Disgusted at behaviour of the hunt

[4x4]

Yes but WHERE was it? Bet I know!

 

[rockysmum]

Right so the answer is to do a 'John Wayne' and have a rifle on my saddle then 'yeeee-haah'!!

And I have to agree that it's cruel shooting those cuddly little Skeets you nasty person!

Fantastic!

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too

 

[Judgemental]

I had intended to stay out of this thread.

However, Shakespeare's Henry V springs to mind: 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' and 'Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

It is extraordinarily simply what shoots do not get sabbed.

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns.

Simples

 

[Fiagai]

I had intended to stay out of this thread.

However, Shakespeare's Henry V springs to mind: 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' and 'Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

It is extraordinarily simply what shoots do not get sabbed.

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns.

Simples

JM

are you perhaps suggesting we should take to carrying shotguns whilst mounted

 

[VoR]

John Wayne in True Grit, reins between my teeth, colt 45 in one hand, winchester rifle in the other, yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaah!!

 

[combat_claire]

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns.

Simples

A quick look at the HSA website shows that this is incorrect, there are several incidents of grouse shoots being disrupted. It is my understanding from the shooting press that incidents of sabotage against shoots tends to be less direct action and more cowardly moves such as releasing magpies from Larsen traps, cutting snares, tipping over pheasant feeders, destroying release pens etc.

Indeed whilst I was on a conservation holiday dry stone walling in Cumbria our suspect group leader suggested that our evening entertainment should be to destroy grouse butts - I have no idea whether this was just cheap bravado or whether they did go out and do it; but it reflects the cowardly mentality of these people.

Which reminds me, one of my friends out hunting last season when the Sabs rocked up asked one of them why he insisted on covering his face with scarf and sunglasses while she pointed out that she was proud of what she did and had no need to hide her features...

 

[Herne]

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns.

Absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

Shoots are hard to sab because they are hard to find.

However, once you have found a shoot they are then incredibly easy to sab.

To sab a hunt, you need a large a number of fit people and transport to follow it, because the hunt moves over a large area.

Sabbing a shoot, once you have found it, can be done by two old ladies and a cat.

Shoots take place in a restricted area and as soon as the police are called (by either side) and they see that there is any form of protest or altercation going in an activity that involves firearms, they will then demand that the shoot is immediately terminated and that the guns are locked away into vehicles and taken home.

Any members of the shoot who complain or fail to comply risk losing their licences.

The police put up with a lot of piddling about between hunts and sabs because most of it just involves irritation and civil law matters such as trespass.

As soon as firearms become involved, they crack down immediately with a rod of iron.

 

[EAST KENT]

Driven shoots are on private land,trespass laws would apply to any sabs brave enough to annoy the average gamekeeper.Personally I would not

 

[Herne]

Misconception, I am afraid.

There are no such things as "trespass Laws" in England and Wales. Trespass is a Tort, for which the remedy is action in the civil courts. The Police do not take action against trespass.

They will, however, take action against "breach of the peace" and if that "breach of the peace" is taking place any where near guns, they will insist that the guns are removed.

And if it is an annoyed average gamekeeper that is breaching the peace, then it is the annoyed average gamekeeper that will get arrested, regardless of whether he is being "annoyed" by trespassers.

The remedy against trespassers is to use reasonable force to escort them off the land or to a highway, to sue them for damages or to get an injunction against them. Trying to escort them off your land whilst carrying a firearm, or accompanied by those that are, will not be considered "reasonable force" by the Courts.

There is, of course, now the criminal offence of aggravated trespass, but shoots will find it no easier to get the police to enforce that than hunts have done - and, in the meantime, the Police will still insist on the firearms being removed.

 

[NeilM]

To add to Herne's post, the only time the Police WILL be interested is if the trespasser has a firearm. Trespass with a firearm is a pretty serious offence.

So, use 'reasonable force' on sab, shove spare shotgun in his / her hands, and phone the Police

 

[MerrySherryRider]

And if it is an annoyed average gamekeeper that is breaching the peace, then it is the annoyed average gamekeeper that will get arrested, regardless of whether he is being "annoyed" by trespassers.

The remedy against trespassers is to use reasonable force to escort them off the land or to a highway, to sue them for damages or to get an injunction against them. Trying to escort them off your land whilst carrying a firearm, or accompanied by those that are, will not be considered "reasonable force" by the Courts.

Your annoyed average gamekeeper needs a Bull Mastiff and a mobile phone. Mastiffs, the traditional gamekeepers dog, bring undesiribles down by putting their paws on the person's shoulders and using their weight to push them over, keeping them pinned down until help arrives.
Much more satisfying.

 

[VoR]

Yay, up to page 35 and yet another change of direction, starting to get car-sick now!!

 

[Herne]

I have never made this assertion. More than that, I have already talked about illegal lamping as being uncontrollable in large unpopulated areas of countryside.

