Hunting Ban - ten years on

[cptrayes]

Do you not believe that in the artificial countryside man has created that we call the British Isles, as the managers of this land and having removed the higher predators and altered the countryside fundamentally, we have a duty to manage the fox population, both to prevent numbers from becoming unacceptably high (for foxes themselves, for other wildlife, and for farmers) and to remove the sick, the old, the wounded and the weak?

I do see the point you are trying to make. The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak, It targets the least physically able (which may simply be the slowest of a perfectly healthy and fit number of foxes) for death, and any fox at all for the chase and for digging out once gone to ground.

On balance, it is my opinion that it is not in the overall interest of the fox population to hunt with hounds on a week in week out basis. I understand that you will not agree with this, and we need to agree to differ.

 

[Alec Swan]

……….

How many more times is this one going to keep coming up, Countryman and Alec?

For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense, which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense, which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.

Class ridden biased bigot? Good God Alec, how incredibly offensive you are

 

[Palindrome]

For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense, which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.

so ridiculous this class thing, clearly hunting doesn't make you a gentleman going by your post! You are trying too hard really.

 

[Isbister]

The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak, ...

On balance, it is my opinion that it is not in the overall interest of the fox population to hunt with hounds on a week in week out basis.

I have to disagree - I would say that traditional fox hunting targets the sick and weak to a higher degree than the other forms of control - these being shooting, setting snares, or poisoning, none of which is particularly or even at all selective.

One aspect of fox hunting, about which agreement will perhaps always be elusive, is that for those who enjoy it, it is damned good fun - and I suspect that it is that as much as anything else that seems to rile its opponents.

 

[Mike007]

It was the one thing I always found so sad about the kill. How many foxes had shotgun injures or even gangrene.A swift end at least.

 

[a7neu]

The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak, It targets the least physically able (which may simply be the slowest of a perfectly healthy and fit number of foxes) for death, and any fox at all for the chase and for digging out once gone to ground.

It targets the foxes that were targeted just 500 years ago in Great Britain by the natural world. I don't see anything wrong with targeting the least physically able animals--they may be least physically able for a reason that can't be detected visually (eg weak heart valve). The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development, so it seems strange to me that you're arguing that foxes that would be selected against naturally in pristine wilderness should be exempt from culling.

 

[cptrayes]

It targets the foxes that were targeted just 500 years ago in Great Britain by the natural world. I don't see anything wrong with targeting the least physically able animals--they may be least physically able for a reason that can't be detected visually (eg weak heart valve). The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development, so it seems strange to me that you're arguing that foxes that would be selected against naturally in pristine wilderness should be exempt from culling.

I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close

 

[cptrayes]

It was the one thing I always found so sad about the kill. How many foxes had shotgun injures or even gangrene.A swift end at least.

I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.

 

[cptrayes]

The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development.

Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.

 

[Countryman]

Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.

cptrayes, the problem is it does not matter to a fox whether or not the hounds that effectively check its health every few weeks are doing so for wildlife management, for sport, or for any other reason. What matters is that they do it. However, we are fortunate enough that enough people derive enjoyment enough from riding their horses to keep up with the hounds and see hounds work that we are able to fund the continued management of wild foxes in this way-the incomes of the subscribers and supporters pays for the hounds and huntsman.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close

I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.

Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.

The intention is noy just to breed faster, fitter foxes for a good days sport but also for the good of the species. Those with disadvantageous alleles (eg. weak heart, inhibiting conformation etc) are unlikely to survive and reproduce, any offspring of these are highly likely to possess the same disadvantageous allele. Those with advantageous alleles (eg. stronger/bigger heart for pumping blood and oxygen around the body, stronger/longer legs etc.) are more likely to survive and reproduce offspring possessing similar alleles. This is regardless of hunting or not. Hunting removes the weaker form the population, potentially preventing them from starving to death as they are intraspecifically outcompeted by other foxes for prey and removes intraspecific competition from the healthier/better foxes so that there is not more foxes/predators than available food/prey which would ead to the population struggling or targetting suburban/urban areas for non-natural food "prey"- and I think we all remember how that ended with those twins that were attacked by a fox in their cots.

