Fox baiting

[PaulT]

Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.

 

[CARREG]

Define baiting................Carreg

 

[Hairy Old Cob]

I suppose it depends on how angry you want to make them!

 

[PaulT]

Hi Carreg. I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.

 

[Lacuna]

Hi Carreg. I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.

Another definition is intentionally poisoning foxes with bait, this is currently going on in Tasmania to try and remove foxes from the ecosystem where they arecompeting with the native devils.

Personally I don't find it agreeable as there are too many other animals that could find the bait attractive and die - badgers, kites, buzzards, dogs, cats, etc.

 

[PaulT]

Yes, baiting has several meanings but in the context of this discussion I mean the definition provided in my earlier post.

 

[Alec Swan]

For those who would be prepared to discuss such matters with the original poster, I would suggest that you view his other posts. He's a troll. Troll's specialise in pedantic, pointless and puerile posts, which are designed to provide them with entertainment. Nothing more, or less.

Coventry.

Alec.

Ets, and if you doubt me, then read his last offering!! a.

 

[Fiagai]

Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.

... I would define baiting as allowing dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal.

No still not with you I'm afraid...

Just foxes or all animals?

Dogs. do you mean ....

Dogs - as in fighting dogs (Pitbull types etc)
Terriers - used to find and locate? (ref Hunting Act)
Hounds - ditto?

Attack - Find? Chase? Worry? Kill?

Trapped - Caught? Killed?

Restrained - Chained up? Caged?

This question is as about clear as mud. Could you give a scenario and then maybe could give an proper opinioned answer.

Otherwise as Alec has advised please desits from such troll like activities.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Does anyone here support fox baiting? Just curious.

What are you prattling on about?

 

[PaulT]

No still not with you I'm afraid...

Just foxes or all animals?

Dogs. do you mean ....

Dogs - as in fighting dogs (Pitbull types etc)
Terriers - used to find and locate? (ref Hunting Act)
Hounds - ditto?

Attack - Find? Chase? Worry? Kill?

Trapped - Caught? Killed?

Restrained - Chained up? Caged?

This question is as about clear as mud. Could you give a scenario and then maybe could give an proper opinioned answer.

Otherwise as Alec has advised please desits from such troll like activities.

Hi again, Fiagai. I’ll debate with you as Alec has thrown his teddy out of his pram. He didn’t like my use of independent scientific evidence in the other thread.

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?

I generally find most people don’t seem to have a problem understanding the words attack, trapped and restrained. However:

Attack - To set upon with violent force; to begin to affect harmfully.

Trapped - A confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult.

Restrained - To hold back or keep in check; control; to limit or restrict.

In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?

 

[rosie fronfelen]

would you mind telling where fox baiting occurs- i've never heard of such a hideous sport?or are you referring to hunting andtoo daft to mention such a word?

 

[Fiagai]

In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?...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?...

I am attempting to understand what you are actually on about...

And please dont attempt another childish prank of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think.

Ok in your scenario who or what is restraining the fox? Is the fox in a cage? What is the context of the situation? Maybe if you give an actual example we may make some progress on the question in hand

 

[EAST KENT]

Awfully sorry old chap but my nose scents TROLL..sniff..sniff TROLL.TATA Go orf and annoy someone else please

 

[PaulT]

Don't get so touchy, you're beginning to sound like Alec just before he threw his teddy out if the pram.

The scenario I posed wasn't difficult to comprehend, I deliberately kept it brief. Sounds to me as though you could support fox baiting in certain situations, despite your protestations about apparent misrepresentation of your views. For example, is it ok to set one or more dogs on a fox if it's in a cage, a box or a blocked off tunnel?

Simple yes or no will suffice to each of the three situations above.

 

[PaulT]

East Kent, surely you're not another pro-hunter averse to independent evidence?

It's a real shame so few of you actually want to have an evidence-based approach to the hunting debate. This really is a very instructive experience.

 

[Fiagai]

Don't get so touchy, you're beginning to sound like Alec just before he threw his teddy out if the pram.
The scenario I posed wasn't difficult to comprehend, I deliberately kept it brief. Sounds to me as though you could support fox baiting in certain situations, despite your protestations about apparent misrepresentation of your views. For example, is it ok to set one or more dogs on a fox if it's in a cage, a box or a blocked off tunnel?
Simple yes or no will suffice to each of the three situations above.

