Hunting is in a spot of bother

[shortstuff99]

A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.

Wouldn't it have been better to have said that then the weird press release that was put out?

Hunting really doesn't do itself any favours.

 

[Wishfilly]

Ok - that is fair enough and for sure there is no real consensus on what role a pack of hounds may have or the impact, good or bad. That is significant though in itself and there is other and emerging evidence around the potential impact that a pack of hounds may have as well as a whole raft of thinking about what impact packs of hounds (not just here in the UK but also much further afield) have had in the past - particularly in light of new knowledge and thinking about ecosystems and how we might need to move forward to address the dire decline in the health of nature. It is far, far more complex than the arguments that anti hunters tend to put forward. How ironic it will be if we remove a 'system' that has been tried and tested for nearly 1000 years here in Britain and replace that with hugely contentious rewilded predators in order to restore a version of the natural order. I would say I am generally in favour of rewilding in fact but can see that it will be massively difficult for farming communities to accept some of the furthest reaches of that thinking - a pack of hounds which disrupt all sorts of natural processes in a reasonably managed and 'healthy' way is potentially far, far more acceptable and likely to succeed though I get that people find this very odd. I am also part of that farming community and we have stock that could be vulnerable to those kinds of predators so I do sympathise with some of the concerns raised. I am certainly not the only person to see this. I know some posters think I am clearly bonkers for my view on hunting but I haven't arrived at that view in total isolation of facts, reading and discussion in a pretty wide range of settings.

Have you got any links to peer reviewed papers for this new evidence? I would genuinely be interested in reading.

I would say that 1000 years is nothing in ecological or evolutionary terms, and you have to think about all the changes that have happened in that time. Population density is much higher than, say, 500 years ago, and the quality of habitat in the UK has markedly declined in the last 2-300 years or so.

There is a lot of evidence to support rewilding in America, for example, but I am sceptical about the success of rewilding predators in the UK. I just don't think the land is there to sustain a viable population and the risks of negative interactions with humans are too high. However, I don't think a comparison with fox hunting as done pre-ban is possible. The presence of e.g. wolves and lynx in the ecosystem would have a lot of impacts that a pack of hounds that are only present in the area a few times a month can never have.

I'm not against human intervention where necessary- for example, I do think red deer culling is important. However, I think these interventions are best done by trained professionals with a specific strategy, and are best done without the involvement of members of the public participating for their own enjoyment.

 

[palo1]

Have you got any links to peer reviewed papers for this new evidence? I would genuinely be interested in reading.

I would say that 1000 years is nothing in ecological or evolutionary terms, and you have to think about all the changes that have happened in that time. Population density is much higher than, say, 500 years ago, and the quality of habitat in the UK has markedly declined in the last 2-300 years or so.

There is a lot of evidence to support rewilding in America, for example, but I am sceptical about the success of rewilding predators in the UK. I just don't think the land is there to sustain a viable population and the risks of negative interactions with humans are too high. However, I don't think a comparison with fox hunting as done pre-ban is possible. The presence of e.g. wolves and lynx in the ecosystem would have a lot of impacts that a pack of hounds that are only present in the area a few times a month can never have.

I'm not against human intervention where necessary- for example, I do think red deer culling is important. However, I think these interventions are best done by trained professionals with a specific strategy, and are best done without the involvement of members of the public participating for their own enjoyment.

Do you follow the charity Trees for Life (one of George Monbiot's recommended projects lol)? They have done some work on the benefit of 'mock' predators in young forests - largely in relation to deer and their feeding habits. It is really interesting and thought provoking. I will get some of the other stuff when I have a moment and post that too. There is much that you have written here that I totally agree with of course and I understand that not everyone would agree that a pack of hounds might have benefits to an ecosystem but what you have said about trained professionals with a specific strategy is relevant. For me, the issue of spectators is irrelevant but I understand why it can be contentious. I wonder how that plays out too when we all watch documentaries about wildlife - the comparison feels real to me.

 

[Wishfilly]

Do you follow the charity Trees for Life (one of George Monbiot's recommended projects lol)? They have done some work on the benefit of 'mock' predators in young forests - largely in relation to deer and their feeding habits. It is really interesting and thought provoking. I will get some of the other stuff when I have a moment and post that too. There is much that you have written here that I totally agree with of course and I understand that not everyone would agree that a pack of hounds might have benefits to an ecosystem but what you have said about trained professionals with a specific strategy is relevant. For me, the issue of spectators is irrelevant but I understand why it can be contentious. I wonder how that plays out too when we all watch documentaries about wildlife - the comparison feels real to me.

