Koweyka
Well-Known Member
In the UK the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) determines which animals are vermin, and foxes are not on that list. So stop peddling lies to suit your narrative.
Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
palo1
Well-Known Member
Some British farming practices - such as killing pigs using gas gondolas would horrify the hardest heart and I think you have posted about that previously. Obviously though, my sense of horror is subjective and I can chose whether to eat that kind of product or not. Aspects of chicken farming might also revolt you in terms of the welfare and basic quality of life of intensively farmed birds but I am sure you are aware of that too. Some people are not remotely revolted by those things and know and understand exactly what they are supporting and eating and that is perfectly fine as we have a choice. As you well know too, foxes were not 'chased' for miles across country but their scent was tracked until/if/when they caught up a fox that may have made a mistake or not been sufficiently fit or experienced to get away from hounds. The chasing for miles trope is a misrepresentation. Hounds are bred for their nose and ability to track scent; they are not sight hounds that do, in fact 'chase' their quarry. I am sure you know that as well as you are an experienced fox hunter as well as drag hunter. My post about rats was presenting an absolutely similar scenario to the holding up example during cubbing that you referred to.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I am not lying but using the government's own advice about pests and pest control on your property. Here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/foxes-moles-and-mink-how-to-protect-your-property-from-damage
Were you not aware of this?
palo1
Well-Known Member
Well that was the standard, legal and widely accepted method of dealing with foxes in rural areas before the ban so yes, it was ok when fox hunting was legal.
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
What a completely ridiculous thing to say.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I have not retrieved any dead foxes. I could not say how many foxes I have seen killed by hounds before the Hunting Act - not many would be my general answer! Since the ban I have seen no foxes killed by hounds but I have seen piles of foxes shot and left by the side of the road which I have found pretty sad. They are beautiful and fascinating creatures.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Where is that list?
palo1
Well-Known Member
Why is that ridiculous?
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
It wasn't in all rural areas, please don't write as if it was. The area I used to live in was not fox hunted. Pest foxes were shot by a local marksman. Foxes not causing problems were left alone.
If being legal is what counts with you Palo, why are you disquieted by farming practices?
And why are you not prepared to allow others the same level of disquiet over once-legal fox hunting practices, but keep on and on trying to change our minds? Why can't we just agree to disagree?
How about Amazon/Costa/anynumberofothers tax avoidance? Is that OK because it's legal?
How far does you respect/tolerance for legal practices extend?
.
palo1
Well-Known Member
My disquiet about some farming practices is entirely personal and I would not and do not tell people that their choice to buy food that is farmed in a way distasteful to me is 'revolting' or 'sick' or any other kind of subjective judgement. I am entirely comfortable with other people's distaste for the historic practice of fox hunting; I have no beef about that at all but I don't like seeing opinion touted as fact. I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree; I think I have made that clear so many times but I don't want to see misrepresentation of facts around something that I both know about and care about. The usual anti-hunting tropes and emotive language are often simply very strongly worded personal opinion rather than that which is truly informed or based on facts. That is not pointed at any individual btw but is an opinion and observation in general.
As for tolerating distasteful but legal activities - well, I am glad I live in a democracy where the rule of law generally enables society to function safely for everyone. It is, however, not perfect of course. There are some very worrying exceptions and instances where the law is an ass and results in people being endangered or disadvantaged in society but I would say I am someone that is pretty much bound by respect for the law in everything I do.
As for tolerating distasteful but legal activities - well, I am glad I live in a democracy where the rule of law generally enables society to function safely for everyone. It is, however, not perfect of course. There are some very worrying exceptions and instances where the law is an ass and results in people being endangered or disadvantaged in society but I would say I am someone that is pretty much bound by respect for the law in everything I do.
CrunchieBoi
Well-Known Member
I still don't understand why some folks peddle the myth that the choices for controlling fox numbers seems to be a straight up choice between hunting with hounds or indiscrimately shooting every fox in a given area.
They're both equally awful options. So glad I live in a rural area where neither one is practiced.
They're both equally awful options. So glad I live in a rural area where neither one is practiced.
moosea
Well-Known Member
The fox is/was killed in front of a gorup of spectators who paid for the days ' entertainment '. The fox was not eaten. It was killed for the sport for the spectators.
