Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

Managing the countryside so as to encourage a healthy fox population is a win/win situation - it has many beneficial spin offs, and not just for the fox.

But many people only did this when they had a vested interest in having healthy foxes to hunts. No hunting = they have no more interest in foxes.

The mass raising of birds to be targeted for amusement by idiots with guns is vile, and does beggar all positive for countryside management. Shooting is a big money industry.

 

[skinnydipper]

The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.

 

[Fred66]

I don't think I have suggested that hunting would now boost the fox population. I do believe and understand though that where fox habitats were maintained for hunting foxes were more widespread, less likely to be taken by fox shooting enthusiasts and generally healthier. There are a number of reasons why foxes may be struggling - loss of habitat in part due to the ban on fox hunting is one of those.

This is what I fail to understand, trail hunting from a hunting perspective is easier, less need to walk all the land as the trail is set and even on a poor scenting day means hounds are less likely to stray. As long as the hunt continue to offer the same services as before, fallen stock, fence maintenance, digging out, etc then the farmers will still welcome them, especially as there will be less straying and if they diversify into shooting them. Some hunts were slow to move over and the odd one is still recalcitrant but in the main most are now hunting within the law.
So why do most hunting folk want to see a return to fox hunting? It’s not a desire to spill blood most prefer not to see this aspect, probably much as most of us avoid abattoirs. You know it happens but prefer not to dwell on it. The reason is that most who hunt appreciate the symbiotic relationships within the countryside, that maintaining the balance is important that maintaining healthy numbers keeps the balance.
Antis largely don’t acknowledge this they just like to throw out names such as psychopath , scum, and other such abuse. They attempt to identify and intimidate people via social media and generally stalk, harass and intimidate people into stopping trail hunting as they rarely provide any evidence to support their allegations.
I have pretty much lost any level of tolerance of their activities, whether they believe the hunt is breaking the law or not, this does not give them the right to proactively break the law first, they dress in paramilitary style, they generally mask up so that it makes identification difficult. The hunt I follow has previously been quite happy to have monitors but this is no longer the case, not because we have started to hunt fox again but because we genuinely fear for our safety.

 

[palo1]

I know I'm getting waaay off topic but earthworms are so important to soil health. I have no idea of the earthworm population on farms in the USA but I protect them in my yard/garden.

Earthworms are massively important!! Most farmers know that I think; we certainly look at our earthworm population (as far as we can) as one indicator or soil health. We do everything we can to encourage them too as they do so much work for us! Earthworms also form a significant part of a foxes diet.

 

[palo1]

In all honesty I only really see that we've made an absolute pigs ear of habitat management in the UK. The same argument is made for the rearing of game birds yet it doesn't really happen in reality.

I can go for a walk near my home and see plenty of examples of ecologically destructive practices relating to hunting. The release of millions of non-native game birds is an act of ecocide in itself, yet it's in no way frowned upon.

I think there are people who understand this. For those that believe that hunting has a place in contemporary culture some would prefer to see large numbers of healthy native birds rather than millions of non-native game birds. That is a discussion however that is incredibly difficult to open as there is already so much polarised debate about any and all kinds of hunting/sport shooting. I am not a shooter/gunsports person but I would far rather take up that kind of field sport to see native species 'supported' in healthy habitats to be shot than the millions of pheasants that are a Victorian sporting hangover. As a pro-hunting person I don't want to snark at other fieldsports and very much hope they put their house in order and learn from where hunting post ban has failed (ie bad practices, illegality and anti-social behaviour). I do feel that hunting should have a place in our culture; I think it has a fundamental significance for us and provides an essential connection with nature and our ecosystem. I also accept that hunting could be adapted in lots of ways for a new 21st century context.

 

[palo1]

The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.

Although you have put a very particular spin on this, you are still wrong; that is exactly how nature facilitates healthy populations. In the case of pre-ban fox hunting the people following hounds had nothing to do with the death of the fox in large part; that was the job of hounds.

 

[skinnydipper]

Although you have put a very particular spin on this, you are still wrong; that is exactly how nature facilitates healthy populations. In the case of pre-ban fox hunting the people following hounds had nothing to do with the death of the fox in large part; that was the job of hounds.

Of course they have something to do with the death of the fox - somebody must be in charge of the hounds.

I wouldn't say that death by hounds is a natural death for a fox nearing the end of its life.

 

[Fred66]

The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.

The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate and therefore healthy foxes as well as old will be killed. Some instantly some slowly, the old and ill that aren’t shot will still die but slowly by starvation.
The idea that people think this slow torture is better is to me both laughable and abhorrent.