Hmm. Let me see.

Yes, you admit the problem of illegal lamping, and I grant you that legitimate shooters can no more be held liable for illegal shooting than legitimate hunting can be held liable for those who breaks its rules, but …

I can assure you that foxes in my area are controlled perfectly well and humanely by marksmen with guns..

Other than killing foxes which is done in my area by marksmen...

but they exist whether you cull fox with hounds or with a marksman.

And marksmen to killl them are easy to get hold of …

EVERY time you talk about legal shooting, you make out that it is done by marksmen, giving the clear implication that it is only done by marksmen – which we both know is not the case.

You say it because you want to sanitise your beliefs about shooting in order to bolster your beliefs about hunting.

No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion.

No, dear heart, it has every relevance to the discussion.

It is your statements of what you think happened most often or what you claim most people think that are irrelevant.

As Mahatma Ghandi said: In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.


Ok, lets take this right down to basics:

You will concede, I hope, that it would be hypothetically possible for the situation to be that every single shooter was a hopeless shot and every single fox that was shot at spent a week in agony dying of gangrene. In such an entirely theoretical situation, hunting with dogs, with all its faults, would clearly then be a better method of control in terms of animal welfare than shooting.

Likewise, I must concede that it is hypothetically possible that every fox-shooter could be a total dead-eyed-dick and that every single fox ever shot at was killed instantaneously with no suffering involved what-so-ever, at all, ever – thus making shooting undeniably and unquestionably better than hunting on an animal welfare basis.

The reality, of course, lies somewhere between those two hypothetical and unfeasible extremes – and I concede without qualm that it lies much, much, much nearer the latter extreme than the former.


However, the mistake that you, and people on your side of the equation, make is that you then go on to ASSUME that the amount of suffering generated by shooting is not only less, but that it is less by such a degree of magnitude that it is justified to make hunting illegal.

And the critical word there is: Assume. You do not believe this because you know it to be true. You convince yourself that you believe it because you want it to be true.

I do not believe that it is more humane to hunt them with a pack of hounds and I do not believe that you can point me to any independant study that says it is.

I do not believe… I do not believe… in other words – you do not KNOW.

You are basing your recommendations on what is best for animal welfare on what is, basically, when it comes down to it, a GUESS.

It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are completely justified in our feelings that hunting live quarry is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justfiably criticised for.

No, I will not agree that you are justified in your feelings – unless you can demonstrate that your feelings are justifiable.


So, let’s examine the equation, shall we – and in order to avoid getting bogged down by the intimate details of specific instances, let’s look at a very general statement. How about this:

“If you shoot a thousand foxes, that will generate substantially less suffering than if you hunt a thousand foxes.”

How’s that? I think that pretty much sums up the case for the abolition of hunting with dogs, don’t you? If you hunt a thousand foxes you will cause more suffering than if you shoot a thousand foxes – so hunting should be abolished in favour of shooting.

Ok. So let’s examine that statement.

Let’s look at hunting a thousand foxes. Burns estimated that the kill takes a “matter of seconds” (para 6.49). However, it can be claimed that foxes suffer during the chase, too. Burns said that the average chase is around 15-20 minutes (para 2.22). But, it could be claimed that foxes also suffer from exhaustion after chasing, so let’s be really fair and say an average of an hour to cover all eventualities. 1,000 foxes = 1,000 hours.

Ok, now let’s look at 1,000 shot foxes – and let’s assume that shooters have a 95% accuracy rate. That’s 19 out of 20 foxes killed absolutely stone dead, instantaneously, with absolutely no suffering what-so-ever. None. Nada. Nothing. Zip.

That leaves 5% that are wounded. Of those, some will die of their injuries in a matter of minutes or hours. Some will get infections and die in a matter of hours or days. Some will be incapacitated by their wounds and not be able to hunt or hold territory and die of starvation or cold or disease caused by malnutrition in a number of days. And some, will not die; they will recover. And paradoxically, they will suffer the most, because death brings and end to suffering. How long does it take to recover from an untreated gunshot wound? Days? Weeks?

So, that can be anything from several hours to several days. Well, we’re dealing with an average here, so let’s say: one day.

5% of 1,000 foxes is 50. 50 foxes at 24 hours is: 1,200 hours.

Well, what do you know? Far from being less by an order of magnitude, it’s actually about the same.

And that is including the whole rigmarole of “the extended chase” etc.

Hmm. So what will the antis say:

“That’s ridiculous! You can’t make such comparisons!” – We’re not the ones making the comparisons, you are. You are the ones saying that hunting is so much worse that it should be made illegal, I’m just putting figures to your side’s comparison.

“You can’t compare different types of suffering like that” – indeed not. Personally, I would think that suffering of pain would be a worse sort of suffering than the suffering of fear, but who knows. The only way we can quantify the amount of suffering is by the time involved.

“Your figures are just guesses”. Yep. True. But they are good guesses. Educated guesses. Feel free to come up with better ones.


