Hunting is in a spot of bother

[ycbm]

Do you not have shooting, either?

Hundreds of hectares. The gamekeeper asked my permission to shoot magpies on my land. They also shoot the buzzards.

The people who support shooting say they are conserving the moor. What I see is endless acre upon acre of ugly rectangles cut in the heather on the hillsides to feed the birds they are going to shoot for the fun of it.


ETA I know the 'heather burning is part of the heather life cycle' argument. Burning or cutting it in ugly man-made rectangles is not. And the only time heather would have burnt before man is with a lightening strike, so let that happen.,

 

[Sandstone1]

I'm so confused. I thought fox hunting was designed to control fox numbers, but this makes it sound like its aim was to increase them?! Have I just lost the ability to read?!

The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant! Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside. I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox. It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.

 

[Rowreach]

I haven't contradicted myself Palo. Local hunt doesn't mean around my house it meant hunts within an hour's travel with a lorry.
.

You're near Hebden Bridge iirc? You've got beagles and harriers near you.

 

[Rowreach]

The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant! Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside. I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox. It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.

I hunted for decades and I can honestly say that while I enjoyed watching hounds work, and I was very lucky to hunt with a couple of extremely talented and professional huntsmen who really knew their stuff, I never ever enjoyed foxes being killed (and was far happier when they weren't).

However, I have witnessed people who certainly did enjoy the killing part, and that absolutely sickened me.

I haven't hunted for years, and I believe strongly that GB packs should stick to the law or not hunt at all - this attitude of carrying on regardless is singularly distasteful. Where I live, hunting live prey is still legal, at the moment. I can see that changing in NI, but it will be a while before it is banned in the Republic I think.

As to the antis moving on to other sports, well I reckon they'll find the anglers to be a bit more of a challenge than the hunters.

 

[SatansLittleHelper]

So does the falconer not enjoy himself? Surely if he wanted a hawk just as a pet he would just sit it on a perch and feed it frozen chicks? I do object to something being cruel if it is enjoyable and not cruel if it isn't.

Sorry but you are using one animal to hunt and kill another - that is no different to pre-ban hunting with hounds. Fox hunting (the killing of the fox) was NOT the fun bit - the FUN is watching hounds work - as you enjoyed your hawk working and for the horse riders to cross the country as best they could.

I do not find hunting anything "fun". I have kept birds of prey without using them for hunting but have been part of a rabbit cull situation where the landowners wanted the population controlling in a more "natural " way. Hawking, to me, is done as a means of quick and effective pest control as well as a way to feed the birds themselves. Plus this is a one on one natural situation unlike fox hunting or big organised shoots. I have no problem with pest control..I have an issue with animals being chased of miles by an unnecessary amount of dogs/riders in the name of "sport" and supposed pest control. In one breath the hunts tell us it's controlling the fox population and in the next they say they hardly ever catch one so how can it be cruel ??

 

[palo1]

The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant! Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside. I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox. It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.

Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant. 2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information. I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...

 

[scruffyponies]

when hunting was legal the general fox population was better managed and cared for than it is now

I think there is much confusion over the meaning of 'control' regarding the fox population. Pest species are controlled by killing; poison, snares, shooting, with the aim of having none left. This is what happens in the countryside post-ban, and the reason foxes are not having a good time of it now.

Quarry species are controlled by catching the slow ones; the aim is to keep the numbers stable by killing the excess population (old, ill, slow), whilst still having a reasonable number of healthy ones to chase next week. In this context 'control' does not mean 'kill'.

 

[Rowreach]

Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant. 2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information. I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...

But it's largely irrelevant isn't it? We're nearly two decades past the ban, and the issue here is that hunts are still acting as if they are the law and not bound by the law, and what they are doing, because it is clandestine, has nothing to do with promoting the species/enriching the environment/removing the sick and elderly.

 

[palo1]

I do not find hunting anything "fun". I have kept birds of prey without using them for hunting but have been part of a rabbit cull situation where the landowners wanted the population controlling in a more "natural " way. Hawking, to me, is done as a means of quick and effective pest control as well as a way to feed the birds themselves. Plus this is a one on one natural situation unlike fox hunting or big organised shoots. I have no problem with pest control..I have an issue with animals being chased of miles by an unnecessary amount of dogs/riders in the name of "sport" and supposed pest control. In one breath the hunts tell us it's controlling the fox population and in the next they say they hardly ever catch one so how can it be cruel ??

Well my reply to Sandstone1 might be relevant here and the report that that information comes from might also be interesting to you. https://vawm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hunting-Wildlife-Moral-Issue-March-2018.pdf

 

[Rowreach]

I think there is much confusion over the meaning of 'control' regarding the fox population. Pest species are controlled by killing; poison, snares, shooting, with the aim of having none left. This is what happens in the countryside post-ban, and the reason foxes are not having a good time of it now.

Quarry species are controlled by catching the slow ones; the aim is to keep the numbers stable by killing the excess population (old, ill, slow), whilst still having a reasonable number of healthy ones to chase next week. In this context 'control' does not mean 'kill'.