Palo, why is it that you ( pro hunters) constantly talk about vermin/ pest control but artificial earths are used to keep foxes in an area? You have not explained this to me, although I have asked before. If they are vermin then wouldn't you want fewer of them in an area that required you to chase them with a pack of dogs until they are too exhausted to run any more?
meleeka
Well-Known Member
After all these pages I still don’t get how hunting on horseback with dogs was an effective method of pest control on one hand, but on the other, apparently hardly any foxes got killed. A whole day out, with all the inconvenience it caused to others, just to kill a couple of old/diseases foxes doesn’t seem like a very effective method at all.
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
Koweyka
Well-Known Member
In one of the areas I cover we have found 37 artificial earths all in coverts the hunts go to, every so often the hunts try refurbish some of them, they don’t last long. These are just the ones we are aware of you can be sure there are others we aren’t. It makes you wonder why if foxes are such an issue why the hunts are having to encourage foxes to live in the areas they hunt.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Pre ban, foxes were indeed encouraged and protected out of season purely to provide sport for the hunt during the hunting season.
A farmer would keep a protective eye on a litter of fox cubs growing up on his land over the spring and summer, but then have no qualms about later directing the huntsman to the covert in cubbing season. The covert would be 'held up' by the hunt, hounds put in, and the young foxes would be prevented from escaping so that the young hounds could get easy kills.
It's a disconnect. Foxes were generally better protected pre ban simply to later provide sport in what many regard as an utterly appalling pastime for a minority.
Sensibilities have changed. There will be no repeal.
ETA Though I did hunt pre ban, I didn't ever go cubbing. I have witnessed the practice of 'holding up' a number of times, though. Mostly, but not always pre ban, though tbf not for for a number of years now.
A farmer would keep a protective eye on a litter of fox cubs growing up on his land over the spring and summer, but then have no qualms about later directing the huntsman to the covert in cubbing season. The covert would be 'held up' by the hunt, hounds put in, and the young foxes would be prevented from escaping so that the young hounds could get easy kills.
It's a disconnect. Foxes were generally better protected pre ban simply to later provide sport in what many regard as an utterly appalling pastime for a minority.
Sensibilities have changed. There will be no repeal.
ETA Though I did hunt pre ban, I didn't ever go cubbing. I have witnessed the practice of 'holding up' a number of times, though. Mostly, but not always pre ban, though tbf not for for a number of years now.
Last edited:
palo1
Well-Known Member
I have never (knowingly) hunted in any country or with any hunt that has used artificial earths; where I am familiar with foxes there has never been any reason to create those and I would say that this is a practice that should have certainly gone out with the ban. There could be no possible reason for any hunt to now need to create an artificial earth fgs!! Personally, I would suggest that when fox hunting was legal, artificial earths would have been anathema to the kind of hunting I was familiar with and the use of them has always seemed pretty ghastly to me. If foxes needed that kind of 'help' or management then there was no need for them to be controlled with hounds. Other people who have hunted where artificial earths have been used may have felt differently but that is how people I know think. I would certainly never have found any need or any desire to hunt foxes in that situation. The use of other strategies such as using a bagged fox were utterly degenerate and no one I know personally would have wanted anything to do with that. The community I am familiar with was pretty traditional and foxes were genuinely hunted as a form of management. The sport element was in watching hounds work the scent of a fox and for riders to try to keep up with hounds. It was never contrived through the use of artificial earths or bagged (captive) foxes. In fact, also, the technique of holding up is not something I have seen often historically - perhaps once or twice as a child. I haven't seen anything like that for many, many years in these parts.
In areas I am familiar with foxes were hunted as part of control strategy and that has been very well explained many times. The hunting of foxes with hounds was not about killing them in large numbers but about managing both the number of foxes in a particular place and their behaviour. This has had considerable attention over the years and is increasingly borne out in other studies of how having large predators in an area has far more impact than just reducing the number of any prey species. That isn't necessarily how fox hunting was designed originally when in fact the only strategy for managing them without the presence of bigger predators, was to hunt them with hounds, but it was the effect on them which is now better understood in that context.
Mrs_P
Active Member
So if the fox was eaten afterwards would that make it more acceptable? And why is killing "for sport" unacceptable but killing other animals such as pigs for example, for us to unnecessarily stuff our faces is ok? The end result is the same and both are arguably killed for the enjoyment of humans.
As I say I eat meat so I am not passing judgment but I do find it an interesting moral question.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Because when I did it it was called cubbing. Why would I have called it legal autumn hunting? Surely that’s a post ban expression?