Dearest PaulT

I am trying to find out what the *?%@$ you are talking about? Either you are a real eejit or you are talking gibberish - no one who has replied here has a clue what you are on about.

As I have already said desist from your childish pranks of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think....I will take it you are not that stupid so I am presuming you are deliberatly once again attempting to flame the thread.....

I have never heard of "fox baiting". I have never ever heard of foxes being put in cages or boxes and being "baited". Could you give a reference to an actual reputably reported account so we can judge the facts of the case. Stop beating around the bush and give a real scenario.

Wait dont bother. Since you have been asked repeatedly and you refuse to give any concrete example of what you are actually talking about, I have googled it and the subject appears to be a made up term by Hardline Anti groups in the UK that covers some very spurious accounts of digging out foxes . Else where it refers to the use of poison baits especially in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand when poisoned bait is used in the control of out of control fox populations there.

As you appear to be talking nonsense and I will add the give the following nonsense rhyme for your answer...

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Now go away - no one really wants to play your silly little games.....

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Lets face it, Paul T is an anti and enjoying the wind up-best to ignore him and his research.

 

[PaulT]

Dearest PaulT

I am trying to find out what the *?%@$ you are talking about? Either you are a real eejit or you are talking gibberish - no one who has replied here has a clue what you are on about.

As I have already said desist from your childish pranks of attempting to flame the post by saying what I do or dont think....I will take it you are not that stupid so I am presuming you are deliberatly once again attempting to flame the thread.....

I have never heard of "fox baiting". I have never ever heard of foxes being put in cages or boxes and being "baited". Could you give a reference to an actual reputably reported account so we can judge the facts of the case. Stop beating around the bush and give a real scenario.

Wait dont bother. Since you have been asked repeatedly and you refuse to give any concrete example of what you are actually talking about, I have googled it and the subject appears to be a made up term by Hardline Anti groups in the UK that covers some very spurious accounts of digging out foxes . Else where it refers to the use of poison baits especially in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand when poisoned bait is used in the control of out of control fox populations there.

As you appear to be talking nonsense and I will add the give the following nonsense rhyme for your answer...

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Now go away - no one really wants to play your silly little games.....

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ahunter]

Fox Baiting = A term dreamed up by the PR B*ll***** Dept of the anti hunt brigade in a daft attempt to align terrier work with badger baiting.

First made its appearance in the context of hunting at the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs, The anti hunt brigade looked right plonkers when they first came out the phrase in front of the committee everybody stood around scratching their heads wondering what the hell they were on about.

Any more daft terms we can attribute to the Propaganda rubbish of the Anti hunt brigade?

 

[PaulT]

Fox Baiting = A term dreamed up by the PR B*ll***** Dept of the anti hunt brigade in a daft attempt to align terrier work with badger baiting.

First made its appearance in the context of hunting at the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs, The anti hunt brigade looked right plonkers when they first came out the phrase in front of the committee everybody stood around scratching their heads wondering what the hell they were on about.

Any more daft terms we can attribute to the Propaganda rubbish of the Anti hunt brigade?

Good afternoon, Ahunter. So presumably it's okay to label the setting of one or more dogs onto a confined badger as 'badger baiting', but substituting the word badger for fox suddenly makes it b*ll****?

I didn't realise the concept was animal dependent.

 

[Herne]

Yes, you’re quite right Fiagai, terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.

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.

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.

No, Paul, terrierwork does not amount to “fox baiting”. They would, if fox baiting actually existed, be two entirely different things. Just because two activities involve dogs and animals does not make them the same, any more than Formula 1 and Stock Car Racing can be considered the same thing, just because they both involve cars on a track that sometimes bump into each other.

Personally, I suspect that you are fully aware of the differences between the two – in which case, what you are doing here is no more than an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewing public. Why, I ask myself, if the case against Hunting is supposedly so strong, do you antis always seem to feel the need to embellish the evidence? Does it not stand on its own merit? Seemingly not, if you so constantly feel the need to give it a little help…

For the benefit of those not in the know, this definition of the term “baiting”, usually used in the context of “bear baiting” or “badger baiting”, is an activity where dogs are used to torment an animal of another species for – and this is the important part – the “entertainment”, if you can call it that, of an audience, most usually involving gambling.