Do you think the fox (or even badgers) give the same sympathy when they brutally massacre an entire shedfull of chickens? On 5 occasions I have gone out in the morning to find the windows broken and every single one of my chickens with their throats/chest/legs ripped out..and usually only one if any is actually taken to be eaten. I am not a commercial chicken farmer, these were "pets" kept for the fun of eating our own eggs..we don't bother anymore. Their shed was in a large run with an electrified mesh fence just shie of 2 metres high and going just over 2ft underground,

The reason hunting began and continued was/is management...just because people like to follow on horseback doesn't make it any worse.

 

[Alec Swan]

Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.

There is no single 'overriding' reason for Hunting. It's a package by which those who participate derive pleasure from the many facets, and they include; Riding, watching and appreciating hounds working, providing a service to Land Owners, the social gathering of like minded people, some of whom really only meet in the field, the correct management of a small but important element of our countryside, a part of our rural fabric, and lastly, because those who ride to Hounds, enjoy it.

You will now be arguing, I expect that all of the reasons for hunting, in the above paragraph can be sourced whilst allowing the fox to live. They can't. If our vulpine population have no natural and selective form of predator, then as has been very well and clearly pointed out by LRR, the general well being of our foxes will suffer. No one, from a range of 100 yards can decide upon which fox is healthy, and so is likely to promote their kind, and the only certain test is that they run before Hounds. The process of Natural Selection had us with a previously healthy vulpine population. Now, because of the changes in our Laws, I suspect that there are conversely, a far greater percentage of animals which are unhealthy, and so reproducing.

You've asked for explanations, and they've been given by those better qualified than I, though I would be most surprised to read "Ah, now I understand", by way of a response!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

cptrayes, the problem is it does not matter to a fox whether or not the hounds that effectively check its health every few weeks are doing so for wildlife management, for sport, or for any other reason. What matters is that they do it. However, we are fortunate enough that enough people derive enjoyment enough from riding their horses to keep up with the hounds and see hounds work that we are able to fund the continued management of wild foxes in this way-the incomes of the subscribers and supporters pays for the hounds and huntsman.

I'm sorry but in my opinion it DOES matter. You are basing your sport on conserving one of the most successful, adaptable mammals in animal history. And as far as I am aware, your sport thinks nothing of digging out and killing fit and healthy foxes, which you would let go if you were wholeheartedly interested in conservation, let go.

I struggle to think of a wild animal in this country that has less need of your help., especially since there are very large areas of thIs country, never mind the rest of Europe, where it does not get it.

 

[cptrayes]

The intention is noy just to breed faster, fitter foxes for a good days sport but also for the good of the species. Those with disadvantageous alleles (eg. weak heart, inhibiting conformation etc) are unlikely to survive and reproduce, any offspring of these are highly likely to possess the same disadvantageous allele. Those with advantageous alleles (eg. stronger/bigger heart for pumping blood and oxygen around the body, stronger/longer legs etc.) are more likely to survive and reproduce offspring possessing similar alleles. This is regardless of hunting or not. Hunting removes the weaker form the population, potentially preventing them from starving to death as they are intraspecifically outcompeted by other foxes for prey and removes intraspecific competition from the healthier/better foxes so that there is not more foxes/predators than available food/prey which would ead to the population struggling or targetting suburban/urban areas for non-natural food "prey"- and I think we all remember how that ended with those twins that were attacked by a fox in their cots.

Do you think the fox (or even badgers) give the same sympathy when they brutally massacre an entire shedfull of chickens? On 5 occasions I have gone out in the morning to find the windows broken and every single one of my chickens with their throats/chest/legs ripped out..and usually only one if any is actually taken to be eaten. I am not a commercial chicken farmer, these were "pets" kept for the fun of eating our own eggs..we don't bother anymore. Their shed was in a large run with an electrified mesh fence just shie of 2 metres high and going just over 2ft underground,

The reason hunting began and continued was/is management...just because people like to follow on horseback doesn't make it any worse.