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Clodagh was, I'm sure, referring to cubbing as it was widely and legally practised pre ban. The hunting fraternity have since decided to ditch the term 'cubbing' as it was too close to the truth, and instead substituted it with the fluffier term 'autumn hunting'.
Call it what you will, cubbing still goes on in some parts. It's one of the easiest Hunting Act transgressions to spot, as holding up tends to be fairly static and noisy, and it's pretty clear what is going on.
A reminder of what the Sinnington Hunt had to say on the practice re the 2019/20 season, courtesy of hunting leaks. They are wondering if they are wise to continue with holding up. Plus they refer to both the Police and the Hunting Act as being their 'opponents'. And they worry whether hunting trails will affect the ability of their hounds to still be effective at hunting 'the real thing' when required.
https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-hunt-interpretation-of-mfha-guidance/
Call it what you will, cubbing still goes on in some parts. It's one of the easiest Hunting Act transgressions to spot, as holding up tends to be fairly static and noisy, and it's pretty clear what is going on.
A reminder of what the Sinnington Hunt had to say on the practice re the 2019/20 season, courtesy of hunting leaks. They are wondering if they are wise to continue with holding up. Plus they refer to both the Police and the Hunting Act as being their 'opponents'. And they worry whether hunting trails will affect the ability of their hounds to still be effective at hunting 'the real thing' when required.
https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-hunt-interpretation-of-mfha-guidance/
Koweyka
Well-Known Member
Literally from the horses mouth about how they try and circumnavigate the law and continue to hunt foxes whenever they think they can get away with it.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork
“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds.
"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”
Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.
Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.
Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it
.
Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork
“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds.
"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”
Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.
Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.
Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it
.Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
Fred66
Well-Known Member
They might be telling the truth but also obfuscating. Countrymen and Whipper In‘s are not always paid positions and therefore it is highly possible that he was not an employee of the hunt, but did previously perform the roles you mention.Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork
“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds.
"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”
Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.
Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.
Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it
Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Indeed, perhaps Paul O'Shea was not paid for his efforts, but he certainly held named positions of responsibility within the hunt structure.
Btw, 'obfuscating' - love that word, and I'm filing it away for future reference!
Btw, 'obfuscating' - love that word, and I'm filing it away for future reference!
Last edited:
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Genuine question, how do they know who are the problem foxes?
When we had a farm, which was hunted, we didn’t shoot the foxes. For many years we had a distinctive bob tailed fox we saw regularly but he was no bother and we left them all be.
When we started losing chickens we went out and shot the lot. Obviously you shoot the one in your garden in the daytime if possible but if not you go and clear them out.
How can your marksmen identify the specific fox that is causing bother?
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork
“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds.
"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”
Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.
Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.
Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it
Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
Do they really think people are that stupid? Paid or not, he is part and parcel of the hunt, and acting as a member. Hunts when caught continually treat the public as if they are beyond stupid. Its frankly embarassing and pretty disgusting.
(edited for clarity, its been a really long day at work and it made no sense)
moosea
Well-Known Member
I don't know. It would, imho, make it less pointless and and a little less bloodthirsty. But I think that it's a combination of things which makes killing an animal for sport totaly and instantly wrong for me.
It's partly the chase. I think the fox would probably be scared and after a while it would be tired. Do I think it is thinking of its family and home in it's last minutes running? No, of course not. But it would be afraid? and as humans who have the ability to show empathy do any of us think an animal we cause to die should do so in a state of fear or exhaustion?
It's also huntings complete inability to say we f***d up when someones pet is killed, or their animals are terrorised, or their property damaged. Hunting just turns their nose up and blame anyone else they can. They don't pubish a public reveiw, they don't discapline or even denounce anyone for these negligent mistakes. Nothing changes.
It's not really is it? When we look at it. However most beef cows don't have to have an extended period of fear - extended deliberately by humans - prior to slaughter. I don't eat meat so I don't think its acceptable to kill animals,although it is sometimes necessary.
The result is the same.
But sometimes the bit before the result is more important. And for most people who were involved in any way in an animals death, they'd want to make it quick and humane. And while hunting will fall back on reports that hunting with hounds is not cruel it certainly isn't the quickest possible way if you include the chase.
Last edited:
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Well it’s been a long day at Honiton show and I’m lost!