Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

Sickos!

Yes it was sick. Those filming them were sadly stupid as they tampered with some of the evidence and refused to allow police access to all related evidence, thus much weakening their case against the SHH and at one point risking it failing completely. Some of the evidence against SHH was tampered with or withheld by the Sabs for goodness knows what reason...

 

[palo1]

''The sad thing to me is that you seem to care a lot more about 'upholding tradition' than you do about the people and their animals who are hurt by the actions of the hunting community.''

The thing is though that caring about the values implicit in a tradition that fully engages with the countryside and environment means that I DO care about the people and their animals. Those values, skills and knowledge are very widely recognised to be a vital part of our culture and society - as they are across the globe. Hunting is not opposed to caring about people or their animals as it is entirely part of that that system of thinking and acting.

 

[Fransurrey]

The thing that you are ignoring is that hunting with dogs was never just sport; it was always functional. The sport was for those following to see if they could keep up. This has been said so many times, by so many people that it seems surprising that you don't know that. It is clear how I compared the two scenarios I think.

Quite a few assumptions about me, there. I'll have to disagree strongly that hunting with dogs is functional. Others have already pointed out that the biggest threat to livestock is not foxes. I never said your comparison wasn't clear. Just that it was wildly inappropriate.

 

[EarsofaSnowman]

This.

The total lack of empathy or disgust for what happened to Spider the cat, speaks volumes. I wonder, if someone's horse on this forum were to be chased and attacked by hounds, would they finally start to see how totally horrendous and disgusting these incidents are to the rest of us? Just imagine if it was your pet that got killed.

I would need therapy for the rest of my life; I can't imagine anything more horrifying to witness.

One of my neighbour's chickens was killed by a dog in front of them. There is a footpath nearby, but the dog was on private land having got away from its owner. Should the neighbour have insisted the dog be destroyed?

I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.

 

[ycbm]

Hounds should never have been used for clearing out feral cats. That is pretty disgusting to me. IF dogs were identified as the best approach to a feral cat cull, then some other dogs should have been used. Once the HP hounds had rioted there should have been a cull there too.

You talk about a disconnect between people who keep cats and want hounds not to kill anything, but to my mind, that's a drainage ditch compared to the ship canal of the disconnect between using hounds to kill fox and not feral cat. What on earth is the difference?

 

[HashRouge]

I actually do think palo1 raises some good points about cats. I speak as someone who adores cats, but feels quite troubled about the effect they have on wildlife. My parents own a now quite elderly male cat who is a very good hunter and I know they feel very guilty whenever he brings anything in. Unfortunately he's tricky to keep inside and has broken out of his cat flap before in bids for freedom! But if I got a cat again myself I think I would get an indoor cat or have a "catio" and I suspect my Mum and Dad would consider the same in the future.

However, it is a complete separate issue to fox hunting. It is not a strong argument to try and defend fox hunting by saying "yeah but what about pet cats"...

 

[ycbm]

I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.

That's because it isn't being done as part of an organised event, put on by a club with a national governing body, for the entertainment of a large group of horse riders and unmounted followers.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

One of my neighbour's chickens was killed by a dog in front of them. There is a footpath nearby, but the dog was on private land having got away from its owner. Should the neighbour have insisted the dog be destroyed?

I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.

Like I said earlier, all responsible dog owners who know that their dog is capable of killing or injuring animals or people, should be kept on a leash at all times in public. In the instance you describe here, the dog entered private property and killed a pet. I don't know what the penalty should be, but I think we can all agree that it is wrong and that the owner should have not even let it become a possibility. I would be devastated if this happened to me, regardless of whether the dog was a hunt dog in a pack or someone's pet dog.

Like ycbm has said above, the main difference in terms of media publicity is that hunting is part of an organised, funded event.

 

[Muddywellies]

Bit late to the party here and I'm afraid I haven't read all 725 comments. But just wanted to add my ten penn'oth.
I've always been pro hunting, and along with 400,000 others, attended the march in 2002. But fast forward 18 years and I'm now starting to swap sides. Having liveried for the past few years in an area used regularly by the local hunt, it seems to be that the whole world has to stop in order for a bunch of people to go for a runaround the countryside, trashing fields, hedges and gates along the way. The local horses would go berserk on hunting day and on one occasion it took my horse a good few weeks to settle down again. At the most recent yard, the YO would make us keep horses in on hunt day. A friend owns land which was used by the hunt and they used to meet at his yard, but he became tired of the damage to his fields so he stopped it. I understand the traditional reason for hunting. Indeed, I've been on the receiving end of the carnage thst foxes cause. But now, in theory, the hunt isn't supposed to kill foxes, so what is the point? If I chose to gallop willy nilly across the countryside, I'm sure I'd get my legs slapped. So why can the local hunt do it? Surely it's just become a glorified hack?

