Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Millionwords]

I'm honestly perplexed why it's still in discussion as it cannot be proved either way so assuming that hounds do distinguish is ridiculous assumption to try and support hunting and frankly makes a mockery of any other argument in support. It feels and will be read as making stuff up to suit the pro agenda. Hunts already struggle to justify it to the public, let alone making wild claims that are unproveable and anecdotally can't always be the case (following any fox come upon, a long chase and digging out).
Evolution and breeding cannot be equated either (for a start evolution removes traits, and breeding keeps traits), breeding may and does (look at the Kennel club) breed for a handful of specific traits whilst having a knock on and detrimental effect to so many others, the likelihood of retaining anything which gives a whole pack the ability to differentiate sick foxes is a preposterous assumption.
That's not what hunting needs if we're to survive to trail as folk struggle to believe anything Hunts say already.

ETA that evolution works differently to breeding in trait selection

 

[Koweyka]

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.
.

I haven’t forgotten any of the ones I have seen killed, they stay with you, for every fox I have been unable to prevent being killed it makes me feel like I failed it in someway, that I could have or should have done something different, run faster, shouted louder even though the reality is it’s the hunt that killed them, the guilt is there. When I have picked them up their eyes tell you everything. The fear and the pain they endured. Nothing will ever convince me it’s not cruel.

Hunting with hounds is indefensible and illegal a total ban is the only way forward.

 

[Koweyka]

Scotland is leading the way in banning trail hunting and closing the loopholes, I hope it goes far enough to ensure no animal loses its life to provide entertainment and cynical ways to get around the ban aren’t invented …... Let’s hope England and Wales follow their example.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-a...hpC_v-7zA-dTa-rw70an0vMuV10ySKxDi1WydLKXJmQ2Y

 

[GSD Woman]

Will there still be the type of hunting where a human lays a trail and the hounds follow that?

 

[palo1]

Scotland is leading the way in banning trail hunting and closing the loopholes, I hope it goes far enough to ensure no animal loses its life to provide entertainment and cynical ways to get around the ban aren’t invented …... Let’s hope England and Wales follow their example.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-a...hpC_v-7zA-dTa-rw70an0vMuV10ySKxDi1WydLKXJmQ2Y

How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Will there still be the type of hunting where a human lays a trail and the hounds follow that?

No, but then "trail" hunting was never a thing in Scotland. Our previous law meant that hunts were still able to use a full pack of dogs to flush a fox from cover to be shot whereas in England, legally, only two dogs could be used. Trail hunting was specifically invented as a means to allow hunts to carry on as before.

I strongly suspect this updated bill won't actually make a huge amount of difference to the tiny number of hunts still present in Scotland. They'll just apply for a licence and carry on as normal until they finally die a death.

It is interesting that a policy of "don't even go there" is being adopted where trail hunting is concerned though. Those leaked webinars are still doing an absolute number on hunts across the UK.

 

[ycbm]

How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?

As far as I can see he only said that would be an issue on forested land and allowance has been made for licensed packs to deal with that if necessary.

How do you feel about this:

From the Yougov site, my bold

[QUOTE ]Overview
We recognised concerns about whether the legislation that governs the use of dogs to hunt for mammals in Scotland is working properly. That is why we asked the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to undertake a review to ascertain whether the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 provided a sufficient level of protection for wild mammals, while at the same time allowing effective and humane control of mammals, such as foxes, where necessary.

Lord Bonomy’s report was an important milestone and gave a considered, objective and comprehensive examination of the issues. He outlined a significant number of potential improvements for the conduct of operations under the 2002 Act, and to the Act itself.

On 9 January 2019, following a consultation on Lord Bonomy's recommendations, that ran from October 2017 to January 2018, the then Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment set out to Parliament proposals for reform, including the implementation of the majority of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations and announced the following further measures:

A new general limit of no more than two dogs to be used to flush foxes or other wild mammals from cover

Consideration of a licensing scheme permitting more than two dogs to flush foxes or other wild mammals from cover in certain limited circumstances

Banning the practice known as “trail hunting” as this poses significant risks for wild mammals

[ end quote]


.[

 

[Koweyka]

How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?

What he said was ….

I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

So basically he is saying that two hounds aren’t as effective as 35 plus when looking for a fox for “pest control” which is hardly rocket science assertions is it, if you are lost in the middle of the ocean then 35 ships looking is better than two …. I believe he was acknowledging the point. Also hounds in Scotland shouldn’t be killing foxes as that’s illegal and I haven’t read where he says having less hounds out is less humane in killing a fox, given they are supposed to be flushed to guns and shot immediately …. Do you think a fox dying in the jaws of hounds is humane ?

 

[palo1]

What he said was ….

I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

So basically he is saying that two hounds aren’t as effective as 35 plus when looking for a fox for “pest control” which is hardly rocket science assertions is it, if you are lost in the middle of the ocean then 35 ships looking is better than two …. I believe he was acknowledging the point. Also hounds in Scotland shouldn’t be killing foxes as that’s illegal and I haven’t read where he says having less hounds out is less humane in killing a fox, given they are supposed to be flushed to guns and shot immediately …. Do you think a fox dying in the jaws of hounds is humane ?

