Disgusted at behaviour of the hunt

[cptrayes]

Spot on again Janet, thanks. I learn more from you than any other poster on this thread.

Good challenge on the dog fighting, too, well done I'm just thinking that one through. Do foxes have any natural predators? And can it be proved that falling numbers indicate a problem rather that a return to natural numbers which would be the first assumption of an anti?

You were so unlucky that you got Blair/Mandelson as PM because for me it has never been in doubt that the hunting ban was purely for votes. Of course now Blair wants to be friends with people who support hunting and want a repeal, he has changed his mind. He clearly hasn't lost his talent for telling people what they want to hear.

 

[cptrayes]

Herne can you answer the equivalent question in return for me please?

If I was to come along to you with sufficient funding for you to carry out your conservation work with cage trapping and close quarters shooting, or any other method that was humane, met conservation needs and did not require a 15-20 minute chase with hounds, would you still do the conservation work?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Do foxes have any natural predators? And can it be proved that falling numbers indicate a problem rather that a return to natural numbers which would be the first assumption of an anti?

The fox's only predator in the UK is man - and most particularly man behind the wheel of a car! It is probable that more foxes die after being hit by a car than by all other means of 'control'. In the USA, they have coyote in the 'best' country, then red foxes, then - further north as pickings are sparser - you have grey foxes, and when you get up to the north of Canada etc you get Arctic foxes (which are white.)

Falling numbers - well if I had to make an only somewhat informed guess, I'd say that is because there is now more shooting of foxes. A friend of mine is into fox shooting in a big way. Since the ban he has been invited onto nearly twice as many farms as he had access to before the ban - and is shooting twice as many foxes. The farms he is being invited onto are almost all farms where - previously - fox control was left to the hunt. In one night's shooting on one decent sized farm, he will shoot 3 - 5 foxes - whereas the local hunt would have crossed 5 or 6 of these farms to catch (or not) one fox.

Certainly I am seeing far fewer foxes around in the past 4-5 years - it used to be that I'd see a couple in a day, most days. Now i rarely see more than 1 a week. There is of course an up-side to this as I'm seeing far more hares!

You were so unlucky that you got Blair/Mandelson as PM because for me it has never been in doubt that the hunting ban was purely for votes. Of course now Blair wants to be friends with people who support hunting and want a repeal, he has changed his mind. He clearly hasn't lost his talent for telling people what they want to hear.

Actually, it was never about votes. The only substantial number of voters who took a candidate's views on hunting into account was those who supported hunting (and they weren't all Tories!) Only the real dyed in the wool antis would vote for an anti-hunt candidate purely because he/she was anti-hunt - and most of them were Labour voters anyway.

It was about class/political hatred and the need to keep the Labour backbench on-side. Mandelson was against a ban, Blair didn't much care either way, but after the Countryside Rally and the first March, Blair was very minded to leave it alone. He only backed down - and allowed the Parliament Act to be used - to quell a backbench rebellion on another issue. Labour MPs hated hunting because the Tories had hijacked EVERY Labour attempt to ban it in the previous 70 years - even when Labour was in power. And had usually used the Lords to 'kill off' any hunting bill. (And killed off other Labour bills as part of the protection of hunting!) It was seen as a 'Tory' sport and a 'toff' sport. The anti-hunt orgs. - particularly PAL but also LACS and IFAW - went to great lengths to get Labour on-side - remember the £1 million donation from PAL/IFAW! That was just the tip of the iceberg. That nice crook Elliott Morley had researchers paid for by the LACS, Tony Banks also received substantial financial assistance, as did a number of others!


ETA - just saw your question to Herne re cage trapping. Cage trapping works with urban foxes - it is spectacularly unsuccessful with rural foxes and - IMHO - it is FAR crueller than hunting or shooting. The fox is trapped - unable to escape - and THAT is the most terrifying experience for any wild animal. A trapped fox will claw the wire so hard he'll tear his claws out, and bite the wire so hard his gums will bleed (yes, I've seen one, and it wasn't pretty - the only thing worse is a badly set snare!)