 

[littleshetland]

Fox based scent is easily purchased online from abroad and can be used for lots of different purposes including for the garden. The young entry are trained to simply follow that amazing, natural odour that every part of them is attracted to. Hounds need very little training to follow a scent in fact but they do need considerable skilled training in listening to the huntsman about where to go and look for a scent, to stay with the pack and work together on one 'line' and if need be, leaving that scent to go to another line. What the SHH did was beyond appalling and that hunt has been utterly ostracised by the hunting community and rightly so.

ETA - you can buy fox urine in liquid, granule or spray form on Amazon.

I wonder how they 'manufacture' and harvest fox urine from abroad...?

 

[littleshetland]

And yet if you go on any Facebook page reporting illegal hunting, there are several accounts (always including photos or videos of foxes blatantly being chased), per month. In my area alone, there have been many accounts since October!

The sad thing to me is that you seem to care a lot more about 'upholding tradition' than you do about the people and their animals who are hurt by the actions of the hunting community.

The reality is that the majority of the UK are against hunting full-stop, and the only reason why people keep getting away with fox hunting (despite the ban) is because they have friends in high places.

If legal trail hunting didn't continue to involve trespass and animal attacks, I'm sure that people would view it more favourably. But even many within the equestrian and farming communities, are fed up with them getting away with murder, time and time again.

Tradition = peer pressure from a bunch of dead people.

 

[littleshetland]

I lived very close to the local hunt kennels for many years. Every boxing day was a complete nightmare for me. The horses had to be kept in all day, forget hacking or even schooling, as the local hunt spent the entire day tearing round the locality turning every bridlepath into a swamp, breaking fences, cantering up and down the main roads...I could go on. Also, every hunting day, before they set off, there were the terrier men on their quad bikes with their terriers ready for action...almost like they were expecting to give them a quarry that day... I moved recently, away from the kennels, and inspire of lockdown, managed to have a lovely peaceful boxing day enjoying riding my horse.

 

[palo1]

A couple of wider/bigger picture perspectives from : https://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier (Rowe:2020)

''One problem is a lack of meaningful monitoring and raw data on the impact of hunting. ‘The data is scattered,’ says Roe. ‘People who are anti-hunting can rightly identify cases of really poor hunting and how it exacerbates the problem. But you can show good examples, where hunting has benefited species. You can cherry-pick your examples to suit your case. What we do know,’ she says, ‘is that for those animals on the [IUCN] Red List, hunting is never listed among the threats they face....

In the UK, thanks to the absence of top predators, the deer population has swollen to around two million. Deer trample and eat crops; carry ticks that transmit lyme disease to humans; trample fragile peatlands; and by grazing woodlands and plants have contributed to the decline of some woodland birds. Some sources associate them with 50,000 traffic accidents annually.
In January this year, a coalition of Scottish conservation groups called for legally enforceable culls of deer, while raising the prospect of local communities becoming more involved in shooting and killing deer for food. ‘Natural systems have kept things in balance for millennia but they are now out of kilter,’ says Born Free’s Mark Jones. ‘The UK is a classic example – it has basically removed the top predators. With no natural limits, the prey animals expand and damage the wider environment...‘Hunting may be perceived as irrelevant – a cruel anachronism in today’s modern world,’ he says. ‘Yet all world fisheries are hunts; and billions of people rely on wild harvested foods, that signify animal death; there is no death-free card to swipe in the wild theatre of food provisioning.''


And from: Ecology and Society (2020) Shokirov & Backhaus
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, 2University Priority Programme Global Change and Biodiversity, University of Zurich

''Indigenous hunting communities around the world possess capabilities to accumulate and maintain knowledge based on their traditional practices, cultural norms, and belief systems. Case studies around the world have demonstrated that merging indigenous hunting knowledge with community-based conservation approaches is often complementary to biodiversity conservation. A combination of such approaches improves wildlife conservation practices and livelihood strategies while enhancing communities’ social-ecological resilience.''