My understanding is that Trees for Life's stuff isn't peer reviewed. I think what they are doing is interesting, but it's not comparable to proper research.

I wouldn't consider people participating in the hunt "spectators". But I'd argue their presence is actively harmful, in a lot of ways. In some cases, they may also drive the agenda of the hunt. I don't believe all who hunt share your views, and would be happy if it was purely a conservation exercise.

But I also think hunting with hounds is an unethical (and ineffective) way of controlling the population of foxes. I think all animals should be killed as humanely as is possible.

And I don't think most who hunt share your views. Theoretically, if fox populations were monitored by a centralised body, who decided when and where foxes could be hunted (to provide population control where necessary), that would be better than indiscriminate hunting. But most hunts would object to having their season curtailed or called off if it was felt that the local fox population was of a good size and should not be reduced.

 

[Koweyka]

I know you are sick of someone coming back with a counter-argument to your viewpoint, which is never actually validated by real facts or anything other than slightly inane, simulated 'outrage' but you have totally ignored elements of the article, simply to take a pop at me and to make statements about me that you simply cannot know are accurate (namely that I want, personally, to hunt deer, fox, hare). I don't know about stag hunting and I have never hunted hare either; but I have hunted fox when that was legal and I still believe that foxes on the whole were better off under that system. I do not recognise much of the anti-hunt narrative about what hunting foxes was actually like so we are in totally different places in that sense and we would never agree on that aspect of the debate though I believe we both want what is best for wildlife and for nature. That may not be the same as what is best for each and every animal. The law currently favours individual animal welfare over that of an ecosystem or a species and I personally believe that this is damaging to wildlife on a wider and individual level; individual animals cannot thrive where their species and ecosystem has been degraded but that is a slightly separate argument.

I have hunted fox in the past and seen many hunts with a huge variety of outcomes and yes,with the death of foxes under a pack of hounds. That is not what I am involved with now that fox hunting is banned but it doesn't mean that I don't sincerely believe that system was better in a number of ways. (Can I also recommend that you listen to the BBC Sounds 'The Jump' from 24th March which is fascinating in terms of hunting from a completely different perspective; definately food for thought).

You haven't responded to Barrington's statement that even Bateson who provided what was felt to be influential data and conclusions in support of the anti-hunting movement, about hunting, later revised his opinions quite conclusively - asserting that these earlier conclusions and those that followed in their wake were 'scientifically illiterate'. How do you respond to that? What evidence are you aware of that demonstrates that hunting with dogs,which is practiced in many countries in different ways and has a long and proven history of 'balance' with wildlife, is cruel? (or crueller than any natural hunt that a predator may engage in with a natural quarry - eg lions and zebra, wild dogs and buffalo, wolves and reindeer/caribou etc) Or difficult or damaging in environmental terms?

Are you aware of any evidence ?(other than your own emotional response to watching one animal kill another which I know is very uncomfortable and can be hugely distressing to empathic human witnesses) Do you suspect that film crews that bring us documentaries about the natural world actually secretly enjoy watching animals predating on each other? Is is morally 'difficult' for you to justify us watching this kind of thing or are you able to put that to one side because human beings,which are very much part of the natural world, have no particular part to play in those specific interactions? Where does that comfort/discomfort boundary lie? Do you think that our closest living relatives in primates perhaps should not hunt other animals as part of ritualised territorial or cultural activity? How 'disconnected' or 'different' do you think that human beings should be in this sense? I am interested to know as it is a very important philosophical perspective to take in relation to nature and our interaction with the natural world.

How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?

In relation to the death of Mini; the loss of control of hounds was dire - I have never argued otherwise. I am not sure why you think I might support the hunting of cats but hey, a lot of what you say is just emotive tripe.

How do you respond to the total contradiction in law, practice and our culture around the poisoning and hunting of rats with dogs? If anti-hunting is about animal welfare and is working against animal cruelty why is there no statement about the control of rats from any anti-hunt organisation? I believe that the best way to deal with rats is with a group of terriers; that is infinitely preferable to me than poisoning, trapping, gassing, flooding etc etc. Rats are highly social, sentient animals with huge intelligence but are conveniently ignored by the anti-hunt lobby even when these are animals which can be legally hunted by a pack of dogs. I wonder why anti-hunt protestors don't make anything of this - can you explain that? Perhaps it is because this is recognised to be the best, most humane method of dealing with this particular 'vermin'; to deal with them on their own ground, with their natural resources and facilities in tact and in relation to a predator that they are hugely well adapted to deal with. But wait, that sounds like hunting....