So how much worse should the suffering caused by hunting be to justify banning it? 10 times? A hundred times?

I'll let you pick the amount, and then try to quantify it...

The problem for your side is NOT that shooting causes a lot of suffering. It doesn’t. I know, I shoot. It is that, in reality, the amount of real suffering hunting causes is miniscule.

The suffering caused by hunting is measured in seconds or minutes. The amount of suffering caused by botched shots is measured in hours or days - and there's the rub.

I've just demonstrated that hunting is no worse than shooting at all.

Go on, then. Have a play with the figures and see what you can come up with.

Good luck. You’ll need it.

 

[VoR]

Talking of scientific studies, on the subject of 'Hunting with hounds is Cruel and less humane than other types of wildlife management', I had a slow day yesterday and began 'googling' - Scientific Studies: Fox Hunting.

There are a fair few peer reviewed, apparently controlled studies which say that a fox that is chased suffers no more, and perhaps less, than a trapped or wounded one and none that can show any evidence, through controlled research, that a fox being chased is either;

a) scared or;
b) aware of the danger of death or;
c) suffers any long lasting damage.

In fact, it seems that the opposite is true!

They display the natural behaviour of any animal being 'predated' and once no longer hunted, quickly return to other behaviours......which I thought was quite interesting.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I do not shoot and therefore it is not my sport, but you are correct that I have no problem with vermin animals being culled.

You have " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery" You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?

.

When I first came to the UK, I had VERY little experience of foxhunting (I was young, and brave, and favoured eventing.) But I HAD a lot of experience in fox shooting - albeit crammed into about 12 months when I was working in the bush in Oz! My employer wouldn't let anyone shoot fox until they had proved their marksmanship on rabbits! Was this because he was 'humane'? No, it was because - after 50 years as a grazier lambing 10,000 ewes outdoors he was convinced - with strong evidence to support his conviction - that injured and infirm foxes were the main predators of new-born lambs (easy pickings!) I proved myself and was regularly sent out on fox control nights - we were given x number of cartridges and at the end of the session the boss expected x - y cartridges to be returned (with y being the number of dead foxes!!) BUT - we used heavy calibre rifles (.303s) You could hit a fox ANYWHERE with one of those and it was killed instantly or bled out very quickly!

In many areas of the UK you can struggle to get a licence for anything over a .22 for fox control (whereas a .222 is the minimum you need!) A .303 would go through a fox - and a sheep 200 yards further on - and still wound a pony in a field a couple of 100 yards further away!

My first few outings with foxhounds convinced me it was a great riding sport - but a hellishly inefficient way of killing foxes! All those hounds, and people on horseback, to kill one fox in a couple of hours!! Hell, my best night with a .303 I personally killed 50 in a couple of hours! It took a little more time for me to understand that foxhunting was NOT about killing foxes - it was about managing (and to a degree PROTECTING) a healthy fox population!

In areas where foxhunting had a good following, there was a lot less shooting and snaring! (And that was a factor that convinced at least one leading LACS activist to change his mind!) And it was a great excuse when a neighbour asked if he could come onto my land to shoot foxes. While what I really wanted to say was: "I wouldn't let an idiot like you loose on my land with a rifle", one doesn't want to fall out with a neighbour so instead I said: "Ooh, sorry, but no - I'm a hunt supporter!"

But - most important - I had the opportunity to see - close-up - a couple of foxes killed by hounds in very short runs. There were mangey foxes, there were foxes wearing wire, there were foxes with shotgun injuries. And no - it's NOT that foxhounds are kindly chaps who ONLY kill the old and infirm - it's just that a fox who is slowly dying of mange or injury smells more strongly - and is easier to catch!

As for " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery" You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?"

I assume you're talking to a shooter there - and shooters don't tend to run around with a couple of foxhounds in tow! By the time a shooter realises he's wounded a fox rather than killed it outright, he MIGHT be able to get a second shot - or it might have got away to die slowly! A good friend of mine is a 'deer manager' in our local woodlands where deer are shot by poachers - or more likely hit by cars. He has a highly trained Lab - it will search out a wounded deer, usually lying up in heavy cover, and come back and 'tell' my friend he's found it - and lead him back to it! My friend is often called out by the police after an RTA - when a wounded deer has run away - and thanks to this highly trained dog the deer can be found - and put out of its misery. That was a service that hunts provided for the fox population - as a side effect of course - but nevertheless a valuable one! Now, a huntsman who allowed hounds to find and despatch a wounded fox would be prosecuted! Crazy world!

 

[cptrayes]

That's a great post Janet, thankyou.

 

[cptrayes]

Will everyone please note that I did not restart this and it is not me wanting to continue it.

You will concede, I hope, that it would be hypothetically possible for the situation to be that every single shooter was a hopeless shot and every single fox that was shot at spent a week in agony dying of gangrene. In such an entirely theoretical situation, hunting with dogs, with all its faults, would clearly then be a better method of control in terms of animal welfare than shooting.

