Hunting is in a spot of bother

Tiddlypom

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
14,251
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Well if I hadn’t known about it I’d not have had an opinion!
I know that you were horrified by the SHH case, too.

You can’t help but compare it to the Kimblewick Hunt Cruelty case, though.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Small unfashionable SHH - reviled and disbanded.

Kimblewick Hunt - carries on undaunted.

You might have thought that at least the Head of Hunting for the Countryside Alliance would think it wise to move to another pack after that court case.
 

Dizzy socks

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 March 2012
Messages
1,123
Location
Scotland
I have to comend palo for continuing to provide discussion on this thread, even where the majority disagree (including me, for the most part) - its interesting and, I think valuable.

From my perspective, I think are two separate issues which you are amalgamating palo. Firstly, there is the issue on whether fox hunting is beneficial for the countryside. I accept there *may* be arguments to be made that it is a better method of control for the fox population, in that there isn't the chance of wounding which can occur when shooting - the fox either dies or survives.

However, the second and more important point is public perception. Even if hunting were pragmatically a better option, if public opinion is not on its side then the ban will never be repealed - and public perception isn't. Furthermore, even if the general population were to do a 180 and agree, I can see no scenario where mounted followers would be welcome. Public (and my, tbh) distate for enjoying killing as a fun day out on horseback, especially when percieved as the preserve of the priviledged and elitist, isn't going to go away. You believing that fox-hunting is beneficial is broadly irrelevant, even if you were/are right.

So then there is no scenario where hunting can return as it once was, and so legitimate trail hunts, who enjoy riding after hounds, would do well to distance themselves from the, at times atrocious, behaviour of a number of hunts. While you may not approve of anecdotal evidence of hunts misbehaviour - if on a forum called horse and hound, where you have in theory a far more supportive cross-section than the general population, there is still a majority who dislike even trail hunts, there is already an uphill battle to improve the reputation of trail hunts if they wish to survive. I think changing their name to remove any mention of hunting would probably be a good start.

Sorry I've just re-read this and its convoluted and poorly written, but I hope I've vaguely managed to convey what I intended.
 

Dizzy socks

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 March 2012
Messages
1,123
Location
Scotland
Hmm, still no one can find a moment to respond to the data I posted just now but hey ho, carry on!!
Have you read the whole thing you linked? You've certaintly only posted the bits which are helpful to your argument. These are also direct quotes from your website link:

"
During its lifetime, a single fox may be worth £150–190 to a farmer through rabbit predation. This translates to an annual benefit of £7–9 million.
In Wiltshire, most farmers did not consider the fox to be a pest at all, and rabbits were their worst pest.” Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), 2000
A survey carried out by BBC Wildlife in 2008 identified the fox as the UK’s third most popular mammal (behind otters and hedgehogs).
Foxes are common in new commercial plantations where populations of field voles and rabbits (both of which damage young trees) are high – by predating them, foxes provide an economic benefit to forestry operations."

There are other issues to consider. A report written for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said there was no evidence killing foxes had any effect on fox populations, other than locally. Culling in one area results in other animals moving into the vacated territory, and if numbers are suppressed it results in more cubs being born in the spring. And there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.
Defra advice advocates better protection of stock rather than fox control. “In high fox density areas, killing [them] to reduce numbers is often not successful or cost-effective,” it said in 2005.
Foxes also aid commercial forestry, by predating species that can damage young trees, though the exact value of this is unclear. Whatever the truth, it would appear that the economic pros and cons of foxes could simply cancel each other out."
 

Leah3horses

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 November 2006
Messages
298
Location
Lincolnshire Coast and Yorkshire
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.
So, why not agree with yourself? ...why not get off your own personal soapbox? You can carry on posting often completely irrelevant links to try to back up your own agenda....others could do exactly the same to support their own, legal and ethical , agenda or opinion. And so it goes on. For ,so far, 18 entire years since the ban. 18 years of hunts breaking the law. What other group of people would get away with that? Reasonable people are fed up to the back teeth with it, as is obvious from this thread, and hundreds like it in the 18 years it's been banned. Debate doesn't go on and on until people agree with you, of course you have the right to keep on repetitively posting your own personal views, but please don't then complain when others refuse to keep trying to reason with you ,or agree with you. That would be rather controlling 🤔.
 
