Can we please do away with the term 'cubbing'?

[cptrayes]

CpTrayes I have always thought how well constructed your posts are and it's interesting that you have actually hunted and changed your mind. Was there a turning point or a certain thing that triggered you to stop?
.

Yes, I was out with The Curre on a day I still remember well, and for the first time I saw a Fox running for its life. Its ears were back and I am certain that it was aware of huge danger and possible imminent death.

From that day on I could not accept that it was right to chase live quarry before killing it. It's not the kill that is unacceptable to me, it's the chase. And therefore I have no truck with the argument that healthy foxes live to be chased again, that for me is simply prolonging the death. And the idea that it is right to cull a sick or injured Fox by hunting it down with a pack of hounds first does not wash either.

I have really tried to understand the opposing point of view. Janet George has been immensely patient with me. But in the end, having studied the conservation arguments, I have come to what for me is an inescapable conclusion. That the conservation aspect of Fox management simply serves to create a healthier and stronger population which can run faster and further to give the field more fun.

I am sorry if this offends anyone, it is simply how I feel as a resident in a very rural area which has controlled foxes by shooting for twenty years and more.

 

[twiggy2]

Yes, I was out with The Curre on a day I still remember well, and for the first time I saw a Fox running for its life. Its ears were back and I am certain that it was aware of huge danger and possible imminent death.

From that day on I could not accept that it was right to chase live quarry before killing it. It's not the kill that is unacceptable to me, it's the chase. And therefore I have no truck with the argument that healthy foxes live to be chased again, that for me is simply prolonging the death. And the idea that it is right to cull a sick or injured Fox by hunting it down with a pack of hounds first does not wash either.

I have really tried to understand the opposing point of view. Janet George has been immensely patient with me. But in the end, having studied the conservation arguments, I have come to what for me is an inescapable conclusion. That the conservation aspect of Fox management simply serves to create a healthier and stronger population which can run faster and further to give the field more fun.

I am sorry if this offends anyone, it is simply how I feel as a resident in a very rural area which has controlled foxes by shooting for twenty years and more.

I am with you all they way on this one, you have described exactly how I feel

 

[twiggy2]

Clodagh, it is true that a good scent will help the hounds-but it does not automatically follow that any healthy fox would be killed! Many healthy foxes got away even on days with a screaming scent. Likewise on bad scenting days, it is likely that an injured fox would still be caught by the hounds - though as you say it gets less likely. However, hunting is not a precise science so these things happen-but it is a pretty good way to manage a fox population.

As for chopping foxes, its wrong to think they are chopped just because they don't run. Any fox will run to keep away from the unknown that is a human rambler, or dog walker, so they certainly do when a pack of hounds enters their covert. Some foxes are chopped-why have they not run? Almost always because they are too sick to move, too injured to move quickly, blind, deaf or unable to smell. In these cases, the hunt is doing these foxes a service and euthanising them from the miserable life of starvation they will be suffering from. That is what happens when a fox gets old. Its body wears out-it may go blind, or its teeth may fall out-and it slowly starves to death. A quick chop is infinitely preferable.

Your point about heavily pregnant vixens making slow and easy prey is entirely wrong. Remember, hounds hunt by scent. By a quirk of nature, heavily pregnant vixens give off no scent; even on a day with perfect scenting conditions, a great pack of hounds would be hard pressed to hunt a pregnant vixen more than a few yards.

The point you make is true about hunting being better for the fox population - many hunting farmers will not shoot their foxes, but will allow the hunt to manage them so that there is a sustainable population.

You seem sceptical that cubbing is to disperse foxes. It is the primary aim, along with training the hounds to hunt (not to kill) and with pest control in areas with too many foxes or where the landowner demands it.

These 'cubs' - I use the term in inverted commas because they are fully grown - remain in the same area-a couple of hedgrerows and a wood for instance, where they were born. This is not good for them, as they fight among themselves and depopulate that area of prey, while allowing other areas with no foxes to have their prey species grow unchecked. It is better for all if the fox population is spread out and not concentrated. Farmers also prefer this-many keepers can tolerate the odd fox on their land, but would exterminate all of them if they found there were 5 in their best wood.