 

[Herne]

Herne can you answer the equivalent question in return for me please?

If I was to come along to you with sufficient funding for you to carry out your conservation work with cage trapping and close quarters shooting, or any other method that was humane, met conservation needs and did not require a 15-20 minute chase with hounds, would you still do the conservation work?

Thank you for the answer to you my question. I will address both it and the previous post when I have time later this weekend. However, here, in haste, is the answer to your question:

Yes.

I have lived and worked in non-hunting areas and have used the methods that were available there.

I am interested by your choice of alternative method, however.

A humane live-trap or cage-trap. Ok. But can I ask you, have you really thought that through?

You are going to take a wild animal and pen it up in a small cage. What is that animal going to think? It knows it has to eat, it knows it has to drink. It is going to become desperately frightened in that little box.

Even if you put food and a water bowl in with it, it will still be panicking, thinking that it needs to escape.

Have you ever seen pictures of animals in live-traps with bleeding paws and jaws where they have desperately been trying to dig and chew their way out of the cage?

It doesn't know that someone is going to come along and kill it in a few hours to put it out of its misery- and even if it did it would hardly make it happier...

And even then what happens? Some gallumphing great human comes right up to it, scaring it even more witless, and starts faffing around preparing things and then manhandling it out of the cage and putting a gun to its head before finally the lights go out.

How long is that going to take? If someone checks their traps three times a day, that could be up to eight hours.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against cage-trapping. It is an effective method of control and the suffering that it does cause can be justified by the problems that it is being used to solve.

But you will have to do a hell of a lot of work to persuade me that several hours trapped in a tiny box, followed by how ever many minutes of terror when the human come along is more "humane" than spending 15 minutes out in open countryside in your own territory using your own wits and cunning to outwit a pack of dogs that are slower than you, stupider than you and don't know where they are.

Yes it will be terrifying when it becomes apparent that capture in inevitable, but that will only be the last few minutes.

Personally, I would choose that fate for an animal over live-trapping any time.

(Plus, of course, once again, it is not selective&#8230

 

[cptrayes]

I fully accept your and Janet's experience that a wire cage is not the right trap.

 

[Echo Bravo]

Well most farmers now with live stock,just shoot to kill,so the hunting ban hasn't worked as more foxes are shot than before and so many now have the mange,which is a dreadfull way to die.

 

[cptrayes]

However, here, in haste, is the answer to your question:

Yes.

OK.

I accept your answer but why would you spend time and energy conserving a species which

- is not in any danger
- self-regulates the number born depending on numbers in the area and available food
- has shown remarkable resiliance and ability to colonise new habitats (urban areas)
- preys on species which are threatened (brown hare)


?

 

[cptrayes]

Well most farmers now with live stock,just shoot to kill,so the hunting ban hasn't worked as more foxes are shot than before and so many now have the mange,which is a dreadfull way to die.

EB can you please point me to the indiependant research which has shown that more foxes are being shot, and that fox numbers are not simply falling back to a natural level?

 

[rockysmum]

I haven't been back to this thread for a while.

Are you really discussing conserving foxes. Why !!!!!

Unless they were endangered they are nasty flea and mange ridden vermin who kill for fun.

We will be having a conservation programme for rats next

 

[cptrayes]

Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?

I have found many others, some of very dubious funding, which support the belief that foxes are a self-balancing population. It appears that vixen will mate but fail to produce a live litter when food is scarce or when fox numbers in the area are high. And that removing foxes from an area simply results in foxes from another area moving in to take over the territory.

In other words, killing foxes simply leads to more foxes being born.

These numerous websites also reach the conclusion that the principle difference between hunted and non-hunted areas is not in the number of foxes in that area, but in the age of those foxes, with few foxes in hunted areas reaching 2 years of age and practically none reaching a natural old age.