1) You just don’t get it do you, hunting with hounds is illegal and cruel, but it still happens and that is why we are out there, its really that simple.

2) You frequently bring up cats and hunting.

3) Killing rats with dogs is legal, do I like it ? No of course not, but it’s legal so what do you expect us to do ? I have rats as pets, would I get enjoyment out of watching my dogs kill rats absolutely not, but on some of “your’ secret scummy pages the pure joy “people” get out of this is actually frightening.

4) Jim Barrington, well quite honestly I wouldn‘t wipe anything with anything he spouts.

5) Why are wolves extinct .... errr hunted to extinction and humans destroying their habitat.

6) Come out sabbing, it won’t take long for your eyes to be opened and for you to see what we see every time we go out. I do not recognise your unicorn version of hunting.

7) Hunting for food and to survive is a trillion miles away from fox hunting for fun, it’s bizarre how you can even make that leap.

8) https://www.jstor.org/stable/51105?seq=1

Yes these deer “really” enjoyed being hunted “. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs

Can you can read that and honestly believe the foxes and pregnant hares weren’t terrified before death ?

I actually find it incredible that you and these “experts” believe sentient creatures do not feel fear, that foxes don’t feel fear when chased. If that makes me “illiterate” then I will wear that badge with honour.

9) What answers you want from me, I have monitored/sabbed hunts for over 10 years, I will be out four times a week some weeks at various hunts in various counties, have I seen foxes deliberately hunted ...yes, have I seen foxes and hares torn to pieces ...yes far too many times, have I seen bagged foxes ...yes, have I seen chopped foxes ...yes. Have I sat on fox earths to protect a fox being chased...yes far too many times. Have I seen Cubs killed....yes I have and I can tell you that is sickening. A grown man on a horse turning a cub back into the hounds and the screaming is something that you never forget.


So no I don’t have a string of letters behind my name, (other than the ones hunts call men!) but I have a lot of experience and if I am emotive then you will just have deal with it, your opinion of me, means absolutely nothing because I have seen it with my own eyes to know when I say foxes are terrified when they are being hunted.

Am I outraged, you can be sure I am, simulated no it isn’t simulated, come out with me on a hunt day and you would see for yourself just how unsimulated my outrage is when an innocent animal is killed.

Inane ....pot kettle black there...bet you won’t put me on mute though.

Do you want the law to be changed so you can hunt foxes again ? Yes or No ?

 

[Rumtytum]

I also think hunting with hounds is an unethical (and ineffective) way of controlling the population of foxes. I think all animals should be killed as humanely as is possible.

But most hunts would object to having their season curtailed or called off if it was felt that the local fox population was of a good size and should not be reduced.

I used to live close to a very large hunting/shooting estate where the gamekeepers were not allowed to shoot foxes before and during the hunting season. At the end of the season the keepers would then shoot every fox they could find and collect the bodies into one huge pile the size of a small bonfire. They must have left some alive to breed for the next season’s sport.

 

[palo1]

1) You just don’t get it do you, hunting with hounds is illegal and cruel, but it still happens and that is why we are out there, its really that simple.

2) You frequently bring up cats and hunting.

3) Killing rats with dogs is legal, do I like it ? No of course not, but it’s legal so what do you expect us to do ? I have rats as pets, would I get enjoyment out of watching my dogs kill rats absolutely not, but on some of “your’ secret scummy pages the pure joy “people” get out of this is actually frightening.

4) Jim Barrington, well quite honestly I wouldn‘t wipe anything with anything he spouts.

5) Why are wolves extinct .... errr hunted to extinction and humans destroying their habitat.

6) Come out sabbing, it won’t take long for your eyes to be opened and for you to see what we see every time we go out. I do not recognise your unicorn version of hunting.

7) Hunting for food and to survive is a trillion miles away from fox hunting for fun, it’s bizarre how you can even make that leap.

8) https://www.jstor.org/stable/51105?seq=1

Yes these deer “really” enjoyed being hunted “. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs

Can you can read that and honestly believe the foxes and pregnant hares weren’t terrified before death ?

I actually find it incredible that you and these “experts” believe sentient creatures do not feel fear, that foxes don’t feel fear when chased. If that makes me “illiterate” then I will wear that badge with honour.