You will be aware most covers were not surrounded, though some were. This is because, due to the heat in September, scent is often non existant outside of the covert. Keeping the foxes inside didn't really make the job easier for the hounds, it just let them hunt at all! As time went on, by October most foxes were allowed to cross country -though hounds have no hope of catching them in October due to the (relative) bad scent, it was good training for the hounds to puzzle out a line across country. People seem to think that a fox would necessarily be killed in the wood if it was surrounded. Not true at all. Once the hounds had had a good run around in it they would often be taken out. If there were too many foxes in the area, hounds *might* be allowed to kill one. It was all part of dispersing foxes, and managing an area's fox population.

On one yard where I tend some horses there is a vixen that has raised cubs for the last 3 yrs, she has a deformed leg that looks to have been caused by a break, I used to live on this farm and have regularly seen the vixen catching prey and teaching her cubs to do the same. she hardly uses the deformed leg and her condition is always good. Lamping is carried out on this farm but not on the yard and in the grazing fields, I have seen this vixen much further out than the grazing fields extend but she has not appeared in the scope in an area deemed safe to shoot. A trap was set up and left out for the winter when she was first seen with the injury she has never gone in that although a few of her cubs have and the distress it causes them is extreme so the trap has been removed.

This is all leading to the fact that this vixen lives on a farm/yard where the hunt regularly meet, I have seen the hounds in pursuit of this vixen 5 times and the first time I just hoped it would be as swift and end as it could be, now I always hope she gets away she has earnt her right to be on the yard and be left to get on with things, she causes no harm and is often seen (when her cubs have left) sitting alongside the yard cat like old friends.

her cubs are usually shot as they leave the area-it is a quick and and causes no distress to the cubs.

Hunting is not a quick end, they do not catch all the sick or injured, it is definatly not without distress and suffering and most of the people I know that hunt try to justify it by saying they dont often catch very often the rest just say they keep the numbers down. you cannot have it both ways.

i dont like it and do not think it can be justified.

I am up for hunting if the whole thing is quick-watching my lurcher do what comes naturally is amazing, beautiful and quick-so i am not in the fluffy bunny brigade but fox hunting with hounds just does not sit easy with me

 

[tootsietoo]

This is all so confusing, we tie ourselves in knots over what is right and what is wrong. I think (very luckily for us) that most of us are very disconnected from death these days - people, farm animals, wild animals - so that we don't know how to deal with it. There are good deaths and bad deaths of every sort of living thing, in every sort of way. Two people can watch exactly the same incident of death and see it differently and be affected by it differently. It is sometimes impossible to make an objective judgement over what methods are bad and what are good. I've been thinking about this a bit lately as I had to send two horse to be shot last week, the first time I've ever had to make that decision for an animal. I know that I think that that is a good death for a horse, but my friend can't bear the idea of the loudness and "violence" of the shot. I've seen a fox in the last few moments before hounds killed it and found it hard to watch, but seen a lurcher catch a rabbit and not found it hard to watch. I think it is down to the precise detail of the situations. If the management of wild animal populations is accepted as necessary then surely a pack of hounds has a place in that management, we just need to make sure that it is carried out as humanely as other methods of culling animals, all of which can be acceptable or unacceptable depending on who is doing it and the individual situation.

 

[marianne1981]

I just dont get all the contradictions, one person (usually those taking part for the equestrian side) will say that they dont kill many, or that it is the old and weak only, then another person will say that it is very necessary to keep numbers down! And not one pro has answered, if it is simply for pest control, why did they introduce foxes to the Isle of Wight for hunting? That to me speaks volumes.

I do realise that at times foxes can be a nuisance and need some kind of control, but hunting just seems very inefficient and certainly not the most humane way. You see so many foxes run over these days it makes me wonder how that is not enough to keep numbers down. As when fox hunting first started, there were no cars. I am pretty much certain (and I hope that even a pro can accept this) that when fox hunting first began, it was nothing to do with pest control but far more a "sport".

Cptrayes that is really interesting that it was one moment that changed you forever. Did you grow up in a hunting family? Sorry for all the questions but it is very interesting, the fact that you have actually hunted and turned against it gives you more credibility than just the typical townie that the pro's think all antis are!

 

[cptrayes]

I didn't own a horse until I was 23 or hunt until I was 30. I hunted as a guest with friends with three different hunts. It was brilliant fun until I was facedv that day with the reality of what I was doing. I only cubbed half a day, I thought it was the most disgusting thing I had ever personally been asked to do.