 

[skinnydipper]

The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate and therefore healthy foxes as well as old will be killed. Some instantly some slowly, the old and ill that aren’t shot will still die but slowly by starvation.
The idea that people think this slow torture is better is to me both laughable and abhorrent.

So are you one of those people that gets their kicks from chasing round the countryside after a terrified animal running for its life?

 

[Fred66]

So are you one of those people that gets their kicks from chasing round the countryside after a terrified animal running for its life?

I am long past being able to chase anywhere even if fox hunting with a pack of hounds was still legal.
??

 

[skinnydipper]

I am long past being able to chase anywhere even if fox hunting with a pack of hounds was still legal.
??

You are right about one thing - it isn't legal.

There seems to be a number of hunts who don't appear to let that get in their way.

 

[stangs]

I know a number of rural and pro hunting people that would support rewilding practices; there is far more recognition of that than the media conveys tbh. Rewilding and hunting generally are not at odds with each other. Most pro hunting people I know feel passionately about the need to repair ecosystems and of course, a fox is just one part of that. Most rural people and pro hunting people absolutely understand the complexity of the rural ecosystem. It is much harder for the UK's largely urban population. Especially when they are busy tarmacking their gardens for parking and using astroturf for convenience instead of a lawn. I am not trying to stereotype people - those are just examples of things that urban people feel the need to do to enjoy their homes.

I stand corrected then. And I agree that the tarmacking of gardens and similar practices are awful (though I've found them more common in suburban areas than in the most urban of areas), but these 'gardens' presumably take up much less land than the thousands of acres dedicated to agricultural monocultures.

 

[[153312]]

Sorry but I don't buy that hunting benefits fox populations. If they care so much about the health of the countryside and Britain's wildlife, why do you never see hunts worming foxes, despite a huge rise in both heart and lungworm infections? Why do you never see them supporting charities that rehabilitate and release injured wild foxes? Why would they show such poor biosecurity practices in their fallen stock services, despite the fact that this has the potential to spready toxoplasmosis and other diseases which would potentially infect foxes? Or supporting habitat building for animals important to foxes' diets (because bottom-up conservation works so much better than top-down)?
Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway.

 

[ycbm]

The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate.

This is not correct for the area in which I live., The foxes which are shot are those which are causing issues for farmers with their livestock. Any others are left in peace.
.

 

[ycbm]

Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway

I agree with this and I also think the argument is disingenuous. If hunts stopped hunting when the sick and old were gone then it might stand up. But they don't, they continue to hunt increasingly young fit and healthy foxes until the season is finished and their "sport" is over because the land is needed for farming.
.

 

[palo1]

Sorry but I don't buy that hunting benefits fox populations. If they care so much about the health of the countryside and Britain's wildlife, why do you never see hunts worming foxes, despite a huge rise in both heart and lungworm infections? Why do you never see them supporting charities that rehabilitate and release injured wild foxes? Why would they show such poor biosecurity practices in their fallen stock services, despite the fact that this has the potential to spready toxoplasmosis and other diseases which would potentially infect foxes? Or supporting habitat building for animals important to foxes' diets (because bottom-up conservation works so much better than top-down)?
Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway.

I think that veterinary interventions in wild animal populations are really tricky philosophically and from a welfare point of view. I am not sure how feasible it would be to even try to worm native wild foxes - they haven't had that kind of intervention before though it possibly could be managed in urban fox populations. I am still wary of the idea though; its not generally something that supports a wild population of anything and I think for a number of environmental and species level reasons it would not be desirable. As for the toxoplasmosis and toxicara issue, that hasn't been associated with foxes - far more so with farm dogs according to various herd health information services. Hunting definitely did support habitat protection though that is far less so with trail hunting as the need to have fox populated areas has gone. Undoubtedly bottom up conservation works much better than top down - that is one of the reasons why the UK became a fox hunters paradise, because habitats were created that encouraged foxes (and thus everything else in their ecosystem). I think there is a problem for most of us too that environmentally sound policies and practices are not always mutually compatible with individual animal welfare practices.

In my view, one issue is that our animal welfare laws prioritise individual animals which works well for domestic animals but far, far less well for our native wildlife. I don't think that is contested but the idealisation for the individual wild animal has done populations that need a degree of big picture thinking, a real and potentially very long term disservice.

 

[ycbm]

I am genuinely horrified that you would dismiss the significance of the fox and it's habitat in the UK countryside. This is an iconic animal that should be thriving in a habitat that supports not only foxes but so many other things too. If foxes are not doing well in the countryside many of our less adaptable species will be struggling far more and that will put pressure on rural foxes to predate on more vulnerable species again (as they are in relation to ground nesting birds for example). This attitude that as there are plenty of urban foxes so we don't need to worry about rural foxes is genuinely both baffling and infuriating. What do you want the countryside to be like?

