Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Chianti]

I'd like to know if there is any hard evidence that hunts only hunted and killed older, sick animals? Was data collected on kills or is this purely anecdotal?

 

[palo1]

I'd like to know if there is any hard evidence that hunts only hunted and killed older, sick animals? Was data collected on kills or is this purely anecdotal?

Anti hunters will say that this is not the case. Hard evidence is virtually impossible now as there could be no research around foxes killed by hounds in the UK (that is happening but untampered with evidence would be very difficult to prove by either hunters or anti-hunters potentially thus making any research activity deeply compromised). The other issue is that generally if and when hounds catch a fox, there would be very little left of that carcass so it would be extremely difficult to know what, if any injuries or ailments existed prior to death. Personally speaking, the experience of hunters using dogs worldwide and the existing knowledge and understanding of their ability to track the 'right' prey seems relevant but I understand that this would be contested by anti-hunters. How they would convince indigenous people that their carefully selected and bred hunting dogs are not doing this would be interesting!! The English foxhound is widely admired for this reason too and not just by privileged Western hunters but by those still using hunting for subsistence. That is a side issue however.

There is much more evidence around how scenting predators target their prey generally. Fascinatingly, weasels for example, prefer to target mice that are not ovulating! Some experiments have also suggested that 'patchy' scents have a better success rate for predators than a uniform scent. In relation to canine scenting abilities, this is interesting (though not exactly news) :-

''However, distance is only one aspect of olfaction. The domestic dog’s greater olfactory capacity lies not just in their ability to detect low concentrations of odour; it is also their ability to recognise and discriminate between different odours which make them far superior olfactory detectors to humans (Adrian 1953; Moulton et al. 1960; Ewer 1973). Dogs are able to recognise individual humans purely by scent (Brisbin and Austad 1991; Settle et al. 1994) even to the point of being able to discriminate between identical twins, if presented with the odours of both twins (Kalmus 1955; Hepper 1988). It is because of this ability to recognise and differentiate between a vast range of odours that has led to them being used by humans as chemical detectors in an ever increasing number of situations (Furton and Myers 2001; Lorenzo et al. 2003). Dogs, like many other mammalian species, use these abilities to deduce information from conspecific scent marks about territory, identity, sex, and reproductive state (Gorman and Trowbridge 1989). From Russell (2005).

Dogs are just amazing!!

 

[stangs]

I'm sure hounds can recognise whether a fox is sick/ovulating/older from the smell, the question is just whether they receive reinforcement (either natural or from people) to go target particular smells. Surely, naturally, any predator would want to avoid prey that smells sick?

Would be interesting to find out what reinforced weasels staying away from ovulating mice, maybe they fight back more?

 

[palo1]

I'm sure hounds can recognise whether a fox is sick/ovulating/older from the smell, the question is just whether they receive reinforcement (either natural or from people) to go target particular smells. Surely, naturally, any predator would want to avoid prey that smells sick?

Would be interesting to find out what reinforced weasels staying away from ovulating mice, maybe they fight back more?

Maybe they just don't taste nice?! It is fascinating isn't it? It's possible I suppose that dear old Mother Nature has equipped mice with an upleasant taste/smell during ovulation so that they have more chance to breed. (not sure they need that chance but...) It would be interesting to know if the same is true of other mouse predators (including foxes) and owls though ambush and sight predators would not get that info in time possibly. The world of olfactory predators is really quite astonishing.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
2) dogs are able to detect some forms of cancer through scent, so it would make sense that they could also detect other signs of illness, and that they may also pick up on this when hunting their "prey"

 

[Millionwords]

So there is no evidence that hounds do this in the hunting scenario....there is also no way of proving either way, so it can't be assumed that this is the case or we could assume anything without evidence and use it to support an argument. So the "killing only sick foxes" is a moot point in the welfare of the species and an argument in favour of hunting them with hounds. Whether you agree with it or not. It's not a useful argument.

Quoting @palo1 here sorry I can't do it on my phone.