Agreed, but the unwritten and unpalatable part of that is that the healthy ones are kept to provide "sport" - so the maintenance of the healthy fox population is less about protecting and promoting the species and more about giving people something to chase on horseback.

 

[ycbm]

You're near Hebden Bridge iirc? You've got beagles and harriers near you.

I'm nowhere near Hebden Bridge but we did have beagles here and a harrier pack in the High Peak not far away pre ban. I'm glad to see them gone, I couldn't square having brown hare considered at risk and then chasing them with dogs.

 

[palo1]

But it's largely irrelevant isn't it? We're nearly two decades past the ban, and the issue here is that hunts are still acting as if they are the law and not bound by the law, and what they are doing, because it is clandestine, has nothing to do with promoting the species/enriching the environment/removing the sick and elderly.

@Rowreach my point was that the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management updated this report in 2018 (2 years ago!). It is not irrelevant Clearly that organisation of professional vets still thinks this information is relevant in spite of the ban. The entire premise of the anti-hunt movement is based on the assertion that hunting is cruel and that is clearly well contested and in some cases disproved by actual real data and wildlife. welfare experts. That totally discredits both the agenda of the Antis as well as the Hunting Act. I never said that hunting with hounds wasn't illegal - but that if the actions of a group and their agenda are based on false assumptions and claims then there is no merit in their actions. Hunting remains illegal. There is a similar analogy with Andrew Wakefield's claims about MMR and Autism which led to quite astonishing changes to public opinion about vaccination...the effects of which we are still feeling. Can you imagine if his claims and the following of many people who did not interrogate those claims had led to legislation on vaccination?

 

[scruffyponies]

Agreed, but the unwritten and unpalatable part of that is that the healthy ones are kept to provide "sport" - so the maintenance of the healthy fox population is less about protecting and promoting the species and more about giving people something to chase on horseback.

Agreed. That is why we still have foxes, but there are no wolves or bears.
Things have moved on a bit since, and maybe there's another way of persuading farmers to tolerate their chickens and lambs being predated, but I'm not convinced. Vulpicide was only ever frowned upon because it spoiled someone's sport.

We're in shooting country here so any fox which wanders into this area gets shot/poisoned/snared... if it doesn't get run over first, obviously.

 

[Rowreach]

I'm nowhere near Hebden Bridge but we did have beagles here and a harrier pack in the High Peak not far away pre ban. I'm glad to see them gone, I couldn't square having brown hare considered at risk and then chasing them with dogs.

Ah, got my bridges muddled up.

I agree about the hare, although numbers went up here when they went on the at risk list, even though they are still hunted (I do hare surveys each year) because conservation methods improved.

 

[Rowreach]

@Rowreach my point was that the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management updated this report in 2018 (2 years ago!). It is not irrelevant Clearly that organisation of professional vets still thinks this information is relevant in spite of the ban. The entire premise of the anti-hunt movement is based on the assertion that hunting is cruel and that is clearly well contested and in some cases disproved by actual real data and wildlife. welfare experts. That totally discredits both the agenda of the Antis as well as the Hunting Act. I never said that hunting with hounds wasn't illegal - but that if the actions of a group and their agenda are based on false assumptions and claims then there is no merit in their actions. Hunting remains illegal. There is a similar analogy with Andrew Wakefield's claims about MMR and Autism which led to quite astonishing changes to public opinion about vaccination...the effects of which we are still feeling. Can you imagine if his claims and the following of many people who did not interrogate those claims had led to legislation on vaccination?

But that's not what is under discussion - it's the fact that hunts are blatantly flouting the law, as it stands.

 

[paddy555]

Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant. 2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information. I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...

I'm at a loss to see where you are coming from. Are you proposing bringing back fox hunting? I can't see that happening. Otherwise how is this relevant for something that has been banned. Are you trying to say the above is justification for those hunts who are currently hunting fox? If not I cannot see the relevance.

 

[ycbm]

Palo I am gobsmacked that you can even think to compare the Wakefield generated health disaster which is causing death and life changing damage to children and adults around the world with fox hunting.
.

 

[ycbm]

Palo, I did some reading at the time and I believe the Burns report which was used to support the hunting ban said that shooting and hunting with hounds were of an equal level of welfare.

If so, there is simply no argument whatsoever for repealing the hunting ban, which is fairly clearly what you want to happen.

 

[palo1]

But that's not what is under discussion - it's the fact that hunts are blatantly flouting the law, as it stands.

Yes I know that this thread is about the seminars. I was just engaging in that particular discussion because so many posters were saying stuff that is either just emotive or simply not evidenced/credible about hunting and I wanted to bring some actual reality to a discussion about hunting matters. To me, that is important in an adult discussion.

 

[Amirah]

I'm gobsmacked that you keep trying to convince me (or maybe yourself) that chasing an animal for miles before ripping it apart isn't cruel. Where is the empathy for the sentient being at the head of the chase?

Do I sense a certain amount of dissonance in your posts?