The Bonomy Review is considered to be independent, scientific and designed to find the best way forward. I am sure you are aware of Bonomy's statement:-

Indeed it was observed in the Burns Report [43] that the banning of hunting could have an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas unless dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. (6.28)

He earlier advised re: the use of terriers:- -

5.36 ... The practice of using dogs or a single dog to dispatch another injured animal or orphaned cubs may seem to many distasteful. The same may be said of the sight of the breaking up of the carcass of a fox. However, the weight of the evidence, as noted in the Burns Report at paragraph 6.48, is that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death in these situations is no more than a few seconds. These provisions were enacted in the knowledge of the terms of the Burns Report. No evidence has been presented to this Review to indicate the abuse of these provisions by using dogs to despatch seriously injured or orphaned wild mammals.

6.27 The material presented to the Review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the despatch of a fox gone to ground. The principal issue is ensuring that the practice is used humanely and not abused. The rules of the MFHA require that the huntmaster or someone of authority personally appointed by him should supervise the terrierman's operation.

6.28 Parliament legislated to allow flushing from below ground in the full knowledge of the possibility that the digging-out process, combined with the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping may cause serious distress to the fox [42] . As was the case at that time, there is no firm scientific evidence of the extent of the impact on the fox...

Bonomy also makes it clear that it is difficult to compare the Scottish and English situations. I know you and others feel certain that any killing of a wild animal with dogs is cruel but in spite of best efforts no amount of research has proven that. In some circumstances it IS humane. I am not talking about illegal hunting; I am talking about the Bonomy review and the Scottish Act that has been introduced.

For me, this is politicking of the worst, most cynical kind and both wild animals and farmers will suffer.

 

[Koweyka]

Forget the legal or illegal side of things how can you not see that killing a fox with hounds is not cruel, I don’t care a hoot when Burns says that there is no firm evidence on the impact on the fox, it is cruel to the fox, perhaps if he had come and witnessed it himself he would have got off the fence.

Have you ever seen a fox hunted and then killed by the hounds up close ?

All of it is cruel and stating it takes seconds to insensibility to death is seconds too long in mine and many peoples books.

 

[palo1]

Forget the legal or illegal side of things how can you not see that killing a fox with hounds is not cruel, I don’t care a hoot when Burns says that there is no firm evidence on the impact on the fox, it is cruel to the fox, perhaps if he had come and witnessed it himself he would have got off the fence.

Have you ever seen a fox hunted and then killed by the hounds up close ?

All of it is cruel and stating it takes seconds to insensibility to death is seconds too long in mine and many peoples books.

I do understand how you feel about this but at the same time I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the facts about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction. Not only is that a huge waste of taxpayers money but refutes any purported interest in the 'best way forward'. Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong. If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would that not be the way forward? People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.

 

[palo1]

I do understand how you feel about this but at the same time I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the facts about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction. Not only is that a huge waste of taxpayers money but refutes any purported interest in the 'best way forward'. Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong. If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would that not be the way forward? People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.

ETA 'Forget the legal or illegal side of things...' (Your words) Now there is a statement...is that instructional? If so, who are you aiming this at?

 

[Koweyka]

ETA 'Forget the legal or illegal side of things...' (Your words) Now there is a statement...is that instructional? If so, who are you aiming this at?

I am asking you personally if you have seen a fox killed by hounds. You just come across as very keen as seeing hounds killing foxes as an acceptable form of “pest control” I am trying to understand your point of view and why you constantly quote Burns like some kind of mantra of justification

I am not starting the whole legal illegal argument with you again because it’s just a totally pointless exercise because you say you dont support illegal hunting “woohoo” but at the same time seem rather keen on hounds being used as “pest control” so I am genuinely not sure what your true position is on hunting with hounds is even after all this time. This is why I ask have you ever seen a fox killed by hounds up close and personal ?

 

[ycbm]

I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the facts about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction.

From what I am reading, they haven't.

They have left open the possibility of licensing packs of more than 2 dogs IF it proves to be necessary to control fox in difficult areas.
.

 

[ycbm]

People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.

Have you accepted that Bonomy recommended banning trail hunting because of the damage it causes?
.

 

[palo1]

I haven't seen a fox killed by hounds 'up close and personal' as you put it for over 17 years. Quoting Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control. I have read as much as I can from independent sources, scientists, ecologists, vets etc too but always get slated on here for quoting from scientific or publicly accessible reports/research. That simply says to me that the anti-hunters that post frequently here really don't care about facts, evidence or reason. That is much as I have always thought though tbh.

 

[ycbm]

Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control.

Burns said shooting was equally humane, and I'm not sure he included either cubbing to teach hounds to kill or the other dubious practices that many hunts indulge(d) in when coming to that conclusion.
.