Whilst both of these articles are more global in their outlook this, from the RSPB is related directly to the UK :http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/images/predator report_tcm9-177905.pdf

Remember that the issue of whether foxes need controlling or not is NOT contested and there never was legally satisfactory evidence that hunting foxes with hounds is worse than any other method. Increasingly the alternatives are contested on welfare, cruelty and other reasons but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there. As it is, foxes can still be hunted legally by 2 dogs. It is not straightforward ethically or ecologically in spite of people's very strong feelings about the matter.

 

[ester]

I wonder how they 'manufacture' and harvest fox urine from abroad...?

fur farm foxes was my assumption

 

[NinjaPony]

I never really had an opinion on hunting until I was at a yard where the hunt met close by regularly. Turns out it’s a bit of a nightmare. Horses kept in going bonkers, the hunt would never stick to the route they claimed to be taking (suspicious...) and they would absolutely tear up all of the local beautiful hacking, particularly when it was very wet. Didn’t leave the yard for hunt related reasons at all but it is quite nice not to have to worry about it.

 

[ycbm]

A couple of wider/bigger picture perspectives from : https://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier (Rowe:2020)

''One problem is a lack of meaningful monitoring and raw data on the impact of hunting. ‘The data is scattered,’ says Roe. ‘People who are anti-hunting can rightly identify cases of really poor hunting and how it exacerbates the problem. But you can show good examples, where hunting has benefited species. You can cherry-pick your examples to suit your case. What we do know,’ she says, ‘is that for those animals on the [IUCN] Red List, hunting is never listed among the threats they face....

In the UK, thanks to the absence of top predators, the deer population has swollen to around two million. Deer trample and eat crops; carry ticks that transmit lyme disease to humans; trample fragile peatlands; and by grazing woodlands and plants have contributed to the decline of some woodland birds. Some sources associate them with 50,000 traffic accidents annually.
In January this year, a coalition of Scottish conservation groups called for legally enforceable culls of deer, while raising the prospect of local communities becoming more involved in shooting and killing deer for food. ‘Natural systems have kept things in balance for millennia but they are now out of kilter,’ says Born Free’s Mark Jones. ‘The UK is a classic example – it has basically removed the top predators. With no natural limits, the prey animals expand and damage the wider environment...‘Hunting may be perceived as irrelevant – a cruel anachronism in today’s modern world,’ he says. ‘Yet all world fisheries are hunts; and billions of people rely on wild harvested foods, that signify animal death; there is no death-free card to swipe in the wild theatre of food provisioning.''


And from: Ecology and Society (2020) Shokirov & Backhaus
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, 2University Priority Programme Global Change and Biodiversity, University of Zurich

''Indigenous hunting communities around the world possess capabilities to accumulate and maintain knowledge based on their traditional practices, cultural norms, and belief systems. Case studies around the world have demonstrated that merging indigenous hunting knowledge with community-based conservation approaches is often complementary to biodiversity conservation. A combination of such approaches improves wildlife conservation practices and livelihood strategies while enhancing communities’ social-ecological resilience.''

Whilst both of these articles are more global in their outlook this, from the RSPB is related directly to the UK :http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/images/predator report_tcm9-177905.pdf

Remember that the issue of whether foxes need controlling or not is NOT contested and there never was legally satisfactory evidence that hunting foxes with hounds is worse than any other method. Increasingly the alternatives are contested on welfare, cruelty and other reasons but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there. As it is, foxes can still be hunted legally by 2 dogs. It is not straightforward ethically or ecologically in spite of people's very strong feelings about the matter.

This article talks about the increase in the deer population. I sincerely hope you are not going to start defending the hunting of deer with hounds?
.

 

[ycbm]

but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there. .

Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak Park count as UK uplands? Because if so, I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years. If foxes cause a problem, they are shot. If not, they are left alone. Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week, I have one hunting on my land. It's welcome. If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May, it will be shot.

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area. I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that. There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak Park count as UK uplands? Because if so, I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years. If foxes cause a problem, they are shot. If not, they are left alone. Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week, I have one hunting on my land. It's welcome. If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May, it will be shot.

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area. I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that. There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs.
.

This is the main thing that boggles me about the 'logic' of traditional fox hunting. Surely, the most humane and efficient way to kill a fox (if even necessary) is by shooting it through the head, by a trained marksman, who can kill it instantly with one bullet. It does not involve the poor fox being chased for miles by a pack of baying hounds and dug out of its hole in complete terror.

Not to mention, the farmland and bridleways aren't ruined by the many people on horseback. Locals don't have to worry about keeping their cats and dogs indoors. Non-hunting horse owners don't have to worry about their horses getting stressed out and worked up.

