Fox baiting

[Fiagai]

Someone call nurse, Fiagai has had one of his turns again.

Your purile attempts to rile posters are really as pathetic as they are childish...

Despite this extremely strange response and liberal doses of feigned bafflement, we got there eventually. Yes, you’re quite right Fiagai, terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.

If everything here is strange to you I would perhaps suggest you are in the wrong forum. I have never mentioned "Terrier Work" in my reply btw Never heard of "fox baiting" except here so I believe its another little invention of yours or a figment of those little Anti folk who have nothing better to do than make up very gorey fairy stories to frighten little children with

So why couldn't you come up with this little piece of Anti fantasy when asked previously? You are quite clearly attempting to start arguments and not engage in rational discussion. Anyway according to you its "terriers" now is it? When previously asked what kind of dogs were involved (and given possible suggestions) you said.....

My question related to fox baiting, as the title of the thread and the wording of the question indicated. I’m not sure the type of dogs really matter that much unless you think baiting in certain situations is ok?

As stated there is no such thing as "fox baiting" except in the twisted heads of the Anti Ilk that you are obviously a member of, as you are clearly toating the same party line as the spurious Anti groups on the web.

You asked for a real scenario: fox evades being ripped to pieces by going to ground. Hunt terriermen called in, who make sure exits to the earth are blocked, and terriers are entered. Terriers confront fox, which is unable to escape – bloody battle ensues.

Why has it taken you 18 posts to come out with this ripe piece of garbage? What is wrong with you that you cannot enter into a proper debate and instead attempt to insult the inteligence of those that clearly know more than you will ever know about wildlife and its management?

You prefer the term terrierwork, I prefer fox baiting – two phrases to describe the same activity. It’s telling that so far no one has been prepared to defend fox baiting, an activity which is part and parcel of organised fox hunting.

Do I? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You must hunt extensively to know so much about how hunting is actually conducted - oh no thats right you "read" about this in those paragons of truth found on the Anti Websites..so of course you must be correct (laughs loudly into own hat)

 

[rosie fronfelen]

How come Paul T.can take all these disagreements and still ramble on- it seems he is Paul no mates which must be embarassing?

 

[PaulT]

Herne, all you've done is found a variant definition - the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them. In fact if you trace the origins you'll find the word derived from the 13th century Old Norse beita, to hunt!

As much as the etymology of the word bait is fascinating, the meaning I've used is perfectly correct for everyday understanding. In fact when I first mentioned it, no one objected. It seems only now, when the penny has finally dropped that it could well cover terrierwork, that you've sought out an alternative meaning.

You claim the aspect of enjoyment is central to the activity of baiting. Again, I beg to differ. In fact the Collins English Dictionary simply defines the word as 'to set dogs upon (a bear etc)' - no mention of enjoyment or even torment.

It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.

Following on from the evidence from the post mortems and the horrendous cruelty involved in the video clip (taken from a fox hunt), the fact that none of you has spoken out out against this vile activity speaks volumes.

BTW, you're on extremely dodgy ground in using the Hunting Act as the yardstick for moral acceptability - where does that place live quarry hunting? Don't tell me, the comparison only holds true when it suits you.

 

[EAST KENT]

Please you lot..don`t feed the Troll. Now I`m orf on another scent,bored rigid by this one.

 

[PaulT]

Fiagai, ye doth protest too much, methinks. Get a grip, there's a good chap.

You asked for a scenario, I provide one. True to form you dismiss it out of hand as garbage without explaining why; in fact you dismiss anything you don't like to hear, instead of taking an evidence-based approach with the blinkers off.

Then again, I guess if you couldn't give a toss about animal welfare it's only too easy to dismiss gratuitous cruelty which is plain for all to see.

 

[Fiagai]

Fiagai, ye doth protest too much, methinks. Get a grip, there's a good chap.
You asked for a scenario, I provide one. True to form you dismiss it out of hand as garbage without explaining why; in fact you dismiss anything you don't like to hear, instead of taking an evidence-based approach with the blinkers off.
Then again, I guess if you couldn't give a toss about animal welfare it's only too easy to dismiss gratuitous cruelty which is plain for all to see.