Which is presumably why the law allows for hunting with two dogs to flush to an experienced gun? Because few people deny that weak, injured and indeed overpopulated foxes need putting to death. It may be better with more dogs, I don't know, but for sure it does not require the accompanying 30-150 riders.

From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman. I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field.

:
Originally Posted by Santa Paws View Post
It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are completely justified in our feelings that hunting live quarry is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justfiably criticised for.

No, I will not agree that you are justified in your feelings – unless you can demonstrate that your feelings are justifiable.

I apologise, my quote should have read:

It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are entitled to our feelings that hunting live quarry with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justifiably criticised for.

Because you see, feelings are feelings whether you believe that they are justified or not, you cannot just remove them from us. My point was supposed to focus on the point that even when a hunt is justifiably criticised, like in the original post, some fox hunters seem to go out of their way to insist that hunts just never do anything wrong and it gives the wrong impression of your sport. Janet George's posts are a much better response, and truly educational.

 

[Fiagai]

To those that may think that Hunt sabs are just cuddly bobble-hat wearing concerned citizens take a read of this xenophonic, class hatred ridden piece from a pro hunt sab blogger. It is interesting that without qualification the blogger takes the stance that if dressed in the traditional manner with hounds present then ipso facto there is hunting taking place, the writer also presumes that hunt sabs never do any harm and then equates those who turn up a hunt on horseback (even if they are not "hunting live quarry") with child abusers...

In early 2011 I spent a Saturday documenting the wonderful efforts of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. The short story is that it was a successful sabotage; the hunters, all bourgeois men and women in their fineries on horseback with their packs of slave dogs, couldn't shake the sabs and ended up going home early. They were thoroughly pissed off and I had a grin from ear to ear. No foxes were killed that day.

Citing direct action as the only route might sound extreme if you don't know that fox hunting has been banned in England. Yep, it is illegal but it happens anyway, so the laws won't protect the foxes. Interestingly, it is also illegal to sabotage a fox hunt.

The longer story: on Saturdays, when the hunters and the sabs are out doing battle, the police are also out in full force, protecting the hunters. What? Yes, the police are there to protect the hunters (ie: the rich) from those scary-looking, intimidating hunt saboteurs who might cause them harm. No sab had ever caused a hunter harm. Quite the opposite. The hunters charge, whip, hit and run over the sabs in an effort to intimidate and hurt them so that they can carry on with their hunt. Witnessing this, I felt like I was in a war zone and was full of admiration for the sabs who return week after week at risk of personal injury to thwart the hunters.

As we ran by one of the police officers I asked him why they were protecting the hunters and detaining the sabs. His answer: "Have you seen any of them kill a fox? Until there's a dead fox, they are doing nothing wrong." Right. Do you wait for a pedophile to attack before arresting him?

It would be nice to think that this is a once off piece of venom however even from a brief trawl of the intranet there are hundreds of such websites and blogs which potray similar nasty and vicous rantings.

Many of these sab sites start with advice on sab tactics such as the example from the hunt sab association which gives instruction for - "Pre-meet tactics: Ways to sab the hunt before they even start" . The same sites universally fail to make any mention of trail hunting, blood hounds or any of the legal hunting methods. The advice to their followers is to get in there and disrupt anyway.

To those here that have claimed that hunts are being sabbed only because they are hunting, these sites are the proof that this not what is happening.

The sooner that proper legal controls on such illegal activity are put in place the better.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Which is presumably why the law allows for hunting with two dogs to flush to an experienced gun? Because few people deny that weak, injured and indeed overpopulated foxes need putting to death. It may be better with more dogs, I don't know, but for sure it does not require the accompanying 30-150 riders.

From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman. I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field.

The problems with using 2 hounds to flush a fox to a gun are that : 1) in a hundred acres or more of woodland 2 hounds would be unlikely to find a wounded fox within a reasonable time frame: and 2) IF they found it and flushed it on the opposite side of the woodland to the experienced gun, he couldn't shoot it and hounds would hunt on.

The old gun packs - now illegal - put 20 hounds into a piece of woodland and SURROUNDED it with chaps with guns - maybe 20 or more of them! Foxes came out in all directions - some were successfully shot - the wounded ones ran on and were chased and despatched by hounds! As a method of killing foxes it was VERY efficient indeed (assuming the 20 guns were competent!) Shotguns were used because with so many people around, and foxes coming out at speed, a rifle would have been unsuitable and dangerous!

Long runs are - in most cases - a wishful myth! While hounds may follow a scent for several miles, they often change scent - and the fox who left the scent has often gone to ground LONG before hounds lose the scent!