It is really just confirmation to me that 'fun' is the name of the game, and claims of 'conservation' and 'pest control' are hogwash.

 

[Clodagh]

Wrt foxhounds still being trained to follow fox scent even when trail hunting. How is the young entry trained to follow fox scent? How is all this fox scent gathered and harvested?

We know how the now disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt did it. They threw captive fox cubs to hounds. Caught out by covert cctv.

Fox cruelty: South Herefordshire Hunt pair found guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48584227

That incident was totally slammed by everyone, pros and antis alike, and rightly so.

 

[Tiddlypom]

That incident was totally slammed by everyone, pros and antis alike, and rightly so.

Everyone? Because they were caught?

 

[palo1]

This article talks about the increase in the deer population. I sincerely hope you are not going to start defending the hunting of deer with hounds?
.

No - I am not ycbm but it does illustrate how generally 'wrong' we have got things in relation to hunting, conservation and ecology in this country and I think that is pretty universally recognised. In Poland even there is considerable disquiet about the loss of Fox Hunting in England -which has resulted in elements of Polish hunting being protected. Other countries have seen what a mess we have made of hunting and want to avoid making similar mistakes.

 

[palo1]

Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak Park count as UK uplands? Because if so, I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years. If foxes cause a problem, they are shot. If not, they are left alone. Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week, I have one hunting on my land. It's welcome. If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May, it will be shot.

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area. I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that. There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs.
.

No, not in the Peak District to my knowledge but most definately in Wales. I hope the fox that is hunting on your land does not take lambs but if it does I hope equally that it is shot outright. The chances of that are not fabulous but I would hope an instant death would be the outcome. Hare were hunted for food and because they were perceived to have an impact on arable land but for myself I have never wanted to hunt hare; I would far rather watch them do their own thing which they are immensely capable at!!

ETA:this information from a UK Gov FOI request https://assets.publishing.service.g...nting_-_27_March_14_6454_Annex_A_Research.pdf

It says, among other things ''For instance, two dogs as compared to a pack of dogs may be less likely to find foxes when drawing (searching for foxes) in large forestry blocks and if two dogs do find a fox the pursuit before it is flushed out and shot may be more protracted than would be the case if a greater number of dogs were used. These considerations may be particularly relevant to the control of fox numbers in upland areas of Wales and England where lamb predation by foxes is a significant problem and other forms of fox control may be less effective (Burns 2000, Heydon 2000). The current study was undertaken to investigate whether there are any differences in terms of effectiveness and potential welfare indices between the use of two dogs and a pack of dogs to flush foxes.''

NRW (Natural Resource Wales) also identifies this as a strategy here in a research paper regarding the use of firearms on NRW Land (https://cdn.cyfoethnaturiol.cymru/m...-evidence.pdf?mode=pad&rnd=131625760710000000) : 5.2.1 Evidence Farmers and representatives of land management groups / membership organisations identify predation of lambs by foxes as an important factor in the livelihoods of Welsh sheep farmers. Financial analysis, based on relationships between lamb losses, fox density and the costs of fox control, suggests that it is only worthwhile for farmers to carry out additional control actions where regional fox densities are high37 . One study found that based on perceived estimates of predation, foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately £9.4 million in 199938 . In 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimated that sheep producers in the UK lose up to four million lambs each year, at an annual cost to the industry of £120 million. Deaths due to misadventure and all predators combined accounted for just five percent of these losses; the other losses were due to a variety of management problems39 . In 2000 the Burns Inquiry found that, ‘Other means of fox control, in particular shooting, seem capable of killing at least as many foxes as are killed by hunting, except in mid-Wales and some other upland areas. In mid-Wales, methods involving dogs are currently effective in maintaining the population below carrying capacity and cost very little. In the event of a ban (of hunting with dogs), shooting would be the most viable alternative but even this www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Page 15 of 41 would be difficult because of the terrain. Much would depend, in upland areas, on whether it was still permissible to use dogs to flush foxes to guns.’ 40 In addition, the Burns Review stated that, ‘In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out’. 41 In 2013 the Federation of Welsh Farming Packs (FWFP) carried out a poll of 651 sheep farmers in markets throughout Wales42. Table 1 shows the responses including that 90% of respondents said that they had experienced financial loss from fox predation since 2005. Table 1: Percentage of farmers surveyed who had experienced lamb losses through fox predation between 2005 and 2013, from FWFP submission to review38 (‘sic’) The FWFP survey found that the effectiveness of flushing to guns has been reduced with the implementation of the Hunting Act (2004), causing significant additional losses to livestock farmers and that no farmers want to lose the ability to use dogs to flush to guns on 322,000 acres of afforested land in Wales.''

