Fox welfare (long qu. / argument...sorry)

[Festive_Felicitations]

This is not about wether the 'Hunting Act 2004' works or not it obviously doesn't, BUT the idea behind it: FOX WELFARE

The Act is supposedly there to improve animal welfare, but has anyone been monitoring Fox & Hare numbers over the last four years since the act was introduced and how do they compare to previous years?
There is no published (reliable/refereed) literature out yet, so I was wondering if anybody knows of any monitoring programs and what the initial results are.

Because as I understand the Act (correct me if I'm wrong) while 'hunting' (how ever it is defined) is banned, shooting and poisoning is not.
Poisoning could take out a whole warren(?) where as a hunt is only likely to get 1 fox (I have always heard that success rate was 1 in 5 caught?) and therefore more likely to decimate numbers, also due to the timing of the 'hunting season' mothers with young cubs are less likely to be caught, where as if you shoot/poison all year round you face the issue of wiping out the whole family.

I don't know if you have ever had to watch a poisoned animal die but it is a TERRIBLE and SLOW way to go (especially if you use 1080), and I think far worse than beeing chased and shot.

Anyway would be interested to hear what people think /know...

 

[Hebegebe]

The Government made no study to discover the impact of the Hunting Act on foxes which might be surprising seeing as it was such a controversial law.

They said that the law was going to be based on the Burns report. However the Burns report did not conclude that fox hunting was crueller than other methods.

A key factor of fox hunting is then quick death once caught as opposed to the very long death which can result from other methods such as shooting.

Also fox hunting is seasonal whereas shooting takes place right through the breeding season. A shot vixen results in the slow death of its litter through starvation.

If you analyse what many antis argue what it is they object to is the enjoyment and ritual in fox hunting and the dress etc. The last thing that is on their minds is the overall impact on the fox population.

 

[zigzagzig]

Pre-ban hunting with hounds accounted for only a small percentage of the foxes killed in the country (perhaps with the exception of hill areas). Hunters have always shot and poisoned foxes, it's nothing new.

Has the ban improved fox welfare? I doubt it.

I think there was definitely scope to improve deer welfare with a ban. Hunting deer with hounds is, in my view, clearly cruel and avoidable. Pre-ban 85% of deer in hunt areas were simply shot, without being chased and a ban could have resulted in all deer being spared the ordeal of being run to exhaustion, but the hunters decided to carry on chasing them.

Ultimately it is the hunter's responsibility how and why he kills an animal, not the nanny state's.

 

[Hebegebe]

Ultimately it is the hunter's responsibility how and why he kills an animal, not the nanny state's.

I don't completely agree with that but I think any law should be based on cruelty. There are times when hunting with dogs is clearly the least cruel method but that does not mean anyone should be allowed to do anything to an animal with a dog.

 

[Hebegebe]

One of the problems with deer hunting and the ban is that staghounds are now required to take steps to shoot the entire herd if it is flushed out rather than just selecting one on the grounds of deer management.

 

[combat_claire]

The Middle Way Group published research into this very question:

The survey of 600 sheep farmers,


Most farmers reported that they attempt to control foxes to the same extent that they did before the Act was passed, and this means that their use of shooting and snaring has increased.
Shotguns were used in fox control by 68 per cent of farmers polled, with one quarter of the foxes shot being only wounded, according to estimates. On the 49 per cent of farms where rifles were used at times, farmers estimated that an eighth of foxes were wounded, not killed.
Sixteen per cent of farmers used snares to kill foxes and two per cent used poison. A large number of farmers, 44 per cent, claim that they are now suffering greater losses of lambs to foxes at lambing time because of the difficulty of killing predators since the Hunting Act came into force in February last year. The findings indicate that wounding rates in fox control are higher than shooting bodies accept. These bodies estimate that only nine or 10 per cent of foxes shot are wounded rather than killed.

These stats are copied from the Daily Telegraph article, couldn't find the original research.

You might also like to read The Politics of Prejudice, a Middle Way Group publication by Charlie Pye which debunks the scientific claims that the ban was based upon.

 

[zigzagzig]

What a load of horse [****]. Next!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

these stats. are basically true.we live in a remote area where sheep farming is the main occupation.the number of foxes this spring has risen sharply here and because farmers have neither the time and/or the expertise to go after the wretched things then they suffer the unpleasant consequences. we have only just started lambing and are rather dreading the weeks to come!!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

zaggy zig,you know better do you? if so, please explain how and educate me!

 

[zigzagzig]

I don't want to encourage you to debate with me. Instead go to the pub or go for a walk. Get a life and take some fresh air!!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

fine! but i wonder why!!!if i could go for a walk and get to the pub i would, but considering i am in a wheelchair and am virtually house bound i can't. cheerio-

 

[zigzagzig]

For all you know I may be too, but you used exactly the same reposte against me yesterday.

 

[Grey_Eventer]

zigzagzig... was that really neccessary??? no... stop making such a big argument out of something that people were talking about perfectly happily and without killing each other....

 

[rosie fronfelen]

p.s.if you were, i would like to think that i would hold a little bit more understanding towards you, but you z.z. are plain beligerent- i will leave you alone, don't fret, but if someone talks about something which i know to be totally untrue then i will stand(metaphorically!) my corner!! adios-

 

[zigzagzig]

salimali, my "horse [****]" comment wasn't directed at you, it was at combat_claire's citing of a made-up piece of drivel masquerading as scientific research. My comment to you about getting some fresh air etc. was merely a repitition of an identical comment you made to me the previous day in the rural manifesto thread. I did it as a joke but you took it to heart. I'm afraid that if you can't take a joke, or can't take what you dish out, the hunting forum probably isn't the place for you. However, having said that, I apologise if I upset you and take back my comments.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

apology accepted. i was in fact in agreement with c. claire's stats. as that is how it is here, i can't speak for other areas obviously. i can take a joke as well as anyone, as for not having an interest in the hunting forum- well, reading threads from like minded people instead of boring joe public rants helps me to keep sane even if i don't agree at times, so perhaps we now understand each other? hopefully having cleared the air we can move on.

 

[combat_claire]

What a marvellous debating style you have.

That study was undertaken not by the Countryside Alliance, but the Middle Way Group, who were neither for or against an outright ban. As far as I am aware that was the only study ever conducted into the impact the ban has had on animal welfare. As such I am inclined to believe it. Unless of course you have any figures or formal studies to counter these??

 

[zigzagzig]

Fair enough. Good luck with the lambing!

 

[billyslad]

There are so many people around here that shoot foxes that the hunt (used to ) account for a very small number everyone with a rifle licence thinks it is their duty to shoot anything that moves , there is even one chap in the village that traps them about one a month and then gets his mate to shoot it . I asked him why he was doing this and he just shrugged his shoulders

 

[guido16]

I just love the sweeping generalisations on this forum.
So EVERYONE with a rifle licence kills anything that moves?

I seriously disagree with that comment. Rifles are highly dangerous and those that operate them (in my experience) do so with the upmost respect. Animals are killed for management and welfare issues where I come from. This includes foxes/deer.

And since here in Scotland the buck season starts today, I know plenty people who were out this morning to shoot a buck. One example being - 15 buck spotted...NONE killed. Why? Because it wasnt deemed SAFE to do so.

 

[lastrebel]

Hebegebe, your at it again the welfare of the fox is all that matters to some of us.
I think most antis for different reasons think the law is rubbish.
but please dont say its to do with the dress ritual etc.

 

[lastrebel]

Perdy

'was that really neccessary??? no... stop making such a big argument out of something that people were talking about perfectly happily and without killing each other.... '

thats not exactly true is it.................