Last edited:

Miss_Millie

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 August 2020
Messages
113
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.
The thing is, you were saying that you 'can't have an adult discussion with people' who are sharing their opinions based off of their own lived experiences. But I'm sure that your pro-hunting stance is based off of your own personal nostalgia and history with hunting - you mention the importance of tradition a lot.

I'm just saying, it would be a little hypocritical to tell others who have had bad personal experiences with hunts, that their experiences are invalidated because they aren't objective enough, when your own stance is clearly not impartial.

At the end of the day, everyone will form their own opinion based on their life experience, what they read in the media and their own personal moral views.

For me, I have had no lived experience of hunting, but as a fellow equestrian who loves animals of all kinds, I find it very hard to see any pros to this activity, especially when people's pets get caught up in it and locals claim to no longer feel safe on their own property. That is scary to me. I also feel terribly sad for the foxes.

Kimblewick getting away with murder time and time again is another reason why I have a very negative view of hunting, because it angers me that they get away with breaking the law constantly - it very much highlights the class divide injustice in this country.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
2,031
Have you read the whole thing you linked? You've certaintly only posted the bits which are helpful to your argument. These are also direct quotes from your website link:

"
During its lifetime, a single fox may be worth £150–190 to a farmer through rabbit predation. This translates to an annual benefit of £7–9 million.
In Wiltshire, most farmers did not consider the fox to be a pest at all, and rabbits were their worst pest.” Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), 2000
A survey carried out by BBC Wildlife in 2008 identified the fox as the UK’s third most popular mammal (behind otters and hedgehogs).
Foxes are common in new commercial plantations where populations of field voles and rabbits (both of which damage young trees) are high – by predating them, foxes provide an economic benefit to forestry operations."

There are other issues to consider. A report written for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said there was no evidence killing foxes had any effect on fox populations, other than locally. Culling in one area results in other animals moving into the vacated territory, and if numbers are suppressed it results in more cubs being born in the spring. And there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.
Defra advice advocates better protection of stock rather than fox control. “In high fox density areas, killing [them] to reduce numbers is often not successful or cost-effective,” it said in 2005.
Foxes also aid commercial forestry, by predating species that can damage young trees, though the exact value of this is unclear. Whatever the truth, it would appear that the economic pros and cons of foxes could simply cancel each other out."

No I was perfectly aware of the content of the article and the potential benefits of foxes on the land; I have never raised that as an issue. None of the stuff you have quoted (and there is plenty more that neither of us has quoted) contradicts my point about there being a desire and potential need for a different kind of fox control. Wiltshire is not where I was talking about either and the stuff you have quoted is more qualitative than quantative.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
2,031
The thing is, you were saying that you 'can't have an adult discussion with people' who are sharing their opinions based off of their own lived experiences. But I'm sure that your pro-hunting stance is based off of your own personal nostalgia and history with hunting - you mention the importance of tradition a lot.

I'm just saying, it would be a little hypocritical to tell others who have had bad personal experiences with hunts, that their experiences are invalidated because they aren't objective enough, when your own stance is clearly not impartial.

At the end of the day, everyone will form their own opinion based on their life experience, what they read in the media and their own personal moral views.

For me, I have had no lived experience of hunting, but as a fellow equestrian who loves animals of all kinds, I find it very hard to see any pros to this activity, especially when people's pets get caught up in it and locals claim to no longer feel safe on their own property. That is scary to me. I also feel terribly sad for the foxes.

Kimblewick getting away with murder time and time again is another reason why I have a very negative view of hunting, because it angers me that they get away with breaking the law constantly - it very much highlights the class divide injustice in this country.
Well you have a good point about the value of lived experience and opinion but that isn't the way that laws are made here in the UK. I don't feel nostalgic about hunting but I do value it's place in our culture and countryside management. There are many people who feel the same and a great many people who continue to hunt. I would certainly not want to invalidate someone else's opinion but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or not push back against ideas that I think are fundamentally wrong and ill informed. That is the joy in freedom of speech and I think we are all grateful for that.
 

Dizzy socks

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 March 2012
Messages
1,123
Location
Scotland
No I was perfectly aware of the content of the article and the potential benefits of foxes on the land; I have never raised that as an issue. None of the stuff you have quoted (and there is plenty more that neither of us has quoted) contradicts my point about there being a desire and potential need for a different kind of fox control. Wiltshire is not where I was talking about either and the stuff you have quoted is more qualitative than quantative.
I don't quite buy that. What you've quoted from this website in your previous post can be split into two sections.