9) What answers you want from me, I have monitored/sabbed hunts for over 10 years, I will be out four times a week some weeks at various hunts in various counties, have I seen foxes deliberately hunted ...yes, have I seen foxes and hares torn to pieces ...yes far too many times, have I seen bagged foxes ...yes, have I seen chopped foxes ...yes. Have I sat on fox earths to protect a fox being chased...yes far too many times. Have I seen Cubs killed....yes I have and I can tell you that is sickening. A grown man on a horse turning a cub back into the hounds and the screaming is something that you never forget.


So no I don’t have a string of letters behind my name, (other than the ones hunts call men!) but I have a lot of experience and if I am emotive then you will just have deal with it, your opinion of me, means absolutely nothing because I have seen it with my own eyes to know when I say foxes are terrified when they are being hunted.

Am I outraged, you can be sure I am, simulated no it isn’t simulated, come out with me on a hunt day and you would see for yourself just how unsimulated my outrage is when an innocent animal is killed.

Inane ....pot kettle black there...bet you won’t put me on mute though.

Do you want the law to be changed so you can hunt foxes again ? Yes or No ?

Morton and Bateson's research is old and now mostly discredited - Bateson himself has said that this research was flawed in many, many ways. Morton's research is 20 years old and was an incredibly small sample though I don't deny that many people would find this compellingly upsetting reading. The idea of traumatic death and the details of that are difficult to accept on lots of levels.

You will find quite easily though, research from vets that refute Morton and Bateson's research so the conclusion is definately contested, unclear. Who you choose to think is 'right' is a matter of personal interpretation and personal 'bias' if you like. I want to be honest in this dialogue and for me, the research of 2 vets done 20 years ago on a small sample of animals is not more convincing than the assessment of over 800 vets with an interest in wildlife management who updated their own position statement on hunting as recently as 2018. (VAWM). I am certain that you prefer and would always reference the research that supports your own beliefs - that is natural. Not even the professional group of vets in this country are agreed on the matter of hunting but I imagine you would say that all the vets saying they feel hunting with hounds would be a more humane death for foxes than other forms of lethal control were all sick individuals. So be it.

I would not say that all foxes who were hunted to death had instant deaths, I don't think anyone could state that confidently but there are vets that have done post mortems on hunted animals and their assessment of similar trauma to that described by Morton and Bateson was that death was virtually instant. It is incredibly rare for any predator to kill absolutely instantly. An expert with a high velocity rifle can do that for an animal and that is humane but that outcome is not certain - many, many foxes are horribly injured and suffer for a much longer period of time as a result of mis-shots. I also know that my daughter's bantam was certainly not dead when we got to her having seen the attack on her by a feral cat but she died shortly afterwards having experienced bites/tearing to her breast/chest and neck. Death does not come easily to many living things. That isn't a justification for cruelty in any way though. Your view is pretty set, as mine is @Koweyka but I haven't 'muted' you, nor do I plan to!! I am interested to hear what antis have to say but I haven't heard any logical argument for banning trail hunting. I would like to see amendment to the Hunting Act with much clearer regulation, governance and discipline of hunting with hounds. Potentially that would or could do away with a 'field' of followers though I personally feel that the field is a non-issue in animal welfare terms. I would support amendment of the Hunting Act that allowed for the lethal control of foxes with hounds; I believe that would be better for foxes but I am not expecting that outcome any time soon!

You haven't in any way responded to the query about cats so there is a bit of a hole there. Rats are wonderful pets - I share your sense of joy in them and their awesomeness but I wonder what you do to actively campaign or work for the improvement of their control; which do you think is the best means of control for rats or do you believe that no control at all is needed?

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs of course as I am mine but that does not make either of us right or wrong in those beliefs. I don't belong to any rat hunting groups by the way nor do I subscribe to any social media pages where rat hunting is a topic - not sure what you are getting at to be honest!! I would rather however, that my terrier hunted and killed rats than put down poison and in order to deal with a rat problem I would deliberately put that dog in place to hunt those rats. That seems very different to allowing feral cats to just kill rats.,mice and anything else they fancy. The problem seems to be my or other people's involvement in hunting/killing animals. Where does that begin and end for you though - do you think that our slaughter-house system and laws prevent cruelty and suffering to animals at the hands of people or can that be dispensed with because we eat those animals? Yet some folk would assert that we certainly don't need to eat animals. The issue is so big that it is very difficult to get a handle on - it is much easier to deal with limited issues like hunting I guess...