 

[palo1]

So there is no evidence that hounds do this in the hunting scenario....there is also no way of proving either way, so it can't be assumed that this is the case or we could assume anything without evidence and use it to support an argument. So the "killing only sick foxes" is a moot point in the welfare of the species and an argument in favour of hunting them with hounds. Whether you agree with it or not. It's not a useful argument.

Quoting @palo1 here sorry I can't do it on my phone.

Yes I can see this; it is difficult as hunting for pest control reasons generally targets weak, sick or old of a species and always has but with hunting the lack of specific 'hounds in a UK fox hunting scenario' based evidence means that it is a moot point and could now not be proven or disproven. Personally I am confident that this is the case as much as anti hunters will assert that it is not so the idea can be used pejoritively either way.

 

[GSD Woman]

1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.

I apologize for my mistaken idea of not introducing lynx to the UK. But, I do know from reading some studies on the behavior of wolf packs that they do want to bring down the slower and/or weaker animals because it is uses less energy/calories. Since this isn't a sport saving energy and calories is the idea. As with our recent ancestors, there isn't an overabundance of food so minimum exertion for maximum gain is the idea.

 

[ycbm]

I would be very uncertain that it was possible to extrapolate wild hunters wanting to expend least energy to obtain food with kennels kept hounds who not only might be crying out for a good hard run, but have also been bred for a couple of centuries to provide a good run for people on horseback. I read a lot of old fiction, and I don't recall ever seeing fox hunting written about as a means of pest control, only as a means of having fun.

Personally I am confident that this is the case as much as anti hunters will assert that it is not so the idea can be used pejoritively either way.

I don't see any anti hunters using this pejoratively, I only see people saying that if you are going to use that argument then you really need to provide evidence.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Like I say it was only some ramblings based on my (admittedly) limited knowledge of predator/prey behaviour

I do find it all quite fascinating

 

[palo1]

I would be very uncertain that it was possible to extrapolate wild hunters wanting to expend least energy to obtain food with kennels kept hounds who not only might be crying out for a good hard run, but have also been bred for a couple of centuries to provide a good run for people on horseback. I read a lot of old fiction, and I don't recall ever seeing fox hunting written about as a means of pest control, only as a means of having fun.



I don't see any anti hunters using this pejoratively, I only see people saying that if you are going to use that argument then you really need to provide evidence.
.

I get that but I also think that there is plenty of evidence of how olfactory predatory animals select their prey and hounds in a fox hunting scenario are doing that. They are bred for scenting ability, voice, stamina and determination because that is what is needed to catch almost any fox. A healthy fox in it's own territory (as opposed to bagged foxes which are repellent) has far greater chance of getting away from a visting predator than getting caught by it; I don't think that is contested about any predator/prey relationship. There is also plenty of evidence that prey animals do everything they can not to get caught out; Darwin's law of evolution applies both ways and that isn't really contested. It is fascinating too that it seems that many prey animals carry out behaviours that bring them nearer to predators so that they can identify appropriate escape/evasion strategies. If a strong healthy fox makes a misjudgement and gets caught out, is that the best specimen for breeding? For me, it wouldn't be as wild animals need to be as successful as they possibly can be. I am not trying to convince you that I have seen the evidence you think is necessary but I am saying that there is very, very little reason to believe that hounds are not selecting or hunting weaker animals; it is hard to escape the weight of evidence in every other predator/prey scenario though I know that anti-hunters will disagree.

 

[palo1]

Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
2) dogs are able to detect some forms of cancer through scent, so it would make sense that they could also detect other signs of illness, and that they may also pick up on this when hunting their "prey"

All of this is true - pretty much established and not contested. The success rate of most predators when hunting is quite low so they really need to give themselves the best chance and the best chance is with the old, weak, slow, young or sick. The balance of stress on both to both hunt to survive and evade to survive is really alien to us humans but I am always in awe of the fact that for most animals they have to work really, really hard to survive until the day they die; there is no retirement for a wild animal. Starvation for old animals is a difficult death too.