I have spent the last two days coming around gradually to the idea of hunting fox with hounds, but now find myself completing the circle and reaching the conclusion that the principle achievement (not necessarily "aim" but certainly "achievement") of conserving fox by hunting with hounds is to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase

Seriously, though I doubt you will believe me, I was moving away from this position and hoped to be completely convinced, but the more research I do the more likely it seems. I hope you do not feel you have wasted your time talking to me, it has been educational from my point of view, though I have no doubt very frustrating from yours.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I accept your answer but why would you spend time and energy conserving a species which

- is not in any danger
- self-regulates the number born depending on numbers in the area and available food
- has shown remarkable resiliance and ability to colonise new habitats (urban areas)
- preys on species which are threatened (brown hare)

1. Should we wait until a species IS in danger before thinking about conservation (that can be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.)
2. Self regulation is a bit of a myth when you're talking predators in a country FILLED with available food - would you starve locked in a well stocked supermarket?
3. The fox is certainly resilient, but high populations can lead to catastrophic 'crashes' as disease can then spread like wildfire.
4. The brown hare is making a comeback in areas where fox control is high, habitat management is good, and where hare shooting and illegal coursing are not a problem. But the hare is not 'protected' in any way and it IS an agricultural pest. Shooting and poaching are a threat to hares, as are foxes, although probably nothing has harmed the hare more than forage harvesters!!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?

Yes - Natural England is an environmental/conservation body that deals with scientific fact. I scanned the document and couldn't see anything that I would disagree with - although there are probably some areas that could usefully be elaborated upon.

I have found many others, some of very dubious funding, which support the belief that foxes are a self-balancing population. It appears that vixen will mate but fail to produce a live litter when food is scarce or when fox numbers in the area are high. And that removing foxes from an area simply results in foxes from another area moving in to take over the territory.

In other words, killing foxes simply leads to more foxes being born.

The principles of a self-balancing population make sense IF there is a food shortage. As I said in my earlier post, this just doesn't happen in most of England and Wales - it's the foxes' supermarket!

These numerous websites also reach the conclusion that the principle difference between hunted and non-hunted areas is not in the number of foxes in that area, but in the age of those foxes, with few foxes in hunted areas reaching 2 years of age and practically none reaching a natural old age.

Hunting had very little effect on the overall age of the fox population in most given area as it didn't kill sufficient numbers of those killed by all means. Young foxes (to 12 months) are at high risk from all sorts of killing methods due to dispersal and the hunt for new territories which exposes them to more traffic, and their own lack of experience in avoiding dangers (young foxes are VERY easily 'squeaked' to the spotlight and rifle.) Old foxes are also more at risk of becoming road traffic victims - and the longer they live, the bolder they get - so perhaps more likely to venture into dangerous areas. Hunting with hounds DID take out the very old - and infirm - and cub-hunting (a bit of a misnomer as often more old foxes were killed at that time - and 'cubs' were generally more than 6 months old and starting to disperse naturally when cub-hunting started) did take out some of the under 12 months foxes.

The Game Conservancy Trust did some research about 15 years ago about the numbers of foxes killed by different control methods in different areas - there were BIG variations, with the % killed by hunting being less than 20% in arable/shooting areas - and up to 70% in some hill countries where shooting and oher control measures were more problematic. There really is no ONE answer to these questions.

I have spent the last two days coming around gradually to the idea of hunting fox with hounds, but now find myself completing the circle and reaching the conclusion that the principle achievement (not necessarily "aim" but certainly "achievement") of conserving fox by hunting with hounds is to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase

That certainly could be true if no other factors came into play - and if hunting was the only form of fox control/killing. But of course it never was! Only time will tell what effect the hunting ban will have over time. It may well have none - or it may be proven that there is more fox killing (and more fox disease in areas where less control is carried out.) It will be hard to prove - because this sort of research is very expensive to carry out in a scientifically valid way - far too many people involved - all with axes to grind - and far too many variables coming into play.