And the field's CHIEF purpose is to pay the bills! Maintaining a pack of foxhounds, a professional huntsman, a whipper-in (or two), a hunt groom and hunt horses is a VERY expensive business. As is the maintenance of the vehicles that transport hounds - and collect deadstock from farms - to say nothing of the cost of providing and running an incinerator - or having offal removed by licensed contractors. Yes, farmers contribute to the collection of deadstock (as does the Government where TB reactors are concerned!) but it doesn't cover the costs fully.

And - TBH - is it really relevant that riders enjoy following hounds?? It's certainly not relevent to the cruelty question!

 

[Echo Bravo]

Well considering this post has gone on since th 26/12/11 and Santa Paws and Fiagai haven't had much sleep and as usual things get personnal. I was always lead to believe that the Hunts would only go over land they had permission to use,I know on some big estates the tenant farmer had it written into their contracts, that the hunt could travel over their land, but would repair and damage to fences,hedges ect:-And that the Masters would go round each farm telling the farmers/owners which way they may come, also the Hunt is invited to hunt over peoples land, so I think do co-ordinate with other property owners, and if they were told keep off the land they did so.

 

[Fiagai]

Well considering this post has gone on since th 26/12/11 and Santa Paws and Fiagai haven't had much sleep and as usual things get personnal. I was always lead to believe that the Hunts would only go over land they had permission to use,I know on some big estates the tenant farmer had it written into their contracts, that the hunt could travel over their land, but would repair and damage to fences,hedges ect:-And that the Masters would go round each farm telling the farmers/owners which way they may come, also the Hunt is invited to hunt over peoples land, so I think do co-ordinate with other property owners, and if they were told keep off the land they did so.

I am touched by your solicitude EB trust me though I am in no danger danger do of loosing sleep rather over such matters, although I do feel passionate about certain things and then I am a fast typer

 

[VoR]

That's a great post Janet, thankyou.

I agree, that is a really good post with valid personal experience being imparted.

The sooner that proper legal controls on such illegal activity are put in place the better.

Definately, also the 'blogger' shows a very real lack of understanding of the 'class' (for want of a better description) of many of those that hunt (it would also be interesting to look in to the background of many sabs!!??) and also of powers of arrest! The sabs are more at risk of this as they are potentially disrupting a legal activity and certainly are in disrurting a meet when their actions might verly likely be deemed 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace', then they accuse the police of 'protecting the rich'????!!!! Clap-trap, most police officers spend most of their time working with the less fortunate in society, often protecting them, it is the nature of their work! As for the 'paedophile' jibes, this has unfortunately become a common insult and the word is so extremely over-used by the uneducated and some of the media there is a danger people will become indifferent to it and the abhorrent crimes it relates to! Finally, there is the issue of sabs 'doing no wrong', I have never, ever, seen anti-hunt people hold up their hand and say, we were wrong, we were out of line, I and I'm sure many supporters of hunting would be happy to say that the courts have come to the conclusion that hunts and some hunt staff have, time to grow up people!

And the field's CHIEF purpose is to pay the bills!

is it really relevant that riders enjoy following hounds?? It's certainly not relevent to the cruelty question!

Another good post JG....trouble is I now just feel like a cash-cow!! I really don't think that most riders were, nor would be, too concerned whether a fox was killed or not, more than that I think most people did have and would have a quiet respect for the ones that got away (but didn't and wouldn't tell the Huntsman that!!!!! ). The main thing is the riding experience which can't be replicated in any other way, that is why people still hunt given the changes in law surely???

 

[Herne]

Will everyone please note that I did not restart this and it is not me wanting to continue it.

This is a debating forum and this section is about hunting. We are debating hunting.

There’s no need to apologise about it. People who don’t want to read this stuff shouldn’t click on it.

My point was supposed to focus on the point that even when a hunt is justifiably criticised, like in the original post, some fox hunters seem to go out of their way to insist that hunts just never do anything wrong and it gives the wrong impression of your sport.

For what it’s worth I agree with you entirely on this point.

I did PM the OP for details some while ago, so that I could verify the whole business with the hunt concerned and demonstrate to all the people trying to make out that it never happened that it did.

Unfortunately, I have not received a response yet.

 

[Herne]

Oh, dear, CPTrayes, what a disappointment.

I was hoping from the tone and content of some of your previous postings that we might actually be able to get down to some intelligent debate about the real nitty-gritty of the subject.

However, alas, it seems it is not to be.

It seems impossible to get anyone from the anti-hunt side of the argument to actually argue about the comparative merits of the various methods of fox control. When ever you start, they just veer away from the topic.

From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman.

As it is virtually impossible to interpret my post in that light, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

When confronted by information about the problems that can be associated with shooting stationary foxes, it is not even remotely logical to respond “Oh, well in that case, the best thing must be to scare them and then try to shoot at them whilst they’re moving…”

Come on, do try at least to think about what you’re saying before you write it…

I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field.

The chasing field is a red herring. They have absolutely no bearing on the welfare issue. We have them there because they pay for the running of the whole shebang, but the welfare issues would be the same whether they were there or not.