Scenario = 18 posts later.
Guess you just had to make it up the end (or perhaps your friends on those lovely spurious Anti websites)

"Evidence based" how are ye... blah blah "animal welfare" - I'm afraid you wouldn't know animal welfare or cruelty if it bit you in the proverbial rear end. Smells like horse, no cow no its definitly bull....

 

[Fiagai]

Please you lot..don`t feed the Troll. Now I`m orf on another scent,bored rigid by this one.

Will do....bored now dont you know!

 

[Jake10]

I do provide prior warning that the following clip (providing the link works) isn't for the faint hearted, but it does illustrate what can happen during fox baiting.

If that is actual footage that hasn't been edited/tampered with then is how I feel. Why not humanely (or as close as possible) dispatch the fox while in the sack??? Was there any need to release the fox to be far from humanely dispatched by a pack of dogs??

 

[PaulT]

Exactly Jake, I share your anger and horror at this vile activity. Even before it was put into the sack, it had a chunk of scalp ripped away when the terrier was pulled away.

Let's hope other contributors are privately ashamed at such atrocities, even if they haven't the guts to speak out in this forum.

 

[applecart14]

Years ago a yard owner whose yard I had my horse stabled at caught a young vixen after it had killed half his chickens. He caught it in a humane live trap. I begged him to let me contact the nearest wildlife rescue centre who told me they were happy to come out and collect the live fox. I told the YO what they had said, and he said it was too late he had 'disposed' of the fox. When I pressed him for details he told me he had got his two rotweiller dogs to sit either side of the door of the cage and then opened the door. From memory his words "I gave it a fair chance to escape" appalled me. I'm sorry to say the dogs set upon it and ripped it apart in seconds. To position two dogs either side of a wire cage with the intention of killing a fox and justify the means by saying 'it had a fair chance' is like throwing yourself out of a plane from a thousand foot and saying 'you have a fair chance of surviving the fall'.

So no I don't agree with the OP's question which I understood to mean variations on what I have just described above.

 

[Dillon]

As not being a regular contributor to this area, I thought that the only anti approved method of Fox control when required was the shooting of the Fox, and from what I read on here they assure everybody that it is a swift death and that it can be done on a Fox breaking cover.

Surely the evidence they quote proves that this is not possible;

e) A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of damage to the vertebrae of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4h cervical vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this first bullet did not kill the animal.

Cause of death

A second shot with a .22 calibre bullet caused death.” (University of Bristol, May 2000)

If I read this correctly a trained and competant marksman was unable to swiftly dispacth the fox at close range in a confined space, thus prolonging the stress and pain the fox was under.

Would this then suggest to pault that other methods must be considered to manage a fox population? Perhaps a pack of hounds?

 

[ThePinkPony]

Oh how i love this type of Anti. I expect its taken you months of heated 'oh its horrific' yes its horrific ''oh its horrific'' ing, on Anti websites for you to compile all of this drivel.

Do you not realise you sound so ignorant its unbelievable. One again one moron brings down the Anti reputation as propaganda vomiting, google quoting ignoramuses. Why for once cant we have an anti who actually KNOWS what he/she is talking about?

Wonders wether PaulT is a strict vegan?

 

[Fiagai]

Oh how i love this type of Anti. I expect its taken you months of heated 'oh its horrific' yes its horrific ''oh its horrific'' ing, on Anti websites for you to compile all of this drivel.

Do you not realise you sound so ignorant its unbelievable. One again one moron brings down the Anti reputation as propaganda vomiting, google quoting ignoramuses. Why for once cant we have an anti who actually KNOWS what he/she is talking about?

Wonders wether PaulT is a strict vegan?

I agree - I would like to meet for once an Anti with an independant train of thought. Do you might mean "strict vegetable" by any chance...

 

[Serenity087]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion. Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight. I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...