 

[Herne]

Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?

The document looks pretty fair to me - and I am not aware of "Natural England" being considered to have any particular bias.

I do observe that they advocate wire cage traps though - and that the minimum legal requirement for checking is only after 24 hours. I thought 8 hours was bad enough.


The thing about foxes is that they are, on the whole, useful things to have about.

As you will have seen from your research, a large proportion of their diet is made up of small mammals and invertebrates.

Many of those things are problems for the farmer: slugs, snails, voles, rats and mice. Having some foxes around to clear them up is no bad thing. Even farmers with shoots quite often like to have a fox or two around the place to clear up "pricked" (wounded) birds.

If you have some foxes around, there will always be an element of predation upon things you would rather they didn't eat, but except in areas where extremely commercial shooting interests are try to operate very intensive systems, then a certain level can be tolerated by most people.


The problem comes when there are too many foxes in an area. Then there are not enough of the pest species to go around and therefore they need to do more predation on the things we don't want killed.

Then we carry out a culling operation to reduce levels to a tolerable level again.


Now this is where the anti-hunters immediately butt-in with “Oh, but foxes will self-regulate their numbers without the need for any culling. They will be controlled by the natural availability of food.”

It’s a lovely sound-bite, that one. You can just hear David Attenborough saying it – and it is 100% true…

… in a wilderness area, where everything is subject to natural methods of control.

But we don’t have any wilderness in the UK. It is all man-made environments, where populations of nearly everything are being sustained at un-natural levels for the convenience of man.

So the thing is, yes, fox populations could, in theory self-regulate their numbers, BUT it would NOT be at that level that would be considered acceptable by farmers and land-owners.

If you think about that, that would be the most incredible, unbelievable co-incidence in the history of the universe. That the “natural control” limit level just-so-happened to be the same as the desired limit level. That would be a trillion-billion-gazillion-to-one chance.

The reality is that fox numbers would not be controlled by the natural availability of food, they would be controlled by the total availability of food, including any available domesticated or managed food that the farmer did not want them to eat.

For it to be otherwise would require the newly pregnant Mrs Fox to wander around the woods and think to herself “Dammit, Charlie next door won’t let me have any of his slugs and snails, but I mustn’t eat that pheasant, because it’s not natural, so I suppose I’d better just reabsorb my foetuses instead.”

It’s not really going to happen in real life, is it?


Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas.

So why do anti-hunt people always try to make out that it is logical to suggest that if farmers trap a proportion of foxes for this reason, or shoot them or snare them, or whatever, then that is acceptable, but if hunting people kill a proportion of them, then all the control reasons fly out of the window and it is only because they want to get a thrill from the chase.

If people in non-hunting areas preserve a proportion of their foxes it is for conservation reasons, but if they do it in hunting areas, it is suddenly only “to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase”.

No, what is an acceptable motive for a non-hunting person has to be allowable as a motive for a hunting person as well.

(I grant you entirely that the majority of the followers are not bothered by such considerations, they don’t need to be, but for those of us that organise it and run it, this is what it is all about.)


And, here’s something else you have probably not thought about – for people who really like foxes, like myself, hunting is actually the most compassionate form of fox control.

You think about it – when I go out with a pack of hounds, I know that most foxes I hunt will get away and only some will be killed – and that is my objective, as it is with most people, only to kill some.

So when I see an individual fox, it is perfectly rational for me to think “OK, Charlie, I hope that for you, today is not your day. Good luck to you” and be happy for it when it gets away, because I know that the next or the next or the one after that will get killed, thus fulfilling my objective.

And when one does get killed, I have the reassurance of knowing that it wasn’t me that chose it, it was caught (on average) because it has had it’s time and that nothing can live forever. The cycle moves on.

If I go out with a gun, I pick the fox and I decide it’s fate – without most of the time having the foggiest idea whether it is young or old, fit or healthy.