The claimed justification for the long run is obvious (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). It is the long run (and don’t forget Burns talks of an average of 15-20 minutes) that makes hunting with dogs selective.

If (and I am talking in pre-ban terms here) we used a dog that was so fast that it caught every fox it was loosed at in 20 seconds flat – or if we allowed every fox to pop down the nearest hole, then hunting would be no more selective than shooting or snaring. It would be entirely random.

As Janet said, in her post that you described as “great” and “truly educational”, hunting is about managing a fox population.

And in any population management exercise, be it in the British countryside or a game reserve in Africa, every single conservation authority you care to look at will tell you that when carrying out a cull, that cull should be selective and not random.

The only people anywhere in the world who try to make out that a random cull is better than a selective one are those who are against hunting with dogs. Why? Because it goes against every single known theory or rule of conservation.

So, to say that “you do not see” the justification is disingenuous, because this cannot be the first time that you have heard it.

You would be perfectly entitled to say: “I do not accept that the reason you give for the long chase justifies the amount of suffering that it causes”. Fine. Ok. Let’s discuss that.

Because, and this is the important point here, the long run is already accounted for in the figures that I gave you to look at and which you are so studiously ignoring.

It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are entitled to our feelings that hunting live quarry with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders is not the right thing for us to do … Because you see, feelings are feelings whether you believe that they are justified or not, you cannot just remove them from us.

Hmm. But what happened to:

I'm an atheist, my opinions are certainly not God given, but it is the law to have free speech in this country so I will continue to challenge you if I believe that you are wrong.

Sauce for the goose…?

If you were merely saying that fox-hunting was not for you, that would be absolutely hunky-dory. You have a perfect right to make that moral choice for yourself. Can’t argue with that in the slightest.

That isn’t what we are arguing about.

Because, that is not all you are saying:

Why do you think that hunting was banned on welfare issues? It was banned for ... But I did agree with the result.

That is what we are arguing about. The fact that you support the idea that I should have my right to make my own moral decision on this issue taken away from me by Law.

It is the function of democracy to protect the rights of minorities from unjustified oppression. As Thomas Jefferson said: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule if fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

That is why am pushing you to answer my questions. Not because of your own moral decisions, but because of your above-stated support for the principle that I should not be allowed to make my own moral decisions.

That you should be able – and indeed willing – to justify.

Alec you do not wish to educate. You wish to make people who have a moral objection to culling foxes with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders agree with you that they are wrong … They are not wrong … I am not wrong …We all hold a different opinion from you and it is time that you began to respect it, because this new generation of young people feel even stronger about it.

I am sorry – are you really trying to make out that someone who makes a moral objection to something somehow cannot be wrong?

Of course they can be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. Even, and you may find this hard to believe, me.

If someone forms a moral objection to something based on misinformation, then it is entirely possible that they would form a different moral opinion if based on the correct information. In that case, their first objection would have been “wrong”.

So, to be absolutely clear about this, I am not questioning your moral objection in my post above. I am questioning your knowledge and understanding of the factors underlying that objection and upon which it was formed.

Surely that is fair enough…



(EDIT:Going back to what I said earlier about hunting having upped its PR game, it's weird the way things have changed. Whoever would have thought a few years ago, that it would ever be the pro-hunt side haveing to chide the anti-hunt side for refusing to address the issues of animal welfare... )

 

[cptrayes]

The claimed justification for the long run is obvious (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). It is the long run (and don’t forget Burns talks of an average of 15-20 minutes) that makes hunting with dogs selective.

I don't understand your argument here Herne. Previously we have been told that hunting culls the sick and weak, but in this case it culls everything capable of running outrunning hounds for 15 -20 minutes. That's a pretty fit fox.

Are there days when hunts go and hunt trail because there are insufficient foxes to justify killing one? If not, how is that managed unless you are deliberately breeding/allowing enough to breed to be able to provide sport for the rest of the season?

One of the huge problems that you have with the image of the sport is the conflict of interest. What makes it fun for the people who pay for it, a long run, is at odds with the declared object of the sport, the most humane method of fox control. In any other business, that type of conflict of interest would raise alarm bells.

Another huge problem with your current justification for repealing the law is that the decline in the fox population in rural areas, unless you produce a lot more evidence, looks from the outside to be indistinguishable from what would have been expected to have happened if hunts were deliberately protecting and conserving the breeding of foxes in order to have them to hunt.

I hope someone in the CA is commmisioning the independant review that will prove that the decline is due to increased killing by other means.

Do not shoot the messenger on either of these points, please. You need to counter both arguments if you are to persuade people to support a repeal.

So, to say that “you do not see” the justification is disingenuous, because this cannot be the first time that you have heard it.