I adore following hounds across country and I am lucky enough to live in an area with both a drag pack - foxhounds, and a bloodhound pack that hunt a person.

There are as also a number of foxhounds packs near enough to travel to. I cannot go out with any of them because I have it on good authority that they all hunt fox, despite the ban.

 

[RunToEarth]

for me the cruelty is not in the way the fox is killed but in the fact is is hunted and running for its life over what is often a prolonged period of time. the fear and exhaustion is the cruelty.

a good shot will take a fox out with no fear OR suffering

a lurcher will catch its quarry in a very short time frame

Asides from the "cubbing" debate - this annoys me.

I shoot, I enjoy shooting, we put a lot of game down every year. I hunt (within the law) and I am passionate about both. I love seeing a fox about, I honestly do.

A good shot will take anything out, with no fear and suffering. There are, of course, a lot of bad shots out there. A snare has the capability to entrap any fox, young, old, healthy or ill.

A healthy fox is not going to get caught by a pack of foxhounds, an old one most likely will, and it seemed a sensible way to control a population without contoversy for a good few centuries.

I take issue with these people who believe we let nature be nature, after human intervention has altered a system so much over so many years that it is not possible to just let nature be nature - what creature in this country we haven't already irradicated would possibly prey on a fox or a badger?

I understand people don't share my views - but don't think we are a bloodthirsty group, because we're not - there isn't a supporter or a huntsman or a whip out there who doesn't have respect for the fox.

 

[hnmisty]

Here we go, the town folk versus the countryside folk.

This is so laughably ridiculous that by page 4 of this threat I was still chuckling to myself that someone could be so ignorant.

FYI, I am Somerset born and bred. My dad is a DEFRA vet, and we keep sheep. And I don't support hunting. Guess I must have hallucinated having fields outside my bedroom window then, as I clearly actually grew up in a town. My neighbour sits in his field and pot shots rabbits, I support deer culls (and the badger cull, if I dare bring that up), but not hunting with a pack of dogs.

 

[twiggy2]

Asides from the "cubbing" debate - this annoys me.

I shoot, I enjoy shooting, we put a lot of game down every year. I hunt (within the law) and I am passionate about both. I love seeing a fox about, I honestly do.

A good shot will take anything out, with no fear and suffering. There are, of course, a lot of bad shots out there. A snare has the capability to entrap any fox, young, old, healthy or ill.

A healthy fox is not going to get caught by a pack of foxhounds, an old one most likely will, and it seemed a sensible way to control a population without contoversy for a good few centuries.

I take issue with these people who believe we let nature be nature, after human intervention has altered a system so much over so many years that it is not possible to just let nature be nature - what creature in this country we haven't already irradicated would possibly prey on a fox or a badger?

I understand people don't share my views - but don't think we are a bloodthirsty group, because we're not - there isn't a supporter or a huntsman or a whip out there who doesn't have respect for the fox.

No idea why you open with the line 'Asides from the "cubbing" debate - this annoys me. ' in response to the quote of mine you have offered as non of your response seems to address anything directly from that quote.

A healthy fox that trips, falls, stumbles, is outwitted by the huntsman/hounds or makes the wrong decision about which way to run, or finds a dog walker that forces them to alter direction loses time to the hounds will IMO be likely to fall prey to the hounds.

We can all agree to disagree

 

[RunToEarth]

No idea why you open with the line 'Asides from the "cubbing" debate - this annoys me. ' in response to the quote of mine you have offered as non of your response seems to address anything directly from that quote.

A healthy fox that trips, falls, stumbles, is outwitted by the huntsman/hounds or makes the wrong decision about which way to run, or finds a dog walker that forces them to alter direction loses time to the hounds will IMO be likely to fall prey to the hounds.

We can all agree to disagree

Because the original debate was regarding the term used for cub hunting.

My point was that not everyone has the same objectives with regard to population control of foxes. Keepers of grouse moors most strive for a monoculture of grouse, smaller farm shoots are often happy for their shoot to feed the foxes to a certain extent. Not everyone with a shotgun or a rifle is the marksman they think they are. Granted a fox in a snare is going to meet its death, cleanly or not, but there are a great deal of people with rifles I would not trust to cleanly dispatch a fox out lamping, and they will be the ones wondering around for a few days.

 

[Judgemental]

There are a considerable number of terms which enrich our whole society.

For example The Chief Whip or a Whipped Vote at the House of Commons.