I have absolutely no compunction whatsoever in choosing hunting as my preferred method of fox-control – for all the right reasons.

 

[cptrayes]

The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate." Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on things, it has been very interesting.

 

[Sunshine]

Having finally managed to catch up and read the whole thread, I find Janet's posts very enlightening.

Going back to the OP point of the thread, from my personal point of view, as a landowner, I would also be extremely angry that ANYONE felt they had the right to set foot/hoof on my land without my permission. I don't tolerate lampers, shoots or hunting with dogs (rats/rabbits/fox) or birds of prey, unless they have the grace to come and ask. And yes I have been known to charge up to shoots/men with shotguns and challenge them when they have been caught trespassing in a friend's field. The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers.

But to return to the most recent posts,
"Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas." JG
Isn't this what most city dwellers felt about the urban fox? Until, of course, we had the terrible attacks on their pets and even children. The urban foxes have multiplied exponentially due to the easy pickings and lack of control measures. What happens to the natural number equilibrium in these circumstances? They certainly couldnt be hunted by guns, or poisoned in sufficient numbers, and I very much doubt the Beaufort would be welcomed at full gallop down the main streets. So would it reach a point where the cities cannot provide enough territories for the urban fox and some of these would return to the rural areas?

 

[Herne]

The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate." Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.

If I had a spare couple of million, I would bet it all that your answer would turn out to be: In some places it does and in others it doesn't.

Which still wouldn't help you.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on things, it has been very interesting.

Likewise.

 

[Fiagai]

Having finally managed to catch up and read the whole thread, I find Janet's posts very enlightening.

Going back to the OP point of the thread, from my personal point of view, as a landowner, I would also be extremely angry that ANYONE felt they had the right to set foot/hoof on my land without my permission. I don't tolerate lampers, shoots or hunting with dogs (rats/rabbits/fox) or birds of prey, unless they have the grace to come and ask. And yes I have been known to charge up to shoots/men with shotguns and challenge them when they have been caught trespassing in a friend's field.

The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers.

mnmnm I agree. Rural communities can often work together to ensure that mutual concerns are addressed. In my experience areas where hunting has been a traditional activity, a good level of communication will have been built up within the community. I do acknowledge however that mistakes sometimes can be made. Illegal activity can be curtailed / reported by people in rural communities working together. I have also had on occasion to question individuals whom we found shooting where they should not and was told that they had crossed from an adjacent property without realising it. A quick check with neighbours confirmed this. No harm done. However Newcomers do have some responsibility to get to know others especially in rural areas. In this area there are a small number of newish residents whose lifestyles sometimes seem to preclude just dropping in or meeting in the local pub tbh. It can be difficult to get to know those that live behind intercomed driveways/gates and who are in residence during weekends etc but I take your point.

But to return to the most recent posts,
"Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas." JG
Isn't this what most city dwellers felt about the urban fox? Until, of course, we had the terrible attacks on their pets and even children. The urban foxes have multiplied exponentially due to the easy pickings and lack of control measures. What happens to the natural number equilibrium in these circumstances? They certainly couldnt be hunted by guns, or poisoned in sufficient numbers, and I very much doubt the Beaufort would be welcomed at full gallop down the main streets. So would it reach a point where the cities cannot provide enough territories for the urban fox and some of these would return to the rural areas?

Concerns about fox numbers declining appear to have arisen since the passing of the Hunting Act. This leads to the obvious question is this just a coincidence? Are the numbers of foxes being shot in rural areas increasing, due to landowners seeking other methods of control or as one another theory suggests has fox populations suffered a crash due to a possible lack of proper control? During the period when Fox hunting was legal fox populations appeared to be maintained at equitable level in rural areas - so why the sudden change now?

Taking an area where fox hunting is still extant and where landowners and fox hunting still work together (ie Ireland) recent wildlife studies have found that fox populations are stable with fox hunting having only a local effect with regard to numbers. This status quo seems to been ongoing.