There is a massive problem with the anti-hunting argument in that the issues around cats and rats are left unanswered, skirted around because they are too difficult to think through and entirely contradict the anti-hunting position it seems to me. If you are going to be logical about animal cruelty/wildlife crime that needs to be much clearer. If it is not ok to have a domestic or semi-domestic animal kill wildlife so be it but that, in reality, would be totally unacceptable to most pet owning people in the UK. That actually is most of us, including you. Perhaps you feel justified in keeping pets even though that may cause quite high degrees of stress to them. If all wild animals must be left to live their natural lives out then that too would be totally unacceptable, problematical and likely to result in a degree of animal suffering. I am not trying to take any high moral ground here - I keep pets, I eat meat and I would support hunting with hounds if the law were repealed after all but I am trying to explain what your position looks like to me.

 

[Koweyka]

Have you been on the gin tonight ?

 

[palo1]

Have you been on the gin tonight ?

Erm, no. Have you?!!

 

[Dizzy socks]

I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.

 

[stormox]

I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

.

The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds. There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.

 

[Dizzy socks]

The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds. There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.

I don't dispute that, I'm only talking about the perception of people not involved. I suppose if the killing of the fox is irrelevant to the followers then why should the two be connected, trail hunting is just as good - I don't think it's really an argument for allowing fox hunting?

 

[palo1]

I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.

Sorry if I missed that request; I have referenced a number of things and provided links to those on this thread - I am not sure if you haven't seen those or whether you feel they are not credible and scientific? I will have a look back but on the whole I try to only include either peer reviewed stuff or articles that are 'distanced' if you like from the issue of hunting with hounds. There is plenty of stuff out there if you look. The thread has covered quite a lot of ground too...what particular aspect are you asking for this kind of research about?

 

[ycbm]

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

This a thousand times over.
.

 

[ycbm]

The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds. There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.

Is there any record of when paying a subscription for going out hunting became a thing? In the old literature I have read, a very rich land owner would own a pack and hunt at his own expense. He might have house guests and neighbours out with him, and yeoman farmers who farmed the land being ridden over, but not subscribers to help him pay for it.

Going back to the idea of it being a tradition which deserves to be upheld, then, the tradition of following a fox pack on horses was originally purely for the pleasure of it, not the financing of it, and that's a tradition, as DS says above, that the modern public will not stomach.
.

 

[palo1]

I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.

Briefly to respond to your request to references - this article is an example and is interesting. It is now 11 years old and is slightly overtaken by other research and views around the pros and cons of disturbance to wildlife through hunting with hounds activities but it certainly has relevance to this I think: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...gs/Committees/08_hounds-nontarget effects.pdf


This one is more recent and addresses the fraught issue of domestic cats: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073

I could trawl through the thread to pick up other bits of research but that will take ages tbh as there are quite a few references and links if you are interested.

 

[Dizzy socks]

Briefly to respond to your request to references - this article is an example and is interesting. It is now 11 years old and is slightly overtaken by other research and views around the pros and cons of disturbance to wildlife through hunting with hounds activities but it certainly has relevance to this I think: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Public_Meetings/Committees/08_hounds-nontarget effects.pdf


This one is more recent and addresses the fraught issue of domestic cats: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073

I could trawl through the thread to pick up other bits of research but that will take ages tbh as there are quite a few references and links if you are interested.

Thank you for that, I've just quickly read the first one, I think it's quite interesting. To be hoenst, I'm unsure why you've picked it - it seems to only show negatives for hunting with dogs, and doesn't exaclty support your perspective? A few points I'd like to raise from it:

- The article obviously isn't in reference to fox hunting, it's hares and boars and the knock on effect that this had had on roe deer - I'm not really sure how much can necessarily be extrapolated from that? The behaviour of roe deer in response to hunting with dogs will be very different to that of foxes.

- The article seemed to be essentially saying that hunting with dogs causes such signifcant stress that the deer reproduce less, are forced to move to more unsuitable habitats, and that they clustered together in the "safe" zone - I don't think this is exactly ethical or humane?