I think you need to reread the quote of what you wrote Palo.

I think it is very worrying that foxes don't have enough people on their side/interested in their welfare to have merited specific research in relation to their decline/spread.

As you can see, the point I answered was about why nobody was "on the foxes side" or "interested in their welfare" and I answered that.

It's perfectly clear that foxes in general do not need that concern, they are absolutely thriving as a species, just not necessarily in areas where people can have fun chasing them.
.

 

[Fred66]

I agree with this and I also think the argument is disingenuous. If hunts stopped hunting when the sick and old were gone then it might stand up. But they don't, they continue to hunt increasingly young fit and healthy foxes until the season is finished and their "sport" is over because the land is needed for farming.
.

I think the posts refer to mainly the sick and old not only.
The hunts meet move largely hunting one area 3-4 times per year, albeit sometimes there would have been some overlap.

So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.

 

[ycbm]

I think the posts refer to mainly the sick and old not only.
The hunts meet move largely hunting one area 3-4 times per year, albeit sometimes there would have been some overlap.

So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.

I am not in any way implying that you hunt the same area week in week out but I am definitely stating that you will not shorten your season just because none of the remaining foxes are old, ill, or bothering farmers.

In fact I'd go as far as to state that if you are hunting fox then you are happier if the foxes you are chasing are young enough and fit enough to give you a long, hard, fast run across country. This is absolutely obvious from pre-ban H&H reports celebrating such runs.
.

 

[ycbm]

So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.

F66 I have always been struck by how similar your way of writing and use of grammar is to mine, and you might even remember people accusing us of being the same poster, and me writing a PM to you shortly after you joined the forum because of it. (You ignored it).

You wrote this in response to a post of mine about chasing healthy foxes.

I have to say that your use of grammar in this post seems to me to be an absolute giveaway. I don't believe there is anyone with the precision with which you use grammar who would have written this paragraph without being a current day fox hunter.
.

 

[Fred66]

F66 I have always been struck by how similar your way of writing and use of grammar is to mine, and you might even remember people accusing us of being the same poster, and me writing a PM to you shortly after you joined the forum because of it. (You ignored it).

You wrote this in response to a post of mine about chasing healthy foxes.

I have to say that your use of grammar in this post seems to me to be an absolute giveaway. I don't believe there is anyone with the precision with which you use grammar who would have written this paragraph without being a current day fox hunter.
.

If you caught my post before I edited it I did say that there were bits of terminology that applied pre ban and some both pre and post then decided to edit it out as it was superfluous.

When we went fox HUNTING we had probably in the region of 12 distinct hunting areas now we go trail HUNTING we have approximately 10 hunting areas, both are covered under the term hunting.

The hunt I follow, as I have repeatedly said, follows a trail and you are trying to read something into my grammar that simply isn’t there.

 

[Fred66]

I am not in any way implying that you hunt the same area week in week out but I am definitely stating that you will not shorten your season just because none of the remaining foxes are old, ill, or bothering farmers.

In fact I'd go as far as to state that if you are hunting fox then you are happier if the foxes you are chasing are young enough and fit enough to give you a long, hard, fast run across country. This is absolutely obvious from pre-ban H&H reports celebrating such runs.
.

Many of those runs were on good scenting days and where the fox was likely well ahead and quite probably got away.

Yes such runs would be celebrated, the hounds doing an excellent job of following their noses and the fox being strong and wily enough to get away.

 

[ycbm]

Yes such runs would be celebrated .... the fox being strong and wily enough to get away.

Exactly, it is disengenuous to suggest that fox hunting is done to cull the old and ill, for the benefit of foxes. If anything the old and ill are culled in order to provide better sport with the younger and fitter.

I see the "but they get away if they're strong enough" argument used a lot, as if that somehow makes it OK to chase a wild animal for fun.
.

 

[ycbm]

The hunt I follow, as I have repeatedly said, follows a trail and you are trying to read something into my grammar that simply isn’t there.

I'm only reading what you wrote ?‍. To read it any other way would have been reading into it something you didn't write, and assuming that you meant a past tense which you didn't use.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

What are people's thoughts on how troublesome foxes should be managed?
I'm not saying I agree with traditional hunting but I do understand farmers wanting to protect livestock and I have been witness to the damage foxes can do.
Shooting is not always the quick and clean death people would like to believe it is.
Trapping can cause an animal a great deal of distress before it is eventually dispatched.
As much as I'm sure people don't like the thought of foxes being killed at all, I think it is a necessary evil in some cases where farmers need to protect livestock.