 

[ThePinkPony]

I agree - I would like to meet for once an Anti with an independant train of thought. Do you might mean "strict vegetable" by any chance...

...well it would be very refreshing.

I remember years ago being jumped upon by a LACS type blokey in the middle of town, thrusting leaflets at me and spouting off about the ''cruelty and horror'' of hunting and deer culls.

One question knocked him for six...

''do you know how a fox or deer naturally dies?''

''old age of course''...

walked away, what infuritates me is this lust to educate us country folk when they have not bothered to educate themselves beforehand.

 

[Herne]

Herne, all you've done is found a variant definition - the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them. In fact if you trace the origins you'll find the word derived from the 13th century Old Norse beita, to hunt!

Heh. I love the way you throw this in as if it is the result of your years of study into this subject, as if you were some sort of expert – whereas, in fact, you have simply read it on the bottom of the Collins on-line dictionary definition of the word "bait" to which you later refer. Comical.

As much as the etymology of the word bait is fascinating, the meaning I've used is perfectly correct for everyday understanding. In fact when I first mentioned it, no one objected. It seems only now, when the penny has finally dropped that it could well cover terrierwork, that you've sought out an alternative meaning.

Smokescreen. What other people may have said is not relevant to my comments. I have questioned your definition from the start of my involvement

You claim the aspect of enjoyment is central to the activity of baiting. Again, I beg to differ. In fact the Collins English Dictionary simply defines the word as 'to set dogs upon (a bear etc)' - no mention of enjoyment or even torment.

Oh dear. Seeing as it is available to all on the internet, how foolish of you not to mention that Collins actually gives two definitions of the noun and three of the verb, and the preceding (and therefore more common) verbal definition given by Collins is: "To persecute or tease" - which takes us straight back to enjoyment and torment.

To pretend that you perhaps hadn't noticed that prior definition might be one thing, but to claim that Collins make "no mention" of it - well, I wonder how to look at that as anything other than disingenuous.

It's quite clear to any reasonable person that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity.

No, it isn't. It is quite clear that they are substantially different activities and that you are trying to draw similarities to bolster your case.

Following on from the evidence from the post mortems and the horrendous cruelty involved in the video clip (taken from a fox hunt), the fact that none of you has spoken out out against this vile activity speaks volumes.

Not really. I would be perfectly happy to condemn the activities shown in the video were they to be relevant to the here and now. However, let's inform the boys and girls of the viewing public that the said film was taken years (or possibly decades?) ago in a different country, shall we?

Shall we also consider that it is heavily edited - so that we do not know what went on during the edited-out times, nor even if all of the concatenated clips were filmed on the same day?

And then, of course, there is the fact that the film was shot in Ireland. Do we know whether this was shot during the period when, owing to the troubles, hunts in Ireland were not allowed to carry human killers and were therefore unable by law to shoot foxes as is the common practice in this country at this time.

BTW, you're on extremely dodgy ground in using the Hunting Act as the yardstick for moral acceptability - where does that place live quarry hunting? Don't tell me, the comparison only holds true when it suits you.

Not at all. I am on record as thinking that the whole of the Hunting Act is garbage, and therefore I am free to rubbish it as often as I like. You are the one who seems to be picking and choosing which bits of the Act are valid depictions of acceptable moral behaviour and which are not...

 

[PaulT]

Years ago a yard owner whose yard I had my horse stabled at caught a young vixen after it had killed half his chickens. He caught it in a humane live trap. I begged him to let me contact the nearest wildlife rescue centre who told me they were happy to come out and collect the live fox. I told the YO what they had said, and he said it was too late he had 'disposed' of the fox. When I pressed him for details he told me he had got his two rotweiller dogs to sit either side of the door of the cage and then opened the door. From memory his words "I gave it a fair chance to escape" appalled me. I'm sorry to say the dogs set upon it and ripped it apart in seconds. To position two dogs either side of a wire cage with the intention of killing a fox and justify the means by saying 'it had a fair chance' is like throwing yourself out of a plane from a thousand foot and saying 'you have a fair chance of surviving the fall'.