In the past the end result of fox hunting was that old sick foxes were most often accounted for. The result of taking out sick foxes would have reduced the incidence of disease spreading. The high incidence of mange reported from the 1980's amongst urban foxes would lend some credence to this.

As for control of fox numbers the advocated use of trapping foxes in cages is a horrendous method of control and reminds me of my experience of using live traps on rats. Rats caught and left in traps for just 24 hours will often give up and die. Wild animals trapped suffer significantly more stress than animals that are hunted and will maim themselves / go mad / die in enforced captivity.

Urban foxes are now treated as pests with a pest company group having reported that the number of foxes being "controlled" had quadrupled in 2010. So there is a situation where fox numbers are decreasing in rural areas where other methods of control have increased and fox numbers have increased in urban areas where such controsl are very limited. At least fox hunting cannot be blamed for this recent decline and rise between rural and urban areas.

 

[Herne]

The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers.

This does happen most of the time - certainly nearly always when whole farms change hands.

But my hunt, for example, covers around 2,000 square miles owned or occupied by over 750 farmers and land-owners. We notify over 1,100 different households of our meet dates in each mailshot.

Whislt we can and do keep track of most of the whole-farm sales via the methods you suggest, it is simply impossible for us to keep track of every building plot sold with a few acres of grazing or every small-holding that changes hands.

We are only human.

 

[fartoomanyhorses]

Having discovered that my local hunt's last visit involved a huntsman jumping in to my paddock, coincidentally coinciding with the date my fabulous youngster went lame, I found this thread. After 3 pages I couldn't read any further. The arrogance of you hunting people calling the complainant a Troll, asking for proof of illegal hunting and the assumption that non-hunting horse owners should keep their horses in when the hunt are in their area beggars belief. Who do they think they are? Whilst you are all out having a jolly some of us have to go to work for a living and with the hunt coming round sometimes four or five times in a season are we really expected to keep all our horses in necessitating double mucking out, extra feed etc - all I may add in return for an invitation to a ****ing puppy show or some soggy point to point taking place in the rain at the other end of the county. To imagine anyone would be so stupid or inconsiderate whilst calling themselves 'horsemen' is astonishing. I shall at least be prepared to be treated like a second class citizen when tackling my local hunt on the subject of wrecking my horse and shall return their disdain twofold.

 

[Alec Swan]

........ After 3 pages I couldn't read any further. The arrogance of you hunting people calling the complainant a Troll, asking for proof of illegal hunting and the assumption that non-hunting horse owners should keep their horses in when the hunt are in their area beggars belief. ........

Had you chosen to read the whole thread, instead of forming a rather unbalanced view, you may well have discovered that most of those who support Hunting, and who've contributed to this thread, were as appalled as you and the Original Poster, at the apparent display of gross bad manners.

The OP, for reasons best known to themselves laid down accusations against one pack in particular, and by association, those in the wider world who hunt, but refused to elucidate upon which pack was involved, nor those who were responsible.

Let me explain to you, yet again, that I and others too were appalled at the apparent display of bad manners by those who were involved, assuming that the Original Poster wasn't a Troll, and was telling the truth, but by refusing to offer any sort of verifiable fact which could support their argument, and further elicit the support of those on here who support hunting, and would in turn support the complainant and condemn such thoughtless and arrogant conduct, then there would be a temptation to doubt the sincerity of the original post.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate." Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.

........

And just who would you have carry out this research?

Who would you trust to give an unbiased report?

Which of those views proffered would you consider to be the most reliable?

I remember, 40 years ago, becoming involved in a discussion about Stag Hunting, and with an elderly man. Never have I listened to such reason, never to such passion, and never to such an understanding of a balanced and worthwhile view. Never!

It's my belief, and that it's generally so, that the man who pursues an animal, and with the well being of it's kind in his heart, is the man who best understands that animal's needs.