- The article overall definitely wasn't exactly positive about hunting with hounds. "As shown in our study, hunting harassment provoked by drives with hounds significantly affects the behaviour of non-target species. Therefore, the use of long-legged hounds represents a variable that should be carefully evaluated by wildlife managers in their management plans and conservation policies, especially when endangered or vulnerable species are present." the harassment of non-target species is something I hadn't previously considered, but is definitely very relevant - surely then, hunting with hounds doesn't just harm foxes, but also other wildlife which may be vulnerable or endangered? Also worth noting that the study only considers those hunting with between 2 and 3 dogs, so such disruption to other wildlife will obviously increase when a whole pack is out.

--

Re the cats article, I haven't read it yet, but will - though I have to say I don't think it's that relevant. I don't doubt that cats cause harm to wildlife, but that's hardly a justification for the legalisation of something else which also harms wildlife. I don't think "fairness" should override pragmatism and effect, if that makes sense?

 

[palo1]

Thank you for that, I've just quickly read the first one, I think it's quite interesting. To be hoenst, I'm unsure why you've picked it - it seems to only show negatives for hunting with dogs, and doesn't exaclty support your perspective? A few points I'd like to raise from it:

- The article obviously isn't in reference to fox hunting, it's hares and boars and the knock on effect that this had had on roe deer - I'm not really sure how much can necessarily be extrapolated from that? The behaviour of roe deer in response to hunting with dogs will be very different to that of foxes.

- The article seemed to be essentially saying that hunting with dogs causes such signifcant stress that the deer reproduce less, are forced to move to more unsuitable habitats, and that they clustered together in the "safe" zone - I don't think this is exactly ethical or humane?

- The article overall definitely wasn't exactly positive about hunting with hounds. "As shown in our study, hunting harassment provoked by drives with hounds significantly affects the behaviour of non-target species. Therefore, the use of long-legged hounds represents a variable that should be carefully evaluated by wildlife managers in their management plans and conservation policies, especially when endangered or vulnerable species are present." the harassment of non-target species is something I hadn't previously considered, but is definitely very relevant - surely then, hunting with hounds doesn't just harm foxes, but also other wildlife which may be vulnerable or endangered? Also worth noting that the study only considers those hunting with between 2 and 3 dogs, so such disruption to other wildlife will obviously increase when a whole pack is out.

--

Re the cats article, I haven't read it yet, but will - though I have to say I don't think it's that relevant. I don't doubt that cats cause harm to wildlife, but that's hardly a justification for the legalisation of something else which also harms wildlife. I don't think "fairness" should override pragmatism and effect, if that makes sense?

Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old. In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes. That in itself is interesting and suggests that it is either a 'non-subject', non-starter in research terms or just isn't interesting enough to scientists. I linked to this article because that is one of the things that is available that directly addresses the disturbance of 'non-target' species in relation to hunting with hounds which is relevant when considering the impact of hunting. Also, the setting is as close as possible to find near the UK. As you say, the article suggests that deer in 'hunting zones' reproduce less, are forced to move more etc. That is also the conclusion of research carried out in Yellowstone in relation to the introduction of Apex predators and is now (more recent than this article) considered to be a healthy stress for the ecosystem. This is really relevant actually to the current situation with deer in the UK. Most environmental charities and environmentalists are concerned about the number of deer, their reproduction rate and the effect that they have on ecologically significant vegetation; getting them to reproduce less, move more etc are now considered to be desirable outcomes.

I am not sure if you will have access to this but the abstract gives you a flavour of that here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ncreasing_numbers_of_deer_in_British_woodland

In Yellowstone the kind of stress activated by predation/presence of wolves (which I understand is not quite the same but may be comparable) resulted in enormous ecological and biodiversity benefits. I understand that you may read and feel that 'stressing' deer is not ethical but I think that it is considered a potentially 'better' approach than increased direct culling which has all sorts of difficulties associated with it and does not moderate deer numbers in any kind of 'natural' way.

ETA - in response to the issue of cats killing wildlife it is fundamentally relevant. If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that. Equally and in opposite if you allow, by law the hunting of one mammal by another predatory carnivore (terriers hunting rats and/or rabbits) and identify that as 'not cruel' then you are in a right legal and democratic mess. It isn't to do with fairness but to do with logic and legality. It has made it possible though to exclude a minority (pro hunters) over a majority (cat owners) which is very, very poor democracy and also anti-libertarian.