I don't think it makes any difference now. The Hunting Act 2004 is here to stay and there is nothing in the act that says we should not use the ancient terms in long use by those who hunt.

Indeed in the circumstances the 'terms' should be retained by way of symbolic adherence to the whole panoply of hunting and tapestry that we all enjoy.

I also feel it confuses the enemy and the more confusion the better.

 

[KEF]

I have to agree that people use the language they wish to. What I find objectional is the way people increasingly refuse to accept we are rational and (reasonably) intelligent animals. History shows that too many of one species becomes a problem. All of us realised that mink and foxes need control - surely the happenings in the city with fox attacks show us that? Why can't all of us accept that culling badgers is the way forward? Silly arguments about badgers moving into empty badger setts are an argument for more extensive culling, not less. If a practical and effective method of vaccination were available, why on earth would it not have been used?

Culling a few cubs each year by hounds, when foxhunting was legal, was an obvious and natural method, far more in touch with nature than some people's current hysterical objections to it.

Bring back proper hunting if we all want a balanced management of our wildlife.

So what about the increasing human population?

 

[marianne1981]

Foxes regulate their own numbers, as one is killed, another will move into their place. While I accept that there can be some "problem foxes" I do not accept that hunting is wildlife management. As I said, when hunting was started, it was not for wildlife management at all. Again, why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight... for hunting. Crazy or what?!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Foxes regulate their own numbers, as one is killed, another will move into their place. While I accept that there can be some "problem foxes" I do not accept that hunting is wildlife management. As I said, when hunting was started, it was not for wildlife management at all. Again, why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight... for hunting. Crazy or what?!

You're not wrong that introducing foxes purely for hunting is crazy (or worse!) That's how we ended up with hundreds of thousands of the ruddy things in Australia - with the devastating damage they have done to some unique wildlife species - and the crucifying effect on lambing! The national cost of direct fox predation of lambs is estimated at more than A$100 million annually!!!

But you're not accurate regarding foxes 'regulating' their own numbers - they WOULD do it if there was NO food for them - but there's always food. They just get braver as they get hungrier (or tamer if they live in urban areas where people feed them!)

When done properly, hunting was effective 'management' - providing some control, dispersing foxes, keeping them 'scared' of the smell of dogs, and taking out old and infirm foxes (who are THE most likely to prey on the lambing fields!) But it also provided some protection against undue control - I used to see a fox or two almost every day on my farm - now - I hardly EVER see one because shooting and snaring have increased enormously on neighbouring farms. Farmers who used to leave fox control to the local hunt, now let in the lads with rifles and spotlights!

 

[Honey08]

CPtrayes thank you for your posts, saying a lot of what I feel about hunting. I'm not against culling foxes per sé, but I find the chase the worst thing about hunting. Hounds are fittened for the purpose, so are horses, foxes are not. The ones that run for a while and get away are likely to die a slow death after exhausting themselves. I'd rather see one shot. Most farmers would do this anyway, rather than hoping that the hunt would be lucky enough to catch one.

And I am another "townie" that has grown up in the countryside on a farm and has worked in the hunting industry as a groom and has a clear view of hunting (having been several times) still decided against hunting.

 

[CaleruxShearer]

. That includes foxes trapped and released just for the enjoyment of the hunt. And yes they ARE folks. And so are badgers for that matter.

May I just ask if you have any solid proof of this? Because that's quite an accusation to start banding about.

Moving on from that and going back to the original question - I have always known autumn hunting as 'cubbing', that is what I as taught in pony club, that is what I was taught when I first started hunting. Occasionally I will call it autumn hunting, but generally always cubbing. I would be I interested to know what kids coming up through the pony club now are taught to call it, I was taught pre-ban and not been involved with the Pony Club for a few years now so somewhat out of touch.

 

[Countryman]

The ones that run for a while and get away are likely to die a slow death after exhausting themselves.

It's no wonder people are against hunting when people like you go around spreading this utter rubbish!

1) The chase is entirely natural to the fox, it has evolved to be able to run.

2) For the vast majority of the chase, the fox is not running at his full capacity-he is just loping along.

3) Infact, many foxes are not even aware that it is they who are being hunted!

4) There has NEVER been a case of a fox escaping from hounds only to die from exhaustion. That has never happened and would not happen. Unless you have scientific proof, you should withdraw that statement. I'm sorry, but it is utter rubbish.

