flush to guns or birds of prey; while other packs will hunt exempt quarry.

You also forget that hounds are not machines. They are trained as well as they can on walk and on hound exercise before the season commences. Incidentally autumn hunting pre-ban was teaching hounds what not to chase, not teaching them to chase foxes. Hunting instinct is natural in a hound. However no matter how well they are trained and how much they adore their huntsman; if an interesting scent gets up in front of their noses they will chase it. I assume you have a horse or ride - to illustrate the point, the horse can be trained as well as it can be for a certain task; but that doesn't stop it from acting unpredictably in certain situations. To expect hounds to switch off their natural instincts in the blink of an eye following hundreds of years of pedigree breeding is completely unrealistic.

 

[amandap]

All food for thought for me so thanks for answering and countering my questions.

Is lamping the only way to shoot foxes then?
Oh and btw. I do know what sort of good night out lampers and some other shooters can have and revel in. The fact about lampers not crying into their cocoa is no surprize to me.
I've seen men with arsenals of guns shooting anything that moves for 'fun' or target practice.
Like many aspects of the stuff we humans do there are types of people within types.

 

[Maesfen]

All food for thought for me so thanks for answering and countering my questions.

Is lamping the only way to shoot foxes then?
Oh and btw. I do know what sort of good night out lampers and some other shooters can have and revel in. The fact about lampers not crying into their cocoa is no surprize to me.
I've seen men with arsenals of guns shooting anything that moves for 'fun' or target practice.
Like many aspects of the stuff we humans do there are types of people within types.

I don't know about where you live, but around here, I can categorically state that
a)anyone lamping does not have the landowner's permission. Lampers are not welcome here anywhere (I'm talking a five mile radius at least; that's a lot of land to cover).
b) They are always out of town poaching types, from either Scouseland, Manchester, or Birmingham and a range in between, that come in vans with their night sight lights driving along the lanes and taking pot shots at any eyes they see including cattle who have been blinded by them in the past so don't give me that tosh that lamping is a good alternative, it damn well isn't and it isn't humane because they don't wait to see if they've killed it outright either, just move on to the next set of eyes.
c) Their excuse when challenged is that there's nothing to shoot around them so they need to come further afield. No wonder is it, they've already killed everything off in their own areas so, 'oh, come on, we'll go fifty miles away, might get something there' - and so their killing circle is extended and very soon there won't be much wildlife left because those stupid prats have seen to that.
No bloody wonder, they shoot anything and everything, whether protected or not, breeding season or not. They have no consideration for any species at all.
They put not one jot back into the countryside they are thieving from and are a blight on society to say the very least. They are our nightmare and we're always on the alert from them, they are not welcome around here but that doesn't put them off trying to get their kicks on someone else's property.

I will be very surprised if you can find many lampers who are conservationists who abide by the proper seasons unlike the landowners and genuine quarry hunting people who are always trying to preserve and improve their habitat for all species and respect all breeding seasons too.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

I think its time this thread was put to bed, it is dealing with numpties who aren't interested in the truth but just to keep it going, just for the hell of it.