The second section, is purely on the cost of foxes. This does not in any way even imply a need for a different mechanism of control, and I think it means that my quotation on the benefit of foxes is not just relevant but also necessary for balance - they're very clearly intended to be read together.
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.
The first section you've quoted is a direct quote from someone who believes fox hunting is a better method of control - but as a direct quote it renders your claim that the article is unbiased null - the artile may be, but that quotation definitely is not. Indeed, it comes from a representative from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - a group which represents groups owning packs of hounds and essentially lobbies for repeal; hardly unbiased.

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.
Therefore, I think my counter quotation was in fact contradictory to your overarching point that foxes are detrimental, for which you were cherry picking quotes. And the first point you have quoted appears an attempt to use an arguably unbiased website to make a very biased quotation seem not so.

Finally, if the very article you quoted says that fox numbers have remained largely unaltered following the ban, then even if your point from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs were unbiased it would be rendered obsolete by information within that very article you pulled it from - "there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.".
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
2,031
I don't quite buy that. What you've quoted from this website in your previous post can be split into two sections.

The second section, is purely on the cost of foxes. This does not in any way even imply a need for a different mechanism of control, and I think it means that my quotation on the benefit of foxes is not just relevant but also necessary for balance - they're very clearly intended to be read together.


The first section you've quoted is a direct quote from someone who believes fox hunting is a better method of control - but as a direct quote it renders your claim that the article is unbiased null - the artile may be, but that quotation definitely is not. Indeed, it comes from a representative from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - a group which represents groups owning packs of hounds and essentially lobbies for repeal; hardly unbiased.


Therefore, I think my counter quotation was in fact contradictory to your overarching point that foxes are detrimental, for which you were cherry picking quotes. And the first point you have quoted appears an attempt to use an arguably unbiased website to make a very biased quotation seem not so.

Finally, if the very article you quoted says that fox numbers have remained largely unaltered following the ban, then even if your point from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs were unbiased it would be rendered obsolete by information within that very article you pulled it from - "there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.".
My last post on this thread (many will be relieved to hear!) I do see what you mean but my point was that the BBC clearly felt that the quote I used was information that was relevant and appropriate to include in the debate - I took that because of the fact that the non hunting supporting BBC had used this information, clearly demonstrating that it was probably not as subjective as you suggest. This information, of course is available in other places too but I chose that source because I perceived that to be more persuasive due to the way that the BBC very rarely presents information and views supporting Trail Hunting; this appeared to make it more compelling to me.

The information is also in context with the earlier stuff that I posted from National Resource Wales and was related to the subject that in upland Welsh areas there are perceived benefits to hunting with more than 2 hounds and in response to discussion about the validity and practicality of shooting foxes in that setting. The information about fox numbers doesn't seem particularly relevant to me as I never argued anything about fox numbers but I am not really quibbling over that. I know it is possible to find a great deal of information which might support pro or anti hunting arguments; that is sort of how debate and discussion works so I don't quite understand the frustration of posters on this thread about that, it being a thread about hunting! I am not sure what is expected of those supporting Trail hunting - other than to just agree or withdraw from on-going discussion so that a comfortable agreement exists between posters. That, I think, is just an echo chamber. Enjoy it.
 

Kipper's Dick

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 November 2020
Messages
60
My last post on this thread (many will be relieved to hear!) I do see what you mean but my point was that the BBC clearly felt that the quote I used was information that was relevant and appropriate to include in the debate - I took that because of the fact that the non hunting supporting BBC had used this information, clearly demonstrating that it was probably not as subjective as you suggest. This information, of course is available in other places too but I chose that source because I perceived that to be more persuasive due to the way that the BBC very rarely presents information and views supporting Trail Hunting; this appeared to make it more compelling to me.

The information is also in context with the earlier stuff that I posted from National Resource Wales and was related to the subject that in upland Welsh areas there are perceived benefits to hunting with more than 2 hounds and in response to discussion about the validity and practicality of shooting foxes in that setting. The information about fox numbers doesn't seem particularly relevant to me as I never argued anything about fox numbers but I am not really quibbling over that. I know it is possible to find a great deal of information which might support pro or anti hunting arguments; that is sort of how debate and discussion works so I don't quite understand the frustration of posters on this thread about that, it being a thread about hunting! I am not sure what is expected of those supporting Trail hunting - other than to just agree or withdraw from on-going discussion so that a comfortable agreement exists between posters. That, I think, is just an echo chamber. Enjoy it.
Well, I don't know about 'enjoyment', Palo1. I've found the whole thing rather depressing to be honest. But whatever differing views we all hold, your courteous and informative input into this discussion has been amazing. So it's a 'thank you' from me, anyway.
 