 

[Clodagh]

Everyone? Because they were caught?

Well if I hadn’t known about it I’d not have had an opinion!

 

[palo1]

It is pointless trying to have an actual adult discussion about this if all everyone posts about their personal irritations as in ' the local hunt has annoyed me/done this therefore hunting should be got rid of'. It seems to me that every time I present something which is not my own opinion but impartial information and views it just gets ignored so that posters can gripe about their personal experience! So frustrating but if that is the level of debate possible so be it. It's just not interesting in all honesty nor productive.

 

[paddi22]

I am trying to understand the angle on the deer hunting you mentioned? We live in a forestry area and there are too many deer currently. They are now being culled by shooters that apply for licenses. Everyone here has no issue with that and it's a kinder death than being hit by cars (which is a constant danger here at night). But gangs of people aren't chasing the deer around breaking the law and injuring and distressing other animals, so I'm not sure what your point was in relation to fox hunting?

 

[Miss_Millie]

It is pointless trying to have an actual adult discussion about this if all everyone posts about their personal irritations as in ' the local hunt has annoyed me/done this therefore hunting should be got rid of'. It seems to me that every time I present something which is not my own opinion but impartial information and views it just gets ignored so that posters can gripe about their personal experience! So frustrating but if that is the level of debate possible so be it. It's just not interesting in all honesty nor productive.

There are several people on here that have claimed they used to hunt and used to be pro-hunt, but that their personal experiences since the ban have completely changed their opinion on the purpose of hunting as a whole - be it because the hunt have upset their animals or trespassed on their land, blocked roads etc.

The thing is, people's opinions on any subject are often validated by their own personal experiences. It's the main reason that people have opinions about anything, e.g. you leave a bad review on a chair you bought because the quality is shoddy and it's uncomfortable. If I was considering buying the chair, I'd listen to that person.

It might be a strange analogy but what I'm trying to say is, people's lived experiences are surely more valid than anything?

 

[palo1]

This is the main thing that boggles me about the 'logic' of traditional fox hunting. Surely, the most humane and efficient way to kill a fox (if even necessary) is by shooting it through the head, by a trained marksman, who can kill it instantly with one bullet. It does not involve the poor fox being chased for miles by a pack of baying hounds and dug out of its hole in complete terror.

Not to mention, the farmland and bridleways aren't ruined by the many people on horseback. Locals don't have to worry about keeping their cats and dogs indoors. Non-hunting horse owners don't have to worry about their horses getting stressed out and worked up.

It is really just confirmation to me that 'fun' is the name of the game, and claims of 'conservation' and 'pest control' are hogwash.

This is older data but interesting in relation to shooting of foxes: alcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf. In brief it found:-

'Both shotguns and rifles are used to shoot foxes and we observed and filmed foxes shot at by all the main methods. We obtained data from the Scottish gun packs for the 2002-2003 season documenting the outcomes of 574 shots fired at 386 live foxes. This revealed an average kill rate of 55% (range 20-79%) for all shots fired, but did not permit exact calculations of wounding rates because some foxes escaped....1.2. Kill rates Many hours, even days, are expended in getting a shot at a fox. We could not provide enough observers to document sufficient fox shooting to determine the kill rate ourselves. We observed foxes shot both by shotguns and by rifles, by day and by night, and we saw foxes killed and foxes wounded by all these methods. However, we did manage to obtain the Hunt Returns for the Scottish Gunpacks 2002-2003 that are being submitted in evidence for their court case (see 1.5.). Their average kill rate was 54.9% (range 20% - 79.3%). The Welsh Gun packs estimated their kill rates at 8 | P a g e around 33% (Aled Jones pers comm.). The kill rate is clearly a very variable figure, depending on circumstances. In general, from what we saw, and from questioning the shooters who participated in the trials, we estimate that the kill rate of real foxes with shotguns with BB or AAA (see 1.5) is around 35% and with high powered rifles, 80-95%. 1.3. The missed and the wounded rates As we cannot use captive live foxes for this research, we must use artificial targets to simulate as closely as possible the same conditions as found in real life situations. By shooting at a lot of dummy targets one can easily see which ones are hit (k + w) and which ones are missed (m). The theory is simple. In practice there are many variables and confounding factors. These need to be assessed, both so that we can assess the accuracy of our estimates and so that we can understand the variation. Cadavers from fox shoots were examined to assess injuries caused by the different shooting regimes. This information was then applied to score the target fox sheets. We can thus estimate what percentage of target foxes are ‘wounded’ (w) and assess what shooting parameters cause more or less wounding. There is no standard way to quantify suffering, and probably never will be, and therefore we have not attempted to assess the welfare implications of these wounds. 1.4. The variables Shooting foxes is not a single, standard activity; rather it is a multi-faceted activity with a host of variables. The only common denominator is that all shooting of free-living foxes inevitably entails some wounding. Variables include type of weapon (rifle or shotgun), calibre, choke, size and number of shot and load, range, ability of the shooter, movement and direction of the fox, and exposure time. These are the most obvious variables. When looking at welfare it is not just the welfare of the target that needs to be considered. The fox may be a vixen with dependent cubs that will starve (Macdonald et al.2000).