 

[EAST KENT]

It's no wonder people are against hunting when people like you go around spreading this utter rubbish!

1) The chase is entirely natural to the fox, it has evolved to be able to run.

2) For the vast majority of the chase, the fox is not running at his full capacity-he is just loping along.

3) Infact, many foxes are not even aware that it is they who are being hunted!

4) There has NEVER been a case of a fox escaping from hounds only to die from exhaustion. That has never happened and would not happen. Unless you have scientific proof, you should withdraw that statement. I'm sorry, but it is utter rubbish.

As a fox is never hunted close up more than once and does`nt read The Sun they just lope along even looking back in disgust at the disturbance.Thank God for your sensible reply to this tripe

 

[AdorableAlice]

This is so laughably ridiculous that by page 4 of this threat I was still chuckling to myself that someone could be so ignorant.

FYI, I am Somerset born and bred. My dad is a DEFRA vet, and we keep sheep. And I don't support hunting. Guess I must have hallucinated having fields outside my bedroom window then, as I clearly actually grew up in a town. My neighbour sits in his field and pot shots rabbits, I support deer culls (and the badger cull, if I dare bring that up), but not hunting with a pack of dogs.

Apologies for offending you. 20 years married to a hunt servant obviously leaves me ignorant.

 

[Honey08]

And that is why I don't come on this forum, as despite qualifying myself as someone who has hunted, worked with hunters, and grown up on a farm, two replies from the pro-hunters are as un polite as usual! Utter rubbish, in your opinion. And how do you know there has never been a fox die of exhaustion? And if foxes are naturally evolved runners and don't need fittening etc etc, why would we need to fitten the dogs and horses, which are naturally evolved to run too??? There is never any logic in the remarks on here that come in response to those that don't like hunting!! Anyway, for that reason I usually stay off this page of the forum, so I will leave you experts/obsessive hunters to it.

ps. I hunted with the Cottesmore, Belvoir, Grove and Rufford etc while forming my opinion of hunting. Give me a day out with a good, fast drag hunt any day.

 

[GoblinPony]

And if foxes are naturally evolved runners and don't need fittening etc etc, why would we need to fitten the dogs and horses, which are naturally evolved to run too??? There is never any logic in the remarks on here that come in response to those that don't like hunting!!

Foxes are wild animals, they are free to roam and spend a lot of time on the move. Hounds and horses are kenneled and stabled most of the time and fully depend on humans to provide them with necessary levels of exercise. Isn't that rather obvious? You can't be expected to spend months on your lovely sofa with chocolates and then get up and compete with somebody who's been jogging every morning for years.

 

[paddocktractor]

The fact that foxes were some times killed is the end of discussion for some and nothing anyone says or does will change that fact for anti hunt side .
The feeling is so strong on both sides .
The thing I cant understand snaring ,gassing and flushing to gun or bird of prey or been shot by rifle lamping is any kinder way to go think about all them legal methods .
some people will say they are all wrong so none are right but most are saying some control mainly been shot is ok.
vixen gassed in her earth with young cubs struggling to breath trying to dig way out but no chance.
some people can get enjoyment from hunting and some feel this is so wrong to get enjoy from the death of a animal?
Rats and mice are the fair game?

 

[cptrayes]

Can one of you hunting folk answer an important question for me that I've not considered before?

Old reports in horse and hound would celebrate particularly long runs. If we imagined for a moment a run of ,say, four miles. For how much of that mileage, typically, would the Fox have been actively running away from hounds, and how much would be simply the scent it left earlier while going about its normal business?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Old reports in horse and hound would celebrate particularly long runs. If we imagined for a moment a run of ,say, four miles. For how much of that mileage, typically, would the Fox have been actively running away from hounds, and how much would be simply the scent it left earlier while going about its normal business?

lol, you forgot the other question - how many times did hounds change scent (fox) on the run. I would say that - at most - around 1/4 of a mile would be an active chase - where fox was going like stink. At the end of that distance he will either have been caught and killed - or he'll have put 'safe distance' between himself and hounds. When I started hunting with my local hunt - and a few times since - it was on YOUNG horses who I didn't want charging along with the field. We stood on hillsides and watched the action! I saw hunted foxes cross into a creek, go 100 yards down the creek - and come out on the same side. Hounds of course lost him. I also saw foxes go into the middle of a flock of sheep and sit down! Again, scent was lost. Sometimes hounds picked up another scent and went off in an opposite direction with hardly a pause. I would say foxes COULDN'T run a non-stop 4 miles - and hounds would be very pushed to do it without at least a couple of pauses. Pauses happen when hounds lose the scent and have to get their noses down again and find it - hounds can't run flat out with their noses on the ground - and very rarely is scent good enough for them to keep it when they're running like stink!