stormox

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
2,791
Location
midlands
A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
 

hollyandivy123

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2006
Messages
4,469
A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
this is a two part question you are trying to make into one.

removing pests from an environment is reasonable in a controlled way, although managing you environment to reduce access to food sources etc might be a better preventing approach to take. we use to have mice in the house through winter, steel wool and blocking access holes and suddenly no mice.....................better than trapping and killing wouldn't you say

chasing animals for pleasure in the name of pest control...............doesn't stand up to argument in this day and age
chasing animals to hunt to eat, whether deer, wild antelope etc i do not find a problem, do have a slight problem about whales etc, but for consumption okish
breeding animals to chase or shoot....................again hard to justify in this day and age, unless for food consumption and possibly it would be more straightforward not to release/shot and just dispatch from cage?

but a good try to relate rat infections which bring diseases into an environment and chasing foxes.

ps not a sab just a debater
 

stormox

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
2,791
Location
midlands
this is a two part question you are trying to make into one.

ps not a sab just a debater
Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did. Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too, especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
33,550
A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
Not a sab but definitely anti repealing the law, ex fox hunter, long term drag hunter, meat eater.

I don't think killing any animal is cruel, per se, it depends on the way it's done and the reason it's done for. .
.
 
Last edited:

hollyandivy123

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2006
Messages
4,469
Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did. Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too, especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.
In the United Kingdom, some figures show that the rat population has been rising, with estimations that 81 million rats reside in the U.K.
At the end of winter, when numbers are lowest, there are 258,000 adult foxes in Britain, of which 225,000 live in rural areas, 33,000 in urban areas

i guess is a numbers thing which is more likely to infect you with something
 

Miss_Millie

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 August 2020
Messages
113
In the United Kingdom, some figures show that the rat population has been rising, with estimations that 81 million rats reside in the U.K.
At the end of winter, when numbers are lowest, there are 258,000 adult foxes in Britain, of which 225,000 live in rural areas, 33,000 in urban areas

i guess is a numbers thing which is more likely to infect you with something
What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.
 

littleshetland

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 January 2014
Messages
729
Location
On top of the hill, Somerset.
What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.
Its so easy to forget that an animals life..any animals life..is as important to it, as ours are to us.
 

littleshetland

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 January 2014
Messages
729
Location
On top of the hill, Somerset.
Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did. Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too, especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.
All creatures - ourselves included -can carry a variety of viruses, bacterias and parasites....it's the world we live in. Humankinds' ability to mishandle and abuse the other living creatures we share our planet with, have very likely resulted in the current pandemic. Its to our shame that we allow, quite willingly these horrors to continue, but I understand that of course the culling of animals may at times be a necessity for all sorts of reasons, but surely we are able to perform these tasks in the right spirit and with some respect. Taking pleasure from killing an animal, any animal is abhorrent. I'm happy to repeat myself......... an animals life is as important to it, as ours are to us.
 

hollyandivy123

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2006
Messages
4,469
What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.
it was in response to what stormox said.................
 

Miss_Millie

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 August 2020
Messages
113
All creatures - ourselves included -can carry a variety of viruses, bacterias and parasites....it's the world we live in. Humankinds' ability to mishandle and abuse the other living creatures we share our planet with, have very likely resulted in the current pandemic. Its to our shame that we allow, quite willingly these horrors to continue, but I understand that of course the culling of animals may at times be a necessity for all sorts of reasons, but surely we are able to perform these tasks in the right spirit and with some respect. Taking pleasure from killing an animal, any animal is abhorrent. I'm happy to repeat myself......... an animals life is as important to it, as ours are to us.
Nicely put :)
 

Sandstone1

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 July 2010
Messages
5,011
A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
There is no rat hunting that I have heard of that involves chasing them for miles before killing them, damaging other peoples land and disturbing livestock and killing pets, disturbing funerals and allowing hounds to poo on graves. Not to mention holding up trains because they are hunting on a railway line. All of which have been done by local hunts
 

Tiddlypom

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
14,251
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
That is incorrect.
Hunting rats with dogs is a permitted exemption under Schedule 1 of the 2004 Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1
Same exemption applies to rabbits, apparently. Thanks for the link, cg.

Rats
3The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—

(a)which belongs to the hunter, or

(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
 
Top