So no I don't agree with the OP's question which I understood to mean variations on what I have just described above.

Hi applecart14, that's really awful.

Decent minded people will be horrified that until the passage of the Hunting Act such behaviour was legal, to the best of my knowledge. Thank God society has moved on, even if a tiny number of pro-hunt dinosaurs haven't.

 

[PaulT]

Oh dear. Seeing as it is available to all on the internet, how foolish of you not to mention that Collins actually gives two definitions of the noun and three of the verb, and the preceding (and therefore more common) verbal definition given by Collins is: "To persecute or tease" - which takes us straight back to enjoyment and torment.

To pretend that you perhaps hadn't noticed that prior definition might be one thing, but to claim that Collins make "no mention" of it - well, I wonder how to look at that as anything other than disingenuous.

I repeat, the word does have several meanings, but that doesn't negate the use of any one of them. In fact yet again you shoot yourself in the foot by providing the meaning ‘to persecute or tease’ – while tease does suggest a degree of enjoyment, persecute (definition: ‘to oppress, harass, or maltreat, esp because of race, religion, etc&#8217 accurately describes what terriermen are doing when they engage in fox baiting. For all I know, they probably do thoroughly enjoy what they are doing as well; I doubt they’re dreading another day’s fox baiting as they get out of bed in the morning. You'll notice, however, I haven't made much of this as it's incidental to the defintion of baiting I have adopted. Reasonable people will understand the definition of ‘allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal’, and readily associate it with the activity of baiting.

As you know, but won’t dare admit publicly, fox baiting is part and parcel of organised hunting. As a result, the pro-hunt dinosaurs on this forum appear happy (well, some are at least) to condemn badger baiting but not fox baiting. However, in doing so they don’t have the guts call a spade a spade. That suggests to me that they appreciate that association with the cruel and murky world of baiting is a step too far, even for them.

No, it isn't. It is quite clear that they are substantially different activities and that you are trying to draw similarities to bolster your case.

Simply saying they are different doesn’t make them so. You’ve assisted me with my argument on at least a couple of occasions, where I have demonstrated that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same activity. It’s a real shame you haven’t the honesty and integrity to own up.

Not really. I would be perfectly happy to condemn the activities shown in the video were they to be relevant to the here and now. However, let's inform the boys and girls of the viewing public that the said film was taken years (or possibly decades?) ago in a different country, shall we?

Actually Herne I provided a link to the clip to demonstrate the outcome of fox baiting, but while we’re on the subject that fact that it happened to involve a fox hunt (albeit in Ireland) and hunt terriermen won’t have gone unnoticed by the ‘viewing public’. Afterall, once entered underground to confront a trapped fox, terriers will be terriers whether they lived in Ireland ten years ago or in England today.

Shall we also consider that it is heavily edited - so that we do not know what went on during the edited-out times, nor even if all of the concatenated clips were filmed on the same day?

When all else fails, suggest the evidence has been heavily edited or an out and out fake! Unbelievable. As I’ve already said, the fact you’re incapable of bringing yourself to condemn this atrocity is shameful, and says much about the mindset of the pro-hunt dinosaurs on this forum.

And then, of course, there is the fact that the film was shot in Ireland. Do we know whether this was shot during the period when, owing to the troubles, hunts in Ireland were not allowed to carry human killers and were therefore unable by law to shoot foxes as is the common practice in this country at this time.

I assume you actually meant 'humane' killers. If this is the case, and it meant terriermen were unable to ‘humanely despatch’ dug out foxes, they should not do it. Of course in reality there’s nothing humane about the whole activity of fox baiting, and if they were unable to use a humane killer I doubt very much they lost any sleep over it.

 

[PaulT]

As not being a regular contributor to this area, I thought that the only anti approved method of Fox control when required was the shooting of the Fox, and from what I read on here they assure everybody that it is a swift death and that it can be done on a Fox breaking cover.

Surely the evidence they quote proves that this is not possible;

e) A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of damage to the vertebrae of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4h cervical vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this first bullet did not kill the animal.