“Dog-fighting” and “cock-fighting” are similar activities, but are not generally referred to as “baiting” because they involve two animals of the same species. However, the principal features are the same. The activity will be conducted in some sort of enclosure, very close in front of an audience and the animals involved will be specifically chosen to maximise the amount of physical injures inflicted upon one or both participants. Apart from the gambling revenue, the only gratification available to the audience of these activities is the sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of the participants.

These activities were all rightly made illegal a long time past.

The anti-hunters often bleat that if they were made illegal and if hunting with dogs is the same thing then why wasn’t that made illegal at the same time. But the answer is in the question – Hunting with Dogs was not made illegal, because it is not the same thing. It is different in most or all of those crucial aspects.

In hunting, the audience is nearly always well removed from the place where the dogs kill the animal, so they cannot “enjoy” the suffering “up-close-and-personal” and we use a large number of dogs, anyone of which can kill the quarry single-handedly – the complete opposite of how the dogs are chosen in baiting and fighting.

Baiting and fighting are specifically designed to allow sadists to get the most out of the activities. Hunting is carried out in such a way that it would be extremely difficult for a sadist to get any pleasure out of it all.

With Terrierwork, the situation is different to hunting – and we should not forget that (a) terrierwork carried out by hunts is only a small proportion of the total terrierwork carried out in this country; (b) that (prior to the Ban) hunt terrierwork was the only terrierwork carried to a code of practice and (c) that terrierwork was specifically allowed to continue by the Hunting Act – in that, by necessity, the activity is carried out in an enclosed space. However, the crucial difference between it and baiting is that it is not in view of an audience.

In terrierwork properly carried out (prior to the ban), the dog should not even fight the fox at all. It should either have merely held it at bay by barking until the terrierman could dig down and shoot the fox (which is now contrary to the Hunting Act) or scare the fox out of the hole so that it could be shot (which is still lawful under the Act).

Occasionally, animals being animals, there would be instances where the dog and the fox would get into a scrap. However, this would still not count as “baiting”, because all there would be for the “audience” to “enjoy” would be a load of muffled yapping and growling noises coming from somewhere underground – which would provide none of the “up-close-and-personal” action that a sadist would need to get his or her kicks.

So, no, Paul, as you are, no doubt, fully aware Terrierwork is not fox-baiting – and your attempt to link the two is either extremely misinformed or just plain dishonest. Care to enlighten us as to which?

 

[PaulT]

No, Paul, terrierwork does not amount to “fox baiting”. They would, if fox baiting actually existed, be two entirely different things. Just because two activities involve dogs and animals does not make them the same, any more than Formula 1 and Stock Car Racing can be considered the same thing, just because they both involve cars on a track that sometimes bump into each other.

Personally, I suspect that you are fully aware of the differences between the two – in which case, what you are doing here is no more than an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewing public. Why, I ask myself, if the case against Hunting is supposedly so strong, do you antis always seem to feel the need to embellish the evidence? Does it not stand on its own merit? Seemingly not, if you so constantly feel the need to give it a little help…

For the benefit of those not in the know, this definition of the term “baiting”, usually used in the context of “bear baiting” or “badger baiting”, is an activity where dogs are used to torment an animal of another species for – and this is the important part – the “entertainment”, if you can call it that, of an audience, most usually involving gambling.

“Dog-fighting” and “cock-fighting” are similar activities, but are not generally referred to as “baiting” because they involve two animals of the same species. However, the principal features are the same. The activity will be conducted in some sort of enclosure, very close in front of an audience and the animals involved will be specifically chosen to maximise the amount of physical injures inflicted upon one or both participants. Apart from the gambling revenue, the only gratification available to the audience of these activities is the sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of the participants.

These activities were all rightly made illegal a long time past.

The anti-hunters often bleat that if they were made illegal and if hunting with dogs is the same thing then why wasn’t that made illegal at the same time. But the answer is in the question – Hunting with Dogs was not made illegal, because it is not the same thing. It is different in most or all of those crucial aspects.

In hunting, the audience is nearly always well removed from the place where the dogs kill the animal, so they cannot “enjoy” the suffering “up-close-and-personal” and we use a large number of dogs, anyone of which can kill the quarry single-handedly – the complete opposite of how the dogs are chosen in baiting and fighting.