I should add that I read a couple of write-ups of hunting days I'd been out on - and I wondered where I was!

 

[cptrayes]

Thanks JG, great reply as usual.

I wonder how many anti hunting people would change their minds if asked to compare shooting, with its risks, with a chase of four hundred metres and certain death or escape?

 

[Judgemental]

For one moment reading all of the above posts, especially cptrayes', I thought that there had been an overnight repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

 

[cptrayes]

For one moment reading all of the above posts, especially cptrayes', I thought that there had been an overnight repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

We've had this discussion before Judgemental, and you requested me to PM you with details of the hunts I know of which hunt fox and I did so. You must be the last person in the country who is pro hunting not to know that Hunting Act or no Hunting Act, there are hunts actively hunting fox

 

[JanetGeorge]

Thanks JG, great reply as usual.

I wonder how many anti hunting people would change their minds if asked to compare shooting, with its risks, with a chase of four hundred metres and certain death or escape?

Not many! Even if you persuade antis that hunting is a relatively humane way of reducing numbers, AND they accept that numbers must be reduced, there is still the fact that hunt supporters ENJOY following hounds!

The FACT is that very few hunt supporters hunt because they want foxes killed! Some will make sure they're nowhere near when it happens (and they're unlikely to be in most situations!) The farmers, of course, like to see foxes killed on their farm or neighbouring farms! And the hunt staff like to see it - both for hounds' sake and the safety of their own jobs!

Of course shooting - when done by people with a good eye AND the right firearm - is THE best way of controlling numbers if that's the only aim. But of course in the UK, shooting foxes can be difficult - partly because the police won't hand out licences for more powerful rifles too easily -and partly because most of the country has risks of what a stray bullet will find! If you're GOOD you can kill a hell of a lot when circumstances are right - in Oz, I once shot (and killed) 50 foxes in one night! (Beat the 2 blokes who were also shooting!) But the terrain, the build-up of the area and the power of the firearms used made it a TOTALLY different ball-game!

 

[marianne1981]

Thanks Janet George and CPtrayes, you are some of the few people on here who do talk sense and can talk reasonably without fighting lol! Hunting fascinates me in one way as it is such an emotive subject, it brings out the best or worst in people. But since a little girl I have hated it very much. I can see what you are saying with the "short" chase thing but how do you ever really know, some foxes must have to endure much longer. If they do escape hounds and go to ground, I do think they should be given the sporting chance, especially if they have evaded the hounds for some time.

 

[cptrayes]

Not many! Even if you persuade antis that hunting is a relatively humane way of reducing numbers, AND they accept that numbers must be reduced, there is still the fact that hunt supporters ENJOY following hounds!

The FACT is that very few hunt supporters hunt because they want foxes killed! Some will make sure they're nowhere near when it happens (and they're unlikely to be in most situations!) The farmers, of course, like to see foxes killed on their farm or neighbouring farms! And the hunt staff like to see it - both for hounds' sake and the safety of their own jobs!

Of course shooting - when done by people with a good eye AND the right firearm - is THE best way of controlling numbers if that's the only aim. But of course in the UK, shooting foxes can be difficult - partly because the police won't hand out licences for more powerful rifles too easily -and partly because most of the country has risks of what a stray bullet will find! If you're GOOD you can kill a hell of a lot when circumstances are right - in Oz, I once shot (and killed) 50 foxes in one night! (Beat the 2 blokes who were also shooting!) But the terrain, the build-up of the area and the power of the firearms used made it a TOTALLY different ball-game!

I am with you on all of this. I can identify with the satisfaction of ridding the area of vermin with skill, whether by shooting or hunting. I still won't hunt with hounds, myself, but thanks mostly to you JG, I really do understand both sides. And the worst of it is that just like the Open Access laws that nearly allowed people to walk their dogs on my water supply, the Act itself was a gross misuse of political favour-grabbing.