 

[Clodagh]

Well I have never lead such a lot of complete… well I’m gobsmacked! Not aimed solely at you Palo, I like you. ?
When fox hunting was legal I certainly never saw hounds turn their nose up at one fox and hunt another that might be poorly. If two got up in front of the pack the pack would probably split. If the fox broke cover a well trained pack would gather on the fox they were hollaed and blown away on. The only reason an ill fox would be more likely to die is it would not have the strength to keep going.
Milky and lactating vixens are supposed to have less scent, so possibly they might be less likely to be hunted, but a mangey or lame fox I am sure it’s just pot (bad) luck for the individual.

But fox hunting is banned, yes? So this is all exceedingly irrelevant

 

[Clodagh]

Hounds do not lie in wait and watch their prey for signs of weakness. Lions do. Completely incomparable hunting styles.

 

[palo1]

Well I have never lead such a lot of complete… well I’m gobsmacked! Not aimed solely at you Palo, I like you. ?
When fox hunting was legal I certainly never saw hounds turn their nose up at one fox and hunt another that might be poorly. If two got up in front of the pack the pack would probably split. If the fox broke cover a well trained pack would gather on the fox they were hollaed and blown away on. The only reason an ill fox would be more likely to die is it would not have the strength to keep going.
Milky and lactating vixens are supposed to have less scent, so possibly they might be less likely to be hunted, but a mangey or lame fox I am sure it’s just pot (bad) luck for the individual.

But fox hunting is banned, yes? So this is all exceedingly irrelevant

Which bits are you gobsmacked by @Clodagh? I get what you are saying about your experience of hunting and yes, it is irrelevant now but it is interesting and the research around animal hunting behaviours is fascinating. It isn't provable how hunting dogs choose which scents to follow or ignore because I guess that would be extremely difficult and expensive research even with a really valuable predator species.

 

[palo1]

Hounds do not lie in wait and watch their prey for signs of weakness. Lions do. Completely incomparable hunting styles.

This is true. Did I miss a bit where someone was talking about lions?!

 

[Chianti]

I get that but I also think that there is plenty of evidence of how olfactory predatory animals select their prey and hounds in a fox hunting scenario are doing that. They are bred for scenting ability, voice, stamina and determination because that is what is needed to catch almost any fox. A healthy fox in it's own territory (as opposed to bagged foxes which are repellent) has far greater chance of getting away from a visting predator than getting caught by it; I don't think that is contested about any predator/prey relationship. There is also plenty of evidence that prey animals do everything they can not to get caught out; Darwin's law of evolution applies both ways and that isn't really contested. It is fascinating too that it seems that many prey animals carry out behaviours that bring them nearer to predators so that they can identify appropriate escape/evasion strategies. If a strong healthy fox makes a misjudgement and gets caught out, is that the best specimen for breeding? For me, it wouldn't be as wild animals need to be as successful as they possibly can be. I am not trying to convince you that I have seen the evidence you think is necessary but I am saying that there is very, very little reason to believe that hounds are not selecting or hunting weaker animals; it is hard to escape the weight of evidence in every other predator/prey scenario though I know that anti-hunters will disagree.

But if the healthy fox did get away and went to ground wasn't it dug out and then given to the hounds to finish off? At any point did the huntsman look at the fox that had been dragged out of the hole and say ' Sorry chaps - this looks like a young, healthy fox so I'm going to let it go back in it's hole and call off the dogs?'

 

[palo1]

But if the healthy fox did get away and went to ground wasn't it dug out and then given to the hounds to finish off? At any point did the huntsman look at the fox that had been dragged out of the hole and say ' Sorry chaps - this looks like a young, healthy fox so I'm going to let it go back in it's hole and call off the dogs?'

I quite agree with this anomaly and whilst I understand and respect the landowner's wish to have foxes on their land killed, it doesn't in any way allow for the natural selection of hunting/predation. Ironically this bit is still legal (as in digging foxes out). I find that difficult in a number of ways. It is a separate activity/form of pest control entirely but obviously with pre-ban hunting, it was all tied in with the hunting element.

 

[Koweyka]

Every fox I have seen hounds kill hasn’t been a mangy old sick fox, the post mortems that were done by the police proved that.