 

[Koweyka]

I haven't seen a fox killed by hounds 'up close and personal' as you put it for over 17 years. Quoting Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control. I have read as much as I can from independent sources, scientists, ecologists, vets etc too but always get slated on here for quoting from scientific or publicly accessible reports/research. That simply says to me that the anti-hunters that post frequently here really don't care about facts, evidence or reason. That is much as I have always thought though tbh.

Well I have seen foxes killed up close and personal by hounds so I would say that gives me the facts and evidence and reason and I don’t need a report to tell me that it’s cruel.

 

[GSD Woman]

Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange. Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?

 

[Koweyka]

And to be honest if you have seen it and it doesn’t effect you and you think there is no cruelty aspect in it at all an animal fleeing for its life before a horrific death when “fox hunting” was done for fun then wow is all I can say.

 

[Clodagh]

Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange. Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?

BITD farmers would sometimes (often) stipulate that if the fox went to ground it was to be dispatched.

 

[moosea]

Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong.

Isn't a democracy majority rule? therefore bending to the will of the majority is not playing pouplarity games.
I know you are going to say the majority are not anit or dont care so I'll just point out that the majority of posters on this thread seem to be against fox hunting in its pre ban state and against illegal fox hunting and the only way to stop that is to ban hunting totaly.

If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would that not be the way forward?

Please can we stop the ' pest control' rubbish - if it was pest control you would want to significantly reduce the number of foxes in an area. Where as pre ban hunting actually managed land to encourage foxes. And yes before you start we all know that the only reason hunts did that was to protect the countryside they adore and keep the fox population healthy blah blah blah.

Funny isn't it that when pest controllers go out to a rat problem they never suggest 'managing' the population to keep the rest of the animals healthy?

Hunting is not the way forwards. It's dead ... it just dosen't know it yet. Even stranger is that it was killed by internal parasites who couldn't stick inside the law.

It's the year 2022. Chasing an animal to exhaustion then letting a gang of out of control dogs tear it to bits is not acceptable, it will never be acceptable and it is not a humane death. Only a fool would believe that.

 

[GSD Woman]

BITD farmers would sometimes (often) stipulate that if the fox went to ground it was to be dispatched.

That is just wrong.

 

[palo1]

Isn't a democracy majority rule? therefore bending to the will of the majority is not playing pouplarity games.


I know you are going to say the majority are not anit or dont care so I'll just point out that the majority of posters on this thread seem to be against fox hunting in its pre ban state and against illegal fox hunting and the only way to stop that is to ban hunting totaly.




Please can we stop the ' pest control' rubbish - if it was pest control you would want to significantly reduce the number of foxes in an area. Where as pre ban hunting actually managed land to encourage foxes. And yes before you start we all know that the only reason hunts did that was to protect the countryside they adore and keep the fox population healthy blah blah blah.

Funny isn't it that when pest controllers go out to a rat problem they never suggest 'managing' the population to keep the rest of the animals healthy?

Hunting is not the way forwards. It's dead ... it just dosen't know it yet. Even stranger is that it was killed by internal parasites who couldn't stick inside the law.

It's the year 2022. Chasing an animal to exhaustion then letting a gang of out of control dogs tear it to bits is not acceptable, it will never be acceptable and it is not a humane death. Only a fool would believe that.

I don't think you understand how democracy works. The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)

As a side issue, the way that rats are treated by pest controllers is utterly abhorrent; their deaths when poisoned are lengthy and tortuous.

 

[palo1]

That is just wrong.

You may feel that but it is still entirely legal to dig out a fox with a dog. In fact the Burns and Bonomy reviews are both clear that this is an appropriate way to deal with a fox. Many people do not agree but it is not yet, and not likely to become a crime to do that.

 

[ycbm]

I don't think you understand how democracy works. The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)

Are you really suggesting that hunting fox with hounds is a basic human right of an oppressed minority?
.

 

[Clodagh]

That is just wrong.

Fox hunting was both pest control and sport. A blood sport or a field sport, depending on your POV. The farmer is hugely inconvenienced by the hunt, it made sense to offer a service in return.

 

[Chianti]

Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange. Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?

Yes. It's amazing how often those old and injured foxes that we're told the hounds had deliberately chosen to hunt seemed to find enough energy to get away and hide where they thought they'd be safe.

 

[moosea]

I don't think you understand how democracy works. The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)

Chasing an animal with a pack of dogs until it is too exhausted to run, then letting the dogs tear that animal to bits is not a human right.
It's ridiculous that anyone would think it was.

As a side issue, the way that rats are treated by pest controllers is utterly abhorrent; their deaths when poisoned are lengthy and tortuous.

But they need to be controled?

 

[GSD Woman]

You may feel that but it is still entirely legal to dig out a fox with a dog. In fact the Burns and Bonomy reviews are both clear that this is an appropriate way to deal with a fox. Many people do not agree but it is not yet, and not likely to become a crime to do that.

Rather than let the hounds kill it, why not just shoot it? Though if the hunting is truly for pest control I know that it has to go one way or another.