This is from BBC Discover Wildlife (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/people/do-we-really-need-to-control-foxes-in-the-uk/) which most definately is not a pro-hunting organisation:-

''David Thomas, of the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs, said the predominance of sheep farming and the nature of the terrain – upland areas and forestry plantations – make fox control in Wales not just essential but hard to do without using packs of dogs. “Since the ban, farmers have moved to ‘lamping’ with rifles, but in forests it can be hard to see the foxes and they quickly become lamp shy,” he added.
Reynolds said that numerous studies have shown that ground-nesting birds such as curlews, golden plovers and lapwings, as well as hares, all benefit where fox control is carried out. Stone curlews wouldn’t survive in the UK if foxes weren’t culled, he said...
The costs of foxes for farming
Foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately £9.4 million in 1999, according to one estimate.
Reducing fox numbers by 43 per cent resulted in a three-fold increase in breeding success for lapwings, golden plovers, curlews, red grouse and meadow pipits.

In a survey of Welsh farmers carried out in 2013, 96 per cent said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income, while 75 per cent said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban came into effect in 2005.
Hare densities at a farm in Leicestershire have declined from a high of more than 50 per km2 when predator control was carried out to less than 8 per km2 at a count in 2006 after a period of several years with no predator control.

I hope this provides some context for the success of shooting foxes.

 

[palo1]

There are several people on here that have claimed they used to hunt and used to be pro-hunt, but that their personal experiences since the ban have completely changed their opinion on the purpose of hunting as a whole - be it because the hunt have upset their animals or trespassed on their land, blocked roads etc.

The thing is, people's opinions on any subject are often validated by their own personal experiences. It's the main reason that people have opinions about anything, e.g. you leave a bad review on a chair you bought because the quality is shoddy and it's uncomfortable. If I was considering buying the chair, I'd listen to that person.

It might be a strange analogy but what I'm trying to say is, people's lived experiences are surely more valid than anything?

But individual lived experiences, whilst valid and entirely valuable to that individual, are not the way that policy is made nor a basis for legislation which requires evidence based submission from expert, impartial bodies to ensure that a majority 'lived experience' does not invalidate other views and experiences which may have a significant bearing on the subject.

 

[hollyandivy123]

But individual lived experiences, whilst valid and entirely valuable to that individual, are not the way that policy is made nor a basis for legislation which requires evidence based submission from expert, impartial bodies to ensure that a majority 'lived experience' does not invalidate other views and experiences which may have a significant bearing on the subject.

isn't this the reason for most of the votes in the referendum in 2016..............

 

[palo1]

I am trying to understand the angle on the deer hunting you mentioned? We live in a forestry area and there are too many deer currently. They are now being culled by shooters that apply for licenses. Everyone here has no issue with that and it's a kinder death than being hit by cars (which is a constant danger here at night). But gangs of people aren't chasing the deer around breaking the law and injuring and distressing other animals, so I'm not sure what your point was in relation to fox hunting?

Sorry - the point I was making with that post was to demonstrate that the 'received wisdom' of hunting practices in the UK has been proven, at least with the deer population to be deeply flawed. This might suggest that other policies around hunting, conservation, ecology and species control may also benefit from alternative views and a different approach. Things change too and there is increasing evidence to suggest that hunting knowledge and practices may have far greater importance than previously understood. Hence the rather reluctant acknowledgement by conservation and environmental charities that hunting has a role to play in a more nature focussed society. It is not popular of course and highly contentious which is why many people would rather not discuss it or openly acknowledge that.