I find that whole argument completely ridiculous, sorry :'(

First, I do not and never will compare the morals of my own behaviour to that of a wild animal.

Second, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that anyone hunts with the primary intention of creating 'better' versions of one of the most successful mammals in the country.

Third, there are massive land areas where the fox as a species has no such 'help' and yet they survive perfectly well by themselves.

Bigger foxes, surely, are not necessarily an evolutionary advantage because they require more food in a bad winter when it is scarce, and more foxes will die?

 

[Alec Swan]

……..You are basing your sport on conserving one of the most successful, adaptable mammals in animal history. …….. .

I'm sorry, but *successful*, from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition, is the wrong word. They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place, and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

There is no single 'overriding' reason for Hunting. It's a package by which those who participate derive pleasure from the many facets, and they include; Riding, watching and appreciating hounds working, providing a service to Land Owners, the social gathering of like minded people, some of whom really only meet in the field, the correct management of a small but important element of our countryside, a part of our rural fabric, and lastly, because those who ride to Hounds, enjoy it.

You will now be arguing, I expect that all of the reasons for hunting, in the above paragraph can be sourced whilst allowing the fox to live. They can't. If our vulpine population have no natural and selective form of predator, then as has been very well and clearly pointed out by LRR, the general well being of our foxes will suffer. No one, from a range of 100 yards can decide upon which fox is healthy, and so is likely to promote their kind, and the only certain test is that they run before Hounds. The process of Natural Selection had us with a previously healthy vulpine population. Now, because of the changes in our Laws, I suspect that there are conversely, a far greater percentage of animals which are unhealthy, and so reproducing.

You've asked for explanations, and they've been given by those better qualified than I, though I would be most surprised to read "Ah, now I understand", by way of a response!

Alec.

Well Alec, this argument hinges around whether foxes in the large non hunted areas of this country and Europe are genuinely less healthy than those in hunted areas. Living in one of those areas, I see no evidence for that, and I can find no scientific evidence for that. If you can point me to some where the welfare issue includes the chase in the equation, then I will gladly change my mind and tell you so.

Meanwhile you confuse yet again a lack of understanding with both a lack of evidence on the part of fox hunters, and a lack of agreement on mine. I understand your arguments perfectly. I do not agree with them being justification for hunting with hounds.

You can, and I suspect will, continue to make data-free assertions until the cows come home. When you provide proper evidence then I will support a change in the law, but I will never support a band of people simply choosing to ignore it because it does not suit them :'(

 

[cptrayes]

I'm sorry, but *successful*, from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition, is the wrong word. They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place, and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.

Oh Alec, how many more times? How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?

 

[LittleRooketRider]

I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close

I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.

I find that whole argument completely ridiculous, sorry :'(

First, I do not and never will compare the morals of my own behaviour to that of a wild animal.

Second, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that anyone hunts with the primary intention of creating 'better' versions of one of the most successful mammals in the country.

Third, there are massive land areas where the fox as a species has no such 'help' and yet they survive perfectly well by themselves.

Bigger foxes, surely, are not necessarily an evolutionary advantage because they require more food in a bad winter when it is scarce, and more foxes will die?

Well Alec, this argument hinges around whether foxes in the large non hunted areas of this country and Europe are genuinely less healthy than those in hunted areas. Living in one of those areas, I see no evidence for that, and I can find no scientific evidence for that. If you can point me to some where the welfare issue includes the chase in the equation, then I will gladly change my mind and tell you so.

Meanwhile you confuse yet again a lack of understanding with both a lack of evidence on the part of fox hunters, and a lack of agreement on mine. I understand your arguments perfectly. I do not agree with them being justification for hunting with hounds.