 

[ycbm]

I don't have any issue with killing foxes as humanely as possible.

As far as i recollect, Burns said shooting and hunting with hounds were equal in welfare and I don't think he included cubbing to teach hounds to kill fox (as opposed to cubbing to distribute the fox population) or any of the nasty practices that go on behind the scenes in the worst (only the worst?) hunts.

So shooting is the choice for me, and that's how fox in this area have been controlled for the 31 years I've lived here. I tell a lie, there was one fox hunt on horseback in about 1992 and they caused so much trouble that they were subsequently banned from the area.

I think snares should be illegal.


.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Snares are bloody evil things!!

I'm inclined to agree that shooting is probably the "best" method, but it needs to be carried out by someone who knows what they are doing. A badly aimed shot could leave the poor animal to suffer for days.

 

[palo1]

The ideal control for a predator like a fox would be another predator; that is proven to have many benefits both ecologically and in species health terms. That is how a fox inhabits it's 'place' in the natural order. That understanding also totally underpins environmental/nature restoration. That could be a predator that was not 'managed' (like a pack of hounds is) but it would require very different conditions in the UK countryside to those that exist. The problem with guns is, in part that they are 'instant' (there is no other benefit to their use other than the death of single or multiple animals) and have no additional subtle impact on species or habitat in the way that a top predator does. The benefit of top predators to the health of wider ecosystems has become totally mainstream and is largely now uncontested. The other problem with shooting/guns is that they cannot really be selective without far greater cost to shooters, farmers etc. There are potentially serious issues with shooting that have been seen in other places/populations too; to do with the spread of disease and other unintended consequences. In the current situation in the UK shooting is the way that fox (and other) pest control works but I don't think it is necessarily the best or most sustainable.

As has been said many times before, what is best from an environmental or species perspective is not always the most desirable from an individual animal welfare point of view.

 

[GoldenWillow]

Because of this thread, a few months ago I asked our neighbouring farmer if there had been any change in the number/behaviour of foxes since the hunt had no longer had permission to hunt in our area. He has noticed no difference at all and if there is a problem a local, very experienced neighbour shoots them, I think he said he's needed it done twice.

Nothing else has changed either as the hunt did nothing other than hunt.

The other problem with shooting/guns is that they cannot really be selective without far greater cost to shooters, farmers etc. There are potentially serious issues with shooting that have been seen in other places/populations too; to do with the spread of disease and other unintended consequences. In the current situation in the UK shooting is the way that fox (and other) pest control works but I don't think it is necessarily the best or most sustainable.

As has been said many times before, what is best from an environmental or species perspective is not always the most desirable from an individual animal welfare point of view.

Genuine question, how is shooting not selective without far greater cost and how does shooting a fox contribute to the spread of disease?

Eta, please ignore any typos, post is jumping around as I'm typing.

 

[palo1]

Because of this thread, a few months ago I asked our neighbouring farmer if there had been any change in the number/behaviour of foxes since the hunt had no longer had permission to hunt in our area. He has noticed no difference at all and if there is a problem a local, very experienced neighbour shoots them, I think he said he's needed it done twice.

Nothing else has changed either as the hunt did nothing other than hunt.



Genuine question, how is shooting not selective without far greater cost and how does shooting a fox contribute to the spread of disease?

Eta, please ignore any typos, post is jumping around as I'm typing.

Briefly (just dashing out!) - Shooting is done on sight generally and at a distance so it is impossible to identify whether any particular individual is old/young/nursing/in-cub/blind etc. It is possible to identify generally wounded or mangy foxes from a distance. With predator control it is almost necessarily older, sicker, weaker, less wily animals that are predated. Shooting happens in 'static' locations so habitats don't benefit from the effect of predator stress where predators move through areas on occasion. This has been demonstrated to be very beneficial to other animals and the ecosystem as a whole and they are well adapted to deal with predator stress. Shooting has no 'predator stress' effect but can make animals 'nervous and evasive' where this happens regularly in the same location; that area is then more likely to be damaged and 'denatured' in ecological terms.

In terms of disease spread, dead foxes are usually just left to rot; insects/maggots etc thrive but it is very unnatural to have say 5-20 corpses in one place and that doesn't happen in a predatory system of control (of foxes. Foxes themselves do leave a large number of corpses if they can as they will return to them - but then they eat them!). There has also been interesting research (not related to foxes) about the impact of shooting on disease as other animals are more likely to come into contact with disease via blood transmission than when a predator either eats or 'destroys' a single carcass.