Ah, so when I say I know there are hunts which are hunting illegally, no one will believe me because they have not seen it. But when you say foxes are dying horrible deaths in big numbers I am suppposed to believe in these large numbers even though I have ridden over and driven through large areas of unhunted fox country daily for 20 years on horseback and never ever seen one?

That is what we are arguing about. The fact that you support the idea that I should have my right to make my own moral decision on this issue taken away from me by Law.

There are plenty of things which other people believe are morally right which have been taken away by law. Dog and cock fighting are the two most obviously relevant, but the law is littered with examples. There is no conflict in me insisting on a right to believe something is morally wrong and another person being legally banned from exercising their moral judgement whether to be able to do it or not.

You seem to be getting caught up again in the feeling that if only you could explain enough that the rest of the British population would agree with you that fox hunting is right. I don't think that's the case. I believe that the majority of the British population now think that the time is past for killing an animal by chasing it across country for 15-20 minutes first. Unfortunately for you, it does not matter how good a welfare case you put up, this is a visceral response.

The public were banned from watching hangings 150 years or more before hangings ceased. It's a very extreme example of the same thing - that many people find it morally repugnant to link a sport inextricably with animal deaths, however necessary those deaths may be.

You can go on and on about the welfare issue as long as you like. You can be as right as you like about it. I accept a lot of what you are saying, especially when explained the way Janet does, without trying to tell people that they have no right to feel as they do. But you aren't going to be able to get away from the moral repugnance of linking prolonged animal death and pleasure.

I don't speak directly for myself on this, I am describing what I believe to be the problem that you will face in having the act repealed and why you will face an almighty fight from the sabs should it be repealed because each generation behind you feels even more strongly about it than the last.

It is the function of democracy to protect the rights of minorities from unjustified oppression. As Thomas Jefferson said: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule if fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Well there's your BIG mistake. It is the function of democracy to do the will of the majority. Jefferson was right, it is mob rule and it always has been.

It's how democracy works, and it doesn't even need a full majority of 51% it just needs one more vote than anyone else's view. It's a lousy system but it's the best we can come up with, all the rest are worse.



ps if you decide to reply to this, could you please try to word it as if you are answering "the great unwashed public" and not me personally too much , because I really am trying to explain to you how "people" feel about hunting and not how "I" feel about hunting. It is not me you need to convince, it is the two generations behind me.

 

[EAST KENT]

Two questions. firstly ,if hounds flush to guns,don`t they themselves risk a pellet ot three? the other week I saw a fox,apparently in good body weight,but entirely bald on it`s main body from mange;it was attempting to break through the more than adequate electric fencing on some "free range" chooks. How long can a fox survive it that condition?
Poor wee sod must be freezing at the moment.

 

[JanetGeorge]

One of the huge problems that you have with the image of the sport is the conflict of interest. What makes it fun for the people who pay for it, a long run, is at odds with the declared object of the sport, the most humane method of fox control. In any other business, that type of conflict of interest would raise alarm bells.

Another huge problem with your current justification for repealing the law is that the decline in the fox population in rural areas, unless you produce a lot more evidence, looks from the outside to be indistinguishable from what would have been expected to have happened if hunts were deliberately protecting and conserving the breeding of foxes in order to have them to hunt.

You're absolutely right! No foxes = no foxhunting - so it is in hunts' best interests that the fox population is managed: enough foxes for hunting but no SO many that predation on lambs and poultry becomes highly significant to farmers! And of course 'management' is not JUST killing: a hunted fox who gets away is likely to steer clear of the smell of dogs for some time to come - chances are he'll stay away from farmyards and lambing fields!

A few years back I was showing a Master of Hounds from the USA around some kennels - her hunt hunted coyote, and with a LOT of culling with guns going on, populations were low. So they went out of their way not to kill coyote - they'd hunt them to the outer edges of the hunt country - or the coyote's territory, stop, have a drink, and then hunt the same coyote back again! (Not sure that it was too helpful to the farmers to keep the coyotes quite so fit!)

And - of course - who is most aware of fox (or other quarry species) numbers and health? The people who hunt them, of course! When the decline in the otter started - due primarily to pollution - it was the otter hunts who first noticed and who - voluntarily - tried NOT to kill the quarry! And that was several years before the otter became 'protected'! And before the ban it was the mink hunters who first noticed the return of otters to rivers where they hadn't been seen in years - and voluntarily stopped hunting those river stretches to avoid disturbing the otters!

There are plenty of things which other people believe are morally right which have been taken away by law. Dog and cock fighting are the two most obviously relevant,

Now you'll make me cross if you try to put field sports into the same category as the baiting and torturing sports!! Dog fighting, cock fighting, badger baiting etc all exist for one primary reason - an enjoyment of cruelty by a bunch of sick b**tards! There is NO element of pest control, there is NO conservation, and there is NO enjoyment that does not involve a lust for cruelty!