Cause of death

A second shot with a .22 calibre bullet caused death.” (University of Bristol, May 2000)

If I read this correctly a trained and competant marksman was unable to swiftly dispacth the fox at close range in a confined space, thus prolonging the stress and pain the fox was under.

Would this then suggest to pault that other methods must be considered to manage a fox population? Perhaps a pack of hounds?

I'm so glad you're prepared to condemn the cruelty involved in the end point of this episode of fox baiting, if not the considerable suffering involved before the botched end point was achieved. Your shooting colleagues will be chuffed to bits that yet again we see a pro-hunter knocking their sport.

 

[PaulT]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion. Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight. I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...

Hi Serenity. You seek to differentiate the term terrierwork from baiting on the grounds that different dogs are used. In fact the meaing of the word bait isn't dependent on the breed of dog - a terrier can quite as easily bait a fox as a pitbull.

 

[EAST KENT]

Bait can also be the sandwiches in a workers lunchbox.Now P..... Off Troll.

 

[ThePinkPony]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't a baiting dog be a pitbull type fighting dog, whereas a digging out dog is a smaller terrier of some sort?

Also, wasn't the point of sending terriers down holes being able to locate the fox, dig down to it, remove it and dispatch it?

Based on the different breeds and the different MO, I'm not seeing the links here...

Although I can see the confusion. Badger baiters dig up the sets to remove the badgers before the fight. I can see how someone ignorant might mistake that for being close to terrierwork...

You are actually pretty spot on. OP has got his knickers in a twist and instead of keeping to facts has taken the name of something quite despicable and applied it to a form of fox control which is conducted in a totally different manner with a totally different aim at the end. Almost everyone has heard of badger baiting and knows what it is (apart from OP it seems) and by alleging that terrierwork is the same thing, just with foxes, the OP doesnt have to work so hard to convince Almost Antis into agreeing with him. Lazy and ignorant.

A couple of points though, A good fox digging dog will have little contact with a fox, if any. No one wants a bashed up dog at the end of the day.

and The fox isnt as ''terrified'' as you would like to believe and the concept of digging is very much like the foxes own concept of hunting a rabbit or other prey.

 

[EAST KENT]

DON`T FEED THE TROLL

 

[PaulT]

Bait can also be the sandwiches in a workers lunchbox.Now P..... Off Troll.

Hi EastKent, yet again your sophisticated style of debate adds a touch of gravitas to the pro-hunt defence of fox baiting. I'm sure the casual visitor will marvel at such perceptive contributions.

 

[ThePinkPony]

DON`T FEED THE TROLL

But its so obvious the guy is clueless. hes not even a decent troll. Dont let it bother you EK, thats what the OP wants.

 

[Alec Swan]

Hi EastKent, yet again your sophisticated style of debate adds a touch of gravitas to the pro-hunt defence of fox baiting. I'm sure the casual visitor will marvel at such perceptive contributions.

When will those, who are discussing this ridiculous post, and with an idiot, come to realise the futility of reasoned discussion, when the protagonist has no intention of debate, but every intention of mischief, purely for the sport and their own childish intents?

Alec.

 

[EAST KENT]

But its so obvious the guy is clueless. hes not even a decent troll. Dont let it bother you EK, thats what the OP wants.

Point is TPP I am not on the least bothered..but those who continue to feed this troll will only encourage it. You kill a cancer by removing it`s blood supply,same difference.

 

[Dobiegirl]

I will personally pm everyone who posts to this troll and give you a piece of my mind

I have read every thread and I swear I can hear the old brain cells dying reading this drivel.

 

[Serenity087]

No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.

I'm going to take a poodle fox baiting. Do you think a chiuana would do any good?

 

[Fiagai]

No it's fine, I'm not feeding the troll, he's feeding me.

I'm going to take a poodle fox baiting. Do you think a chiuana would do any good?

Dont know about poodles however here is a photo of a serious incident of dog baiting that I came across. Evidence that the situation is "cruel" and causing "unnecessary suffering" to all concerned....