You can, and I suspect will, continue to make data-free assertions until the cows come home. When you provide proper evidence then I will support a change in the law, but I will never support a band of people simply choosing to ignore it because it does not suit them :'(

Oh Alec, how many more times? How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?

Are we to understand that you can observe and analyse every single fox and cub in existence in your area; their size, health, diet, if they are hungry/feeding sufficiently etc etc?

I am not claiming that a bigger fox is necessarily a better fox it was just a an example of something that could be an advantage...besides being bigger may increase its potential as a hunter...possibly

Perhaps you could give us some "proper evidence" for your claims of successful fox populations in uncontrolled large land areas; given that this is your basis for rejecting our responses?

My earlier argument is based on A-level biology that I have studied, and a discussion I had with a friend (who is neither pro nor anti hunting..they couldn't care less either way) who has a degree and masters in this area of biological science. Nothing adapts/evolves if there is no need. It is not necessarily bigger, fitter foxes that Hunts produce but a healthier population. From my experience Foxes are not often 'dug out' of dens/bolt holes, a healthier/fitter fox will have got a greater distance from hounds reducing the likelihoo of tracing it to its hole.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

I'm sorry, but *successful*, from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition, is the wrong word. They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place, and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.

precisely

 

[cptrayes]

Perhaps you could give us some "proper evidence" for your claims of successful fox populations in uncontrolled large land areas; given that this is your basis for rejecting our responses?

I'm not the one asking for a change in the law or breaking the law. If you want to change people's minds, you need evidence.

I have as much 'evidence' for my point of view as you do. I live in an area which is not hunted. Foxes are killed by being shot. I see healthy, fit looking foxes, and healthy looking road kill at close range, on a regular basis. I do not see the weakened, diseased ridden creatures that would be here if your claims of the necessity of conservation were correct.

One of your earlier posts was about the amount of damage a big, strong fox did to your fortified hen coop. Do you see the irony in using increasing the strength of the species as a reason to hunt them?

 

[Lizzie66]

Oh Alec, how many more times? How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?

You haven't said the area in which you live so any suggestions we make will be possibilities. You have said they succeed but you have equally admitted that your idea of succeed may be different to ours. Equally we are only 10 years on and evolution doesn't happen over night so any effect of not hunting with hounds will not have manifested itself in the fox population yet. You have said you live in a relatively remote area with wide areas uninhabited, management of wildlife is most needed where man and animals interact as this is where domesticated animals are more plentiful and therefore at greater risk to predators that are not fit/healthy enough to hunt more natural prey. Therefore if you are in a remote area management of the fox population may not be as essential as it is in other areas

With regard to how many more times, I would imagine that Alec feels as though he is hitting his head against a brick wall. We keep trying and you keep putting forward emotional rhetoric rather than looking at the facts and making your decision based on logic.

There two main options control or don't control, if you are in the camp of the latter then the debate is at an end. If in the former then there are further options and it then comes down to which option (s) are the best in terms of animal welfare

SHOOT WITH RIFLE
pros: if shot cleanly then will know nothing about it so no cruelty
cons: not selective so it will literally be any fox that the hunter comes across, if not shot cleanly then it could take days to die so this would potentially be quite cruel


WITH HOUNDS
pros: fox will either be caught or get away, definitely no lingering death, selective in that healthier and fitter foxes are likely to escape
cons: kill would not be wholly immediate although likely to be less than 20 seconds, the fox would be subject to a chase which may cause some distress (scientific evidence of this is unclear)

ALTERNATE
pros: ??
cons: shotgun - unlikely to be clean as it is highly unlikely you would be close enough for an outright kill, snare - painful lingering death also indiscriminate, poison - as per snare

My personal preference is for hunting with hounds, its outcome is more absolute and it is a more natural form of control. However that is not to say that other methods should not be used in conjunction. As with all wildlife management it would be a question of looking at the individual areas and deciding on the best method for that area.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

One of your earlier posts was about the amount of damage a big, strong fox did to your fortified hen coop. Do you see the irony in using increasing the strength of the species as a reason to hunt them?