You seem to be getting caught up again in the feeling that if only you could explain enough that the rest of the British population would agree with you that fox hunting is right. I don't think that's the case. I believe that the majority of the British population now think that the time is past for killing an animal by chasing it across country for 15-20 minutes first.

Of course, the anti-hunt argument is VERY simple - "a bunch of upper class idiots, dressed up for the kill, chasing a poor little fox with 40 dogs intent on tearing it apart." If asked, of COURSE the majority of the population will say it's cruel when put in those terms! But of course the majority of THAT majority wouldn't bother to cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, or even click on a newspaper link to vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

That is why an online newspaper poll currently running in a strong 'sab' area shows the following:

Are you in favour of the ban on hunting being repealed?

Yes
2608 (97%)

No
71 (3%)

While a majority of the population - if asked - is against hunting, the truth is it comes in very low on their list of things they actually CARE about!

Maybe if the pro hunting organisations had started FAR earlier on PR campaigns things would be different. For many years, the BFSS wouldn't send people in to debate in schools - so the anti-hunt activists had a free rein. The kids they reached are now teachers and politicians!

And if a few more foxes attack babies in prams they could still change!

Some interesting snippets of public opinion research done by BFSS in the '90s.

In a poll of urban dwellers, the % thinking urban foxes should be culled was MUCH higher than those who thought rural foxes should be culled. Reason: urban foxes were killing their kids' pet rabbits, walking over their car bonnets, and trashing their dustbins. Rural foxes didn't harm THEM!

In the same poll, the ONLY urban dwellers who weren't anti-hunting - when questioned as to their reasons - admitted they were friends with - or knew someone 'nice' who hunted - therefore it couldn't be THAT bad!

Everyone is entitled to their view - however, if their view is based on a total lack of knowledge then one would THINK it shouldn't be taken into account in framing law! Legislation by opinion poll is almost always BAD legislation!

 

[Echo Bravo]

Well mange is increasing in the fox population rapidly,round here where the hunt don't come the rise of mange in the fox population has grown rapidly, what foxes we see alive now all have mange, the ones we've found dead the same condition, skin and bone and very little fur on them, mostly the head still has fur the rest of the body full of sores and bald. So who is right

 

[Herne]

CPTrayes, before I get on to responding to your post, answer me, please, if you will, this question:

(And I mean answer for you personally, not on behalf of the great Britsh public)

Since its implementation, the net effect of Hunting Act 2004 must have have been either to improve the overall level of animal welfare in the countryside or to reduce the overall level of animal welfare in the countrsyside.

(The chances of the net effect being zero are so negligible as to be irrelevant)

Is it your position that you would still support the ban even if you discovered that the effect was negative?

(Or, could it possibly be, as I suppose I must consider the possibility, however bizarre, that you don't actually care which way animal welfare was affected as long as it stopped hunting with dogs?)

 

[cptrayes]

CPTrayes, before I get on to responding to your post, answer me, please, if you will, this question:

(And I mean answer for you personally, not on behalf of the great Britsh public)

Since its implementation, the net effect of Hunting Act 2004 must have have been either to improve the overall level of animal welfare in the countryside or to reduce the overall level of animal welfare in the countrsyside.

(The chances of the net effect being zero are so negligible as to be irrelevant)

Is it your position that you would still support the ban even if you discovered that the effect was negative?

(Or, could it possibly be, as I suppose I must consider the possibility, however bizarre, that you don't actually care which way animal welfare was affected as long as it stopped hunting with dogs?)

herne the answer to your question is that I do not believe that conservation requires the method of hunting that you wish to use. It would, I think, be perfectly possible to conserve the fox population with my own preferred method of cage trapping followed by shooting at very close range while still in the cage.

However, I recognise that this is never going to happen. Particularly following Janet's posts, I also recognise the possibility that having mounted followers financing your conservation efforts might be the most effective way of doing things. And I certainly agree with a point she made to me offline that the fox would prefer the way you want things done.

I remain concerned about cubbing, as I cannot see the point of allowing a pair of foxes to breed only to trap their offspring in a wood and put hounds in to kill them in the autumn.

I remain concerned that falling fox numbers in rural areas indicate that foxes may actually have been being bred in order to provide sport.

So would I still support the ban if it was proved that the effect was negative and there was no other method of more humanely controlling fox? No I would not.

Do I wholeheartedly believe that there is no other more humane way of controlling fox? Do I believe that no foxes were born as a direct result of people wanting to be able to create sport from killing them? No, but I am less against hunting with hounds than I was as a result of some very well argued posts on this thread.

But my opinion is pretty much irrelevant. It is the children and young adults that you need to convince, not me, and the hunting fraternity are not doing a terribly good job of that, particularly with people like Judgemental and Fiagai on the loose.

Tell the CA that they cannot just make announcements that 10% more people are hunting and fox populations have reduced without realising that there are at least two possible ways of interpreting those statistics and they have to explain and prove that theirs is the correct one. "Because we say so" will not do!