To be frank hounds don’t really give a monkey what sort of fox they chase, it could have red nail varnish and wear a wig and they will still chase it, that’s what they are bred for still trained to do ….hunt and chase and kill foxes.

I have heard huntsman say that pregnant vixens don’t produce as much scent, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if a lightly weighted gently scented rag wafting and dragging across miles of countryside can hold a hound I am sure a less smelly fox could be a lovely temptation if they came across it.

 

[Clodagh]

Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
"

Here you go, Palo, lions! And wolves.

 

[Clodagh]

Which bits are you gobsmacked by @Clodagh? I get what you are saying about your experience of hunting and yes, it is irrelevant now but it is interesting and the research around animal hunting behaviours is fascinating. It isn't provable how hunting dogs choose which scents to follow or ignore because I guess that would be extremely difficult and expensive research even with a really valuable predator species.

I’m gobsmacked by you thinking that hounds choose which fox to hunt, it’s not as though foxes live in packs. They hunted what they found.
It was always satisfying, BITD, when they did dispatch an ill, toothless or lame one, imo.

 

[palo1]

I’m gobsmacked by you thinking that hounds choose which fox to hunt, it’s not as though foxes live in packs. They hunted what they found.
It was always satisfying, BITD, when they did dispatch an ill, toothless or lame one, imo.

Well I get why you say that but it is impossible to know how many fox scents/trails hounds dismissed/never spoke to isn't it? I think we all assumed they hunted whatever fox they found but we cannot know that. Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that. It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.

 

[ycbm]

Every fox I have seen hounds kill hasn’t been a mangy old sick fox,

The only fox I ever saw while out hunting did look old, and also looked very frightened as it knew it was not going to escape those dogs. I struggle now to remember whether it was that fox or a cubbing meet that finally made me decide that fox hunting was indefensible, but I do remember feeling sick when I saw the creature try and run for its life.
.

 

[ycbm]

Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that. It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.

Especially when said predators have been bred in kennels for centuries.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Here you go, Palo, lions! And wolves.

Sorry ?

What I was trying to say, albeit badly, was the argument that hounds might hunt an injured/sick animal over a healthy one. I know there are predators that prefer to single out injured animals to hunt over healthy ones. Then someone said would a hound be able to tell from scent. There are illnesses that dogs can detect through smell so I was wondering if it was possible for hounds to apply this when hunting?

Like I said I know nothing about it really but I do find it interesting.

 

[Clodagh]

Well I get why you say that but it is impossible to know how many fox scents/trails hounds dismissed/never spoke to isn't it? I think we all assumed they hunted whatever fox they found but we cannot know that. Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that. It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.

No but if you whip in or go on point you get a fair idea what’s going on, certainly in the generally small covers where I hunted. Probably not so easy to tell in forestry.

 

[ycbm]

I suspect there is a very big diffirence in behaviour when a predator is hunting another predator which is also smaller than it is, than a predator hunting either an animal which is not a predator itself or any animal which does not want to eat what it wants to eat.

In that situation, then in evolutionary terms it would make a great deal of sense to take out the biggest and the strongest you can catch, in order that it does not take your own food supply.
.

 

[palo1]

I suspect there is a very big diffirence in behaviour when a predator is hunting another predator which is also smaller than it is, than a predator hunting either an animal which is not a predator itself or any animal which does not want to eat what it wants to eat.

In that situation, then in evolutionary terms it would make a great deal of sense to take out the biggest and the strongest you can catch, in order that it does not take your own food supply.
.

Yes, that is a very valid point. The whole animal behaviour world and their senses is really so alien to us I think it would be much better if we focussed research on that than trying to get to Mars frankly but that is a whole other conversation!! Whenever I see a bird of prey or other predator actually I wonder what stage of life it is at and how hard is it for it to hunt, feed and maintain life.

 

[Indy]

If hounds can distinguish scents between a mangy old fox and a healthy fox how can they not distinguish between fox scent and cat scent?

 

[palo1]

If hounds can distinguish scents between a mangy old fox and a healthy fox how can they not distinguish between fox scent and cat scent?

They can - the issue of riot is one of training not scent.