I did not describe the fox in question and was just pointing out that hunting is no different to what they do. I am not arguing for an increase in "strength" as you call ( by this I assume you mean how strong it is and how capable it is of breaking through wire mesh) but for the improvement in health of the wider fox population as a whole. A better fox is able to hunt natural prey eg. rabbits more successfully. And so on from this it protects livestock.

But still you are unable to observe every fox in existence, you can account fr the foxes you have seen and by your account they are healthy (did you carry out a full examination or just see them as you went past? ...I expect the latter). I on the other hand have seen on our farm mostly mange and flea-ridden vermin who have resorted to targetting new-born calves (mostly unsuccessfully) and deadstock, on this basis I will not assume they are capable of hunting sufficient, natural prey. Preban we only saw one or two (there are potentially more ou there), very fine specimens that one can only admire compared to the pathetic looking population that is at least trebled in size.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

You haven't said the area in which you live so any suggestions we make will be possibilities. You have said they succeed but you have equally admitted that your idea of succeed may be different to ours. Equally we are only 10 years on and evolution doesn't happen over night so any effect of not hunting with hounds will not have manifested itself in the fox population yet. You have said you live in a relatively remote area with wide areas uninhabited, management of wildlife is most needed where man and animals interact as this is where domesticated animals are more plentiful and therefore at greater risk to predators that are not fit/healthy enough to hunt more natural prey. Therefore if you are in a remote area management of the fox population may not be as essential as it is in other areas

With regard to how many more times, I would imagine that Alec feels as though he is hitting his head against a brick wall. We keep trying and you keep putting forward emotional rhetoric rather than looking at the facts and making your decision based on logic.

There two main options control or don't control, if you are in the camp of the latter then the debate is at an end. If in the former then there are further options and it then comes down to which option (s) are the best in terms of animal welfare

SHOOT WITH RIFLE
pros: if shot cleanly then will know nothing about it so no cruelty
cons: not selective so it will literally be any fox that the hunter comes across, if not shot cleanly then it could take days to die so this would potentially be quite cruel


WITH HOUNDS
pros: fox will either be caught or get away, definitely no lingering death, selective in that healthier and fitter foxes are likely to escape
cons: kill would not be wholly immediate although likely to be less than 20 seconds, the fox would be subject to a chase which may cause some distress (scientific evidence of this is unclear)

ALTERNATE
pros: ??
cons: shotgun - unlikely to be clean as it is highly unlikely you would be close enough for an outright kill, snare - painful lingering death also indiscriminate, poison - as per snare

My personal preference is for hunting with hounds, its outcome is more absolute and it is a more natural form of control. However that is not to say that other methods should not be used in conjunction. As with all wildlife management it would be a question of looking at the individual areas and deciding on the best method for that area.

Lizzie you are far more eloquent than I, and I think this is an excellent summary.

Can I just say I'm sat next to Alec banging my head against the same brick wall

 

[Maesfen]

Lizzie you are far more eloquent than I, and I think this is an excellent summary.

Can I just say I'm sat next to Alec banging my head against the same brick wall

That brick wall had better be a long one as I'm cramming in too!

 

[LittleRooketRider]

That brick wall had better be a long one as I'm cramming in too!

Oh sure Maesfen, theres always room for one more...budge up Alec!

 

[cptrayes]

This is a good summary Lizzie, but I have clearly stated that I live in an area of hill sheep farming where foxes are controlled by shooting.

As a summary, it is incomplete. I would need to see the analysis of how many foxes there are in an area which have been encouraged to be there in order to give hunts something to provide them with sport every week. If those numbers are artificially high, (And I have seen hunting people write that there are more foxes in hunted areas than in other areas) then more foxes would be being killed than would otherwise be necessary. Cub hunting would suggest that this is the case, otherwise hunts would not wipe out entire families of cubs all in one go as they do. Cub hunting, where fox cubs trapped inside a wood are killed, rather destroys your selection of the weakest argument as well.