Baiting and fighting are specifically designed to allow sadists to get the most out of the activities. Hunting is carried out in such a way that it would be extremely difficult for a sadist to get any pleasure out of it all.

With Terrierwork, the situation is different to hunting – and we should not forget that (a) terrierwork carried out by hunts is only a small proportion of the total terrierwork carried out in this country; (b) that (prior to the Ban) hunt terrierwork was the only terrierwork carried to a code of practice and (c) that terrierwork was specifically allowed to continue by the Hunting Act – in that, by necessity, the activity is carried out in an enclosed space. However, the crucial difference between it and baiting is that it is not in view of an audience.

In terrierwork properly carried out (prior to the ban), the dog should not even fight the fox at all. It should either have merely held it at bay by barking until the terrierman could dig down and shoot the fox (which is now contrary to the Hunting Act) or scare the fox out of the hole so that it could be shot (which is still lawful under the Act).

Occasionally, animals being animals, there would be instances where the dog and the fox would get into a scrap. However, this would still not count as “baiting”, because all there would be for the “audience” to “enjoy” would be a load of muffled yapping and growling noises coming from somewhere underground – which would provide none of the “up-close-and-personal” action that a sadist would need to get his or her kicks.

So, no, Paul, as you are, no doubt, fully aware Terrierwork is not fox-baiting – and your attempt to link the two is either extremely misinformed or just plain dishonest. Care to enlighten us as to which?

Hi Herne, good to hear from you again.

The two examples you provide help prove my point – both can still be referred to as racing, even if they involve different types of cars and are arranged in different ways. Similarly, baiting doesn’t have to involve specific animals (although it does typically involve dogs) or follow a particular format. Badger baiting is often carried out in a different way to bear baiting, but both still involve using one of more dogs to attack a trapped or restrained animal – the definition of baiting. In terrierwork, hunt terriermen block escape routes and enter one or more dogs which confront the fox. The fact a fight takes place underground out of sight, instead of in an arena, doesn’t diminish the fact that it involves fox baiting.


In many respects the fact that fox baiting takes place out of sight, where humans are unable to intervene until they are able to dig down and reach the animals involved, makes it even more reprehensible as they lose any ability to control what’s going on. Of course many defenders of terrierwork have used this fact to their advantage, claiming, as you do, that no fight takes place; as if we are expected to believe the average terrier will resist the temptation to attack – even if confronted with a cornered fox! It really does stretch credulity beyond the limits.


The research commissioned for the Burns Inquiry took these claims at face value, and concluded:


“The terrier may hold the fox at bay for a considerable period while the terriermen dig down to the fox before shooting it. No scientific work exists to determine the physiological state of the fox during this period. However, the fox is prevented by the terrier from escaping. A circumstance in which the fox can do nothing to alleviate its condition is highly likely to produce a state of great stress (Toates 1995). The cornered fox may be compared with a fox in a box trap. In such a trap White et al. (1991) found that foxes demonstrated a pronounced stress response, including elevated cortisol, ACTH, and bilirubin, increased leucocyte counts, and in some cases adrenal and renal congestion with acute interstitial haemorrhage of the lungs. In addition, anecdotal reports of foxes and terriers fighting underground are not uncommon.” (Bateson & Harris, 2000).


However, a number of post-mortems on foxes which had been dug out after being hunted were carried out for the Burns Inquiry. The results include:


“Fox 1…This animal was hunted by the hounds for approximately 31 minutes. The fox went to ground and a terrier was sent down. After 9 minutes, the fox left the earth and was shot as it left the hole.

Apparent Pre-death trauma

Haemorrhage in the soft tissues of the lateral aspect of the proximal right antebrachium (the upper outside region of the forearm) provide evidence of some trauma before death.

Cause of death

Death was caused by a free bullet shot to the head with a .22 calibre single shot pistol.

Fox 2…This animal was hunted with hounds for approximately 7 minutes. The fox then went to ground and a terrier equipped with a radio collar was sent down. After approximately 25 minutes of digging, the fox was revealed, the terrier removed, and the fox shot in the hole with a .22 calibre single shot pistol. Two shots were required.

Apparent Pre-death trauma

(post commencement of hunt)

b) Multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head.

c) Damage to the Right eye.

d) Bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck.