 

[Dizzy socks]

Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old. In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes. That in itself is interesting and suggests that it is either a 'non-subject', non-starter in research terms or just isn't interesting enough to scientists. I linked to this article because that is one of the things that is available that directly addresses the disturbance of 'non-target' species in relation to hunting with hounds which is relevant when considering the impact of hunting. Also, the setting is as close as possible to find near the UK. As you say, the article suggests that deer in 'hunting zones' reproduce less, are forced to move more etc. That is also the conclusion of research carried out in Yellowstone in relation to the introduction of Apex predators and is now (more recent than this article) considered to be a healthy stress for the ecosystem. This is really relevant actually to the current situation with deer in the UK. Most environmental charities and environmentalists are concerned about the number of deer, their reproduction rate and the effect that they have on ecologically significant vegetation; getting them to reproduce less, move more etc are now considered to be desirable outcomes.

I am not sure if you will have access to this but the abstract gives you a flavour of that here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ncreasing_numbers_of_deer_in_British_woodland

In Yellowstone the kind of stress activated by predation/presence of wolves (which I understand is not quite the same but may be comparable) resulted in enormous ecological and biodiversity benefits. I understand that you may read and feel that 'stressing' deer is not ethical but I think that it is considered a potentially 'better' approach than increased direct culling which has all sorts of difficulties associated with it and does not moderate deer numbers in any kind of 'natural' way.

ETA - in response to the issue of cats killing wildlife it is fundamentally relevant. If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that. Equally and in opposite if you allow, by law the hunting of one mammal by another predatory carnivore (terriers hunting rats and/or rabbits) and identify that as 'not cruel' then you are in a right legal and democratic mess. It isn't to do with fairness but to do with logic and legality. It has made it possible though to exclude a minority (pro hunters) over a majority (cat owners) which is very, very poor democracy and also anti-libertarian.

Well if there hasn't been additional, more relevant, research in the last 11 years then surely this is our only insight - and it definitely seems to show disruption to other wildlife? I'm not sure of the relevance of the anti-hunt lobby - if the only research available helps their case then surely it should be the pro-hunt lobby who would seek additional research if they thought it would show otherwise. Feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying that disruption caused by hunting with dogs essentially replicates the apex predator - i.e. the fox - so why the need for hounds? (It's probably also hard to do such research in the UK by virtue of the fact that it's illegal?)

I do have access to the other article you linked, and I skimmed it. I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it supports fox-hunting - quite the opposite, for the reason I stated above. By your logic, I think it supports foxes instead. I think its a big leap to say fox-hunting helps limit the deer population, to be honest - and even if we take that assertion, disruption is indiscriminatory, and more vulnerable wildlife will be affected in the same way, and I don't think that could ever be a net benefit, when there are other ways to control the deer?

Re Cats - We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm don't think its poor democracy when the population is clearly not in support of hunting, and clearly in favour of cats. I don't think democracy dictates logic necessarily, but you brought democracy into it, not me. I don't think I mind it being anti-libertatrian either, and I'm not convinced it even is, in any meaningful sense - obviously our freedoms are curtailed for all sorts of reasons, and I think this is a perfectly justifiable one. Out of interest how do you reconcile a democratic process which votes for anti-libertarian policies?
I also don't think cats and fox-hunting are morally analogous, though granted they have their similarities. If intention matters, then there's a big difference between allow and encourage. I would also say that cats are increasingly being kept indoors - this is the way society is moving I think, not backwards.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds.

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.

 

[Koweyka]

I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds.

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.

I find the references to cats being compared to hunting hounds utterly bemusing, the only reference should be the amount of cats that are killed by hunting hounds ....

Though hunting being compared to primates chasing each other in the jungle still has me stumped ....

 

[palo1]

Well if there hasn't been additional, more relevant, research in the last 11 years then surely this is our only insight - and it definitely seems to show disruption to other wildlife? I'm not sure of the relevance of the anti-hunt lobby - if the only research available helps their case then surely it should be the pro-hunt lobby who would seek additional research if they thought it would show otherwise. Feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying that disruption caused by hunting with dogs essentially replicates the apex predator - i.e. the fox - so why the need for hounds? (It's probably also hard to do such research in the UK by virtue of the fact that it's illegal?)

I do have access to the other article you linked, and I skimmed it. I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it supports fox-hunting - quite the opposite, for the reason I stated above. By your logic, I think it supports foxes instead. I think its a big leap to say fox-hunting helps limit the deer population, to be honest - and even if we take that assertion, disruption is indiscriminatory, and more vulnerable wildlife will be affected in the same way, and I don't think that could ever be a net benefit, when there are other ways to control the deer?