What would I know though, according to your previous post anyone who disagrees with you is 'misinformed and ignorant' apparently.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Cubbing was always the more unpalatable side of fox hunting. It was definitely cruel, its sole purpose was to blood the new entry of young hounds with easy kills. Though the pro hunt pretended that it was to ‘disperse’ the young foxes.

Field surrounds covert where young foxes are known to live. Send hounds in. Field make a lot of noise to frighten the foxes and stop them escaping - so they are easy prey for hounds.

So how did that help them ‘disperse’?

 

[paddy555]

Yes I know that this thread is about the seminars. I was just engaging in that particular discussion because so many posters were saying stuff that is either just emotive or simply not evidenced/credible about hunting and I wanted to bring some actual reality to a discussion about hunting matters. To me, that is important in an adult discussion.

I think that posters are saying what they personally feel about hunting.

 

[ycbm]

Cubbing was always the more unpalatable side of fox hunting. It was definitely cruel, its sole purpose was to blood the new entry of young hounds with easy kills. Though the pro hunt pretended that it was to ‘disperse’ the young foxes.

Field surrounds covert where young foxes are known to live. Send hounds in. Field make a lot of noise to frighten the foxes and stop them escaping - so they are easy prey for hounds.

So how did that help them ‘disperse’?

Exactly right TP. I went with the Berkeley. Once.

Absolutely indefensible IMO.

 

[rextherobber]

I find it hard not to perceive the VAWM document as biased, and the 2018 update appears to neatly coincide with noises being made to repeal the ban - coincidence, no doubt...
5.4 "almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear
and death" - I struggle with the idea that theses words came from a vet, I personally cannot imagine any vet I know stating that any mammal cannot feel fear.

 

[palo1]

Palo I am gobsmacked that you can even think to compare the Wakefield generated health disaster which is causing death and life changing damage to children and adults around the world with fox hunting.
.

It is comparable though @ycbm, if unpalatable to you; claims were made about something which were not evidenced and which became, understandably, hugely emotionally significant for many people. The groundswell of opinion, based on dodgy science and lack of critique led to disastrous consequences which I am personally all too aware of. Clearly the nature and scale of that is not incomparable to what happens or doesn't happen to foxes but the sequence of events, which in the case of hunting led to legislation is very very similar. We can only be thankful that legislation never resulted from Andrew Wakefield's claims and those that were taken in by him. Sadly Michael Foster (who I briefly worked with) was in a position to make legislation a possibility and then a reality in the case of hunting with hounds.

 

[ycbm]

I find it hard not to perceive the VAWM document as biased, and the 2018 update appears to neatly coincide with noises being made to repeal the ban - coincidence, no doubt...
5.4 "almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear
and death" - I struggle with the idea that theses words came from a vet, I personally cannot imagine any vet I know stating that any mammal cannot feel fear.

Is that what it says! The only fox I've ever seen when I was out fox hunting looked bloody terrified to me, like it knew it was old and weak and the dogs were about to get it. Which they did.

I never fox hunted again after that.

 

[ycbm]

It is comparable though @ycbm, if unpalatable to you; claims were made about something which were not evidenced and which became, understandably, hugely emotionally significant for many people. The groundswell of opinion, based on dodgy science and lack of critique led to disastrous consequences which I am personally all too aware of. Clearly the nature and scale of that is not incomparable to what happens or doesn't happen to foxes but the sequence of events, which in the case of hunting led to legislation is very very similar. We can only be thankful that legislation never resulted from Andrew Wakefield's claims and those that were taken in by him. Sadly Michael Foster (who I briefly worked with) was in a position to make legislation a possibility and then a reality in the case of hunting with hounds.

I don't find your comparison unpalatable, I find it incomprehensible that you don't realise just how inappropriate it is and defend it.

Have you ever been cubbing?
.

 

[palo1]

I'm at a loss to see where you are coming from. Are you proposing bringing back fox hunting? I can't see that happening. Otherwise how is this relevant for something that has been banned. Are you trying to say the above is justification for those hunts who are currently hunting fox? If not I cannot see the relevance.

No, I wasn't making either of those propositions - but just bringing some relevant research to the discussion. It's usually the way that debate works...

 

[hollyandivy123]

Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant. 2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information. I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...

I have but when your information cites an anonymous source it does question the robustness of the document and it's review....

 

[rextherobber]

The VAWM document basically says if you don't agree that hunting foxes with hounds is the most humane way of "managing" them, then you are ignorant of the fact the art of countryside management can only be achieved by this method. If you disagree, it's because of your ignorance. Apparently foxes are not capable of feeling fear, and do not find being pursued by a pack of hounds a traumatic experience, which seems extraordinary, without being anthropomorphic - anyone who has ever watched a mammal, wild or domesticated, knows that they are capable of, and do experience fear. And hounds hunt selectively, so presumably occasionally deliberately select people's cats and dogs? It is an odd document to present in support of a view, it is flawed from the outset by it's immediate and very obvious bias, and it's contradictory statements.