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)

It’s clear both foxes experienced injuries consistent with being attacked by one or more dogs prior to being shot.

Animal baiting may or may not involve human enjoyment. No doubt some people in attendance derive sadistic pleasure from the confrontation, while others, if gambling takes place, try to maximise winnings. Some may just enjoy the social aspects – who knows; this is irrelevant to the definition of baiting.

 

[PaulT]

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.

 

[Ahunter]

Afternoon PaulT

“I didn't realize the concept was animal dependent”

Good to see you did not deny the term fox baiting is nothing more than Propaganda B*ll****. Why did you not refer to it as Fox baiting before the Scottish inquiry, clearly you never thought it was. Oh silly me before then it was subterranean dog fighting, What will your propaganda b*ll**** machine come out with next.

 

[ThePinkPony]

Hi again, Fiagai. I’ll debate with you as Alec has thrown his teddy out of his pram. He didn’t like my use of independent scientific evidence in the other thread.

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?

I generally find most people don’t seem to have a problem understanding the words attack, trapped and restrained. However:

Attack - To set upon with violent force; to begin to affect harmfully.

Trapped - A confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult.

Restrained - To hold back or keep in check; control; to limit or restrict.

In terms of a scenario, imagine a situation where a fox is in a confined situation where escape is difficult. Is using one or more dogs which set upon that fox with violent force justified?

So basically Digging?

Well its boring (i dont ''dig''. i am girl, girls cant dig) but its a means to an end.

With all of these little arguments it all comes down to ''who'' is doing it and what they see as cruel.

 

[ThePinkPony]

And just to point it out Paul, no terrierman worth his salt would put down two dogs into one hole. freaking stupid.

Why oh why dont people get their facts straight before TRYING to cause arguments?

 

[PaulT]

Afternoon PaulT

“I didn't realize the concept was animal dependent”

Good to see you did not deny the term fox baiting is nothing more than Propaganda B*ll****. Why did you not refer to it as Fox baiting before the Scottish inquiry, clearly you never thought it was. Oh silly me before then it was subterranean dog fighting, What will your propaganda b*ll**** machine come out with next.

Alright, calm down, calm down [said in thick scouse accent].

 

[rosie fronfelen]

And just to point it out Paul, no terrierman worth his salt would put down two dogs into one hole. freaking stupid.

Why oh why dont people get their facts straight before TRYING to cause arguments?

cos they go by this research rubbish, not in the real world---

 

[ThePinkPony]

cos they go by this research rubbish, not in the real world---

verrry frustrating.

 

[Herne]

Animal baiting may or may not involve human enjoyment. No doubt some people in attendance derive sadistic pleasure from the confrontation, while others, if gambling takes place, try to maximise winnings. Some may just enjoy the social aspects – who knows; this is irrelevant to the definition of baiting.

Yep, good try, Paul, but sadly no coconut.

If you look up the definition of to bait in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, it is to torment a chained animal. The definition of bate (the alternative spelling) is a rage or cross mood or the state of a baited person (or, presumably, animal).

Indeed, the absolute definition of baiting does not actually require the use of dogs at all. Bear baiting in the middle ages sometimes just involved people poking it with sharp sticks.

The element of torment and enragement and doing it for enjoyment is, in fact, crucial to the definition of the term and not incidental.

By your definition, the perfectly legal practice of using a terrier to kill a rat enclosed in a corn shed in seconds would also be "baiting" - which it clearly is not.

It is perfectly plain what is traditionally meant by badger baiting and bear baiting and it is equally plain that what occurs during terrierwork, whilst having some similarities, is not the same thing either in process or in motivation.

You are, as usual, merely trying to add weight to the rather spurious case against hunting with dogs by trying to form word associations with other activities that nearly everyone thinks should be illegal.

What is rather silly is that you are actually smoke-screening your own case. There are, as you point out, potential welfare problems inherent with terrierwork – as there are with all methods of conservation and wildlife management, including doing nothing – but it is, of course a little difficult for you to complain about these directly, seeing as how terrierwork is now enshrined as being morally, legally and sociably acceptable within the terms of the Hunting Act.

Hence your (unsuccessful) attempt to try to bad-mouth it by incorrectly linking it to other banned parctices.