That's what I think!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

Jeepers Alec, have you seen the age of this thread??????

 

[Alec Swan]

Yes, I have, but the last response which I thought worthy of effort was from fart oomanyhorses, of earlier today, and then I thought that whilst I was at it, I'd give some thought to yours, too!!

There are still those (and thankfully precious few) who hunt, who seem to live in some 18th. century dream, and one where they can do as they please, when they please, and in any manner that suits them. I was really only pointing out that the world has changed and that we all need to consider others, as I'm sure that most will agree. I felt that FTMH was lumping all those who support hunting, in to one bundle, or at least those on here who'd replied.

Alec.

 

[Starbucks]

I'm a bit late to this thread but just wanted to add my opinion!

Sounds really crazy that the field would jump into your field with horses in it. I would be really cross, sounds like a major field master error!! If they really had to go through then you'd expect that they'd at least walk, doesn't sound like they did have to go through though, which is annoying for you.

It's easy to go down the "aren't all hunting people arrogant stuck up tossers" route, but maybe it was a new field master, or a genuine mistake. People do make them! I expect the rest of the field were just concentrating on sorting themselves out, it's easy to trust to field master on where you're meant to / allowed to be going.

I would have called the secretary or whoever your contact is (who normally comes to see you?), and say look I'm really upset because you've trashed my fields / my horses were going mad / you didn't even call in and tell me etc. and I'm sure they would have been apologetic and it would never have happened again. I think in sending them an (arsey?) email, now everyone's back is up, which isn't good for anyone.

 

[Carlosmum]

Deleted what I was going to say, but I understand where the OP was coming from

 

[Starbucks]

One more thing, I actually feel no guilt about having been fox hunting. I do feel guilt about eating meat.

Why? Well I think it's hard to argue that the fox population doesn't need controlling, and I honestly believe hunting with hounds is the best way. What people don't seem to understand is that hunting folk have huge respect for the fox.

I feel guilty about eating meat meat because it's not really necessary and involves lots of animals having a miserable life and a miserable death. Our world is run by humans and we do so much more cruel things to animals. Why pick on fox hunting?

 

[AengusOg]

I feel guilty about eating meat meat because it's not really necessary and involves lots of animals having a miserable life and a miserable death.

Eh?

 

[L&M]

My neighbour farms sheep - currently his lambs are gambolling in the sunshine and feasting on fine shropshire spring grass, hardly a 'miserable life'!?

 

[littleshetland]

But the trail laid IS fox scent/urine, so as far as hounds are concerned no difference whether the FOX laid the trail or a human did!!

Re calling off a trail, now that is a different matter all together.....

I have come very late to this thread and haven't actually read through the whole thing, although what I have read is very interesting. Although 'horsey' I am mostly ignorant of most things 'hunting' and I have a question loosely connected with the OP. Why do hunting folk lay a trail that is to be followed by hounds, a scent that consists of fox scent/urine? surely this increases the chances of the hounds hunting live foxes and therefore breaking the law?
Can the hounds be trained to follow a completely different type of scent? Please don't shoot me down! I'm not a troll or troublemaker, honestly, just curious! My apologies if this question has already been answered one or a thousand times before on this forum.

 

[Fides]

I have come very late to this thread and haven't actually read through the whole thing, although what I have read is very interesting. Although 'horsey' I am mostly ignorant of most things 'hunting' and I have a question loosely connected with the OP. Why do hunting folk lay a trail that is to be followed by hounds, a scent that consists of fox scent/urine? surely this increases the chances of the hounds hunting live foxes and therefore breaking the law?
Can the hounds be trained to follow a completely different type of scent? Please don't shoot me down! I'm not a troll or troublemaker, honestly, just curious! My apologies if this question has already been answered one or a thousand times before on this forum.

Our hunt uses human urine and aniseed mixed with veg oil. Think it would be pretty impossible to collect fox urine...