I have not used emotional rhetoric. Alec, though, has at times been bordering on the poetic . And none of you have given verifiable facts, you have given your opinions, which is just what I am doing too.

I respect your preference for hunting with hounds but I do not respect anyone's right to do it by breaking the law.

 

[cptrayes]

I did not describe the fox in question and was just pointing out that hunting is no different to what they do. I am not arguing for an increase in "strength" as you call ( by this I assume you mean how strong it is and how capable it is of breaking through wire mesh) but for the improvement in health of the wider fox population as a whole. A better fox is able to hunt natural prey eg. rabbits more successfully. And so on from this it protects livestock.

But still you are unable to observe every fox in existence, you can account fr the foxes you have seen and by your account they are healthy (did you carry out a full examination or just see them as you went past? ...I expect the latter). I on the other hand have seen on our farm mostly mange and flea-ridden vermin who have resorted to targetting new-born calves (mostly unsuccessfully) and deadstock, on this basis I will not assume they are capable of hunting sufficient, natural prey. Preban we only saw one or two (there are potentially more ou there), very fine specimens that one can only admire compared to the pathetic population that is at least trebled in size.

If this is true then your answer is really very simple. Pay for a truly independent study of the health of the fox population post ban, and use the result of that study to campaign on animal welfare grounds for hunting with hounds to be resumed in say, three trial areas, and redo the study at the end of a suitable period. It should then be perfectly obvious to everyone that hunting should be allowed, and I would be more than happy to support you in that.

Meanwhile, the law exists and should be obeyed. And I remain puzzled by the number of born and bred country folk who do not agree with you that the law should be repealed.

And I'd have a LOT more respect for your animal welfare claims if you were also campaigning against snares, which seem to me, as I've said before, to be the instrument of the devil.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

And I'd have a LOT more respect for your animal welfare claims if you were also campaigning against snares, which seem to me, as I've said before, to be the instrument of the devil.[/QUOTE]


When did I ever say I was in favour of snares???
I think they are horrific.(asides from mouse traps)
Now you are making assumptions about my character based on my opinion on one subject.

We are fully aware that it is the law and the law is to be obeyed....we are arguing that it is a RIDICULOUS piece of legislation founded in spite.

I shall now return to my spot next to Alec and Maesfen, banging my head against a brick wall and contemplating the best way to monitor all Hackney Carriages (better known as Taxis) to ensure they are still carrying bales of hay....since this is still law and must be obeyed

 

[Alec Swan]

Class ridden biased bigot? Good God Alec, how incredibly offensive you are

With your express permission, I'll post a PM which you sent to me (I'll check first that I'm permitted so to do), and your courteous and well mannered approach may well be in doubt! I'll accept that on occasion I copulate, and also that my parents weren't married, but playing the part of the wounded reminds me of a line from Shakespeare, 'Me thinks she doth protest too much'!

Your constant requests for affirmation of the experiences of those who Hunt, receive well written and explained responses, but you continue to argue with the puerile approach of a child. Your claimed for experiences will raise more than an eyebrow or two, your statements of fact are really quite ludicrous and in the main, borne of ignorance. Were you not using your own name, then there would be some justification in wondering at your intent. Your apparent and obvious lack of knowledge, despite your claims to the contrary, remind me of the child, who when arguing, rather than learning and assimilating any degree of understanding, replies with a near constant stream of "Yeah, Buts"!! Your approach to this discussion is reaching the point where you stand every chance of becoming a target for the humour of those who you contradict, and for that reason, I shall now withdraw, finally. I suspect that you live in a world which is inhabited by very few others.

Not that you're in the mood to accept advice, but in your shoes I'd stick to those clerical aspects of life about which you can speak with experience, rather than hypothesised nonsense!

Alec.