Re Cats - We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm don't think its poor democracy when the population is clearly not in support of hunting, and clearly in favour of cats. I don't think democracy dictates logic necessarily, but you brought democracy into it, not me. I don't think I mind it being anti-libertatrian either, and I'm not convinced it even is, in any meaningful sense - obviously our freedoms are curtailed for all sorts of reasons, and I think this is a perfectly justifiable one. Out of interest how do you reconcile a democratic process which votes for anti-libertarian policies?
I also don't think cats and fox-hunting are morally analogous, though granted they have their similarities. If intention matters, then there's a big difference between allow and encourage. I would also say that cats are increasingly being kept indoors - this is the way society is moving I think, not backwards.

Sorry I think I may not have been clear about the up to date research. The relationship between the fox and deer is not relevant as deer do not show behavioural changes as a result of fox activity; but they do when other, larger predators are involved; disruption caused by hunting with dogs does not replicate the activity of the fox and foxes are, in 'full' ecosystems, in turn predated on by larger apex predators which are the ones that cause the trophic cascade.

The 'other'ways of controlling deer have proven to be not advantageous ecologically, nor particularly acceptable in other ways either - there is plenty of information about that too.

We will have to disagree on the issue of cats; I think that is largely a case of personal and social bias - it isn't convenient to consider how to mitigate the impact of domestic cats even in light of the amount of damage they do, our understanding of the vulnerability of small mammals, reptiles and song birds nor in light of the fact that we have a legal statement in the form of the hunting act that identifies that allowing one predator to hunt another is not acceptable at the same time as saying that it is in fact acceptable for some dogs (terriers) and some vermin. The person that drafted the Hunting Act has long challenged it - I have put a link earlier to Daniel Greenberg's podcast about the Hunting Act.

Generally people seem horrified to think that their pet cat perhaps could be legally confined because of the way that pet cats interact with wildlife - for many people that would be too difficult and have feline welfare implications that would be hard to accept. However, the effect of cat predation on vulnerable wildlife is undeniable.

 

[Koweyka]

“Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old. In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes”

This sounds awfully like you are referring to cubbing, that’s what pro hunt say as a smokescreen for cubbing “ we are dispersing/disturbing the cubs “

 

[ycbm]

I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds.

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.

I'm getting irritated by the continued attempt at throwing out a diversion by cat whataboutery.

Nobody disputes that they predate wildlife. There is no connection between that and financing and organising a pack of hounds solely for the purpose of hunting fox, transporting them and fifty plus horses to where you want to hunt, setting them on the trail of a wild animal and following them with people on the horses.

No. connection. whatsoever.

 

[ycbm]

If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that

The law wasn't made on that premise. It was made to catch votes, on the premise that an equally effective/humane method of fox control, shooting, (Burns report) was available and that the majority of the public wanted to stop an industry which organises a group of dogs to chase wildlife so that a group of riders and foot followers can enjoy the chase.

In your cats v hounds argument you persistently ignore the fact that hounds are organised by humans and followed by people enjoying the chasing and/or death of an animal, and cats aren't. They don't compare and your continued insistence that they do is confirming anti hunt prejudices.
.

 

[Koweyka]

What an utter disgrace ....

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-29...rf-jLKo9IBiLPQGkFi8GuMmqsLzqTTprf5MSEf_BI3qNU

 

[palo1]

What an utter disgrace ....

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-29...rf-jLKo9IBiLPQGkFi8GuMmqsLzqTTprf5MSEf_BI3qNU

Well they certainly wouldn't be the only people to break Covid regs which is hugely frustrating. It is actually a good thing that there has been such unqualified condemnation of this stupidity from the rest of the hunting community - and suspensions etc. That was the right thing to do. I don't think the HSA should be too quick to point fingers over breaking Covid regs or the law for that matter...

 

[Koweyka]

If ITV hadn’t got hold of it I doubt there would be any condemnation and if you read the online chatter in the hunting community there is more condemnation that they sneaked into Cottesmore territory.... Never mind those hounds were very interested in what appears to be a fox earth or badger sett ....or did they have a trail layer out as well.

Why shouldn’t the HSA point fingers ? Why shouldn’t anyone point fingers ?

 

[Tiddlypom]

A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything.

Maybe you were mislead as to what really happened, but the ITV clip shows that it was a lot more than that...

Its rather ironic that this has caused the hunting community so much angst, whereas the far more serious Kimblewick Hunt 'prod the fox out of the ground' court case got barely a reaction...

 

[ester]

They filmed it themselves too..... wow