Hunting is in a spot of bother

[AmyMay]

That’s just not true amymay in I think Australia they are banned from going out due to the devastation they have caused on the songbird population

That’s one council area only in Australia I believe. The impact on wildlife being only one reason for the new law. The overriding reason seems to be to protect neighbouring properties (??‍) and the cats themselves.

 

[palo1]

Because quite simply, it’s a fallacy that cats have that much of an impact on garden wildlife.

Not according to these quite authoritative sources:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/10/cats-killing-birds-gardens-david-attenborough

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-w...life/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-w...life/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...to-were-killed-by-house-cats-in-just-one-year

Cats can be useful predators but their sheer number and lack of control over their activities does have a significant impact on vulnerable and very vulnerable wildlife. I don't think that is contested generally by scientists though it is inconvenient and difficult for the cat loving public.

 

[AmyMay]

Do we really want to bring the murderous RSPB in to the argument?

 

[stangs]

Outdoor cats are killers, true. But one might argue that their prey suffers much less than a fox trying to outrun dogs and horses.

 

[palo1]

Yes it is ridiculous. Just the pro hunt gang trying to throw us off the scent

No, it's not. It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.

 

[Sandstone1]

So you’re ok with dogs being allowed to roam free and kill randomly? It’s not the killing you are averse to it’s the hunt aspect ?

Of course im not ok with dogs killing randomly. Clearly you dont get sarcasm.

 

[AmyMay]

No, it's not. It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.

Now you’re just being daft. As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about fox hunting…..

 

[palo1]

Do we really want to bring the murderous RSPB in to the argument?

Well, quite!! There is a great deal of muddy water there too. But, in honesty, dear old CP who does love to both protest against hunting (and wind people up to do the same in a sometimes morally very dubious way) is also the poster boy for the RSPB who are quite happy to use the same traps and snares that the same poster boy campaigns against. All is not linear, clear, clean and tidy in the wild wood...

 

[AmyMay]

Well, quite!! There is a great deal of muddy water there too. But, in honesty, dear old CP who does love to both protest against hunting (and wind people up to do the same in a sometimes morally very dubious way) is also the poster boy for the RSPB who are quite happy to use the same traps and snares that the same poster boy campaigns against. All is not linear, clear, clean and tidy in the wild wood...

Absolutely agree.

 

[palo1]

Now you’re just being daft. As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about fox hunting…..

Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting). Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting. I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...

 

[Sandstone1]

No, it's not. It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.

So, you think a cat hunting is the same thing as a pack of hounds followed by a field of riders and foot and car followers? I would like to think that humans are more evolved than cats but clearly not in some cases.

 

[lannerch]

And off course the o

Now you’re just being daft. As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about fox hunting…..

fox numbers have also significantly dropped in the countryside since the fox hunting ban and foxes have moved to more urban areas , no idea why although the suggestion is as vermin farmers are now having them killed by more effective methods where previously they let them be so the local hunt could dispatch, which inevitably resulted in the older sick or slower being the ones caught not all and any.

 

[palo1]

So, you think a cat hunting is the same thing as a pack of hounds followed by a field of riders and foot and car followers? I would like to think that humans are more evolved than cats but clearly not in some cases.

A cat being allowed out to kill whatever it can, as often as it wishes, anywhere it wishes may be worse for wildlife, especially those very vulnerable song birds and small reptiles than an organised pack of hounds, regulated, trained and controlled - focussed only on taking out specific vermin.

In relation to trail hunting where the vast majority of trail hunts do not result in the death of wildlife the two scenarios do not compare in terms of either animal welfare or the moral implications. But this was never about animal welfare or morality and logic was it?

 

[Fred66]

well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.

Of course im not ok with dogs killing randomly. Clearly you dont get sarcasm.

Oh I get sarcasm, it’s just you weren’t using it ?

 

[Sandstone1]

Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting). Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting. I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...

Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they? They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either. They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses. They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.

 

[Sandstone1]

Oh I get sarcasm, it’s just you weren’t using it ?

Well I clearly was, its just you do not get it.

 

[palo1]

And off course the o

fox numbers have also significantly dropped in the countryside since the fox hunting ban and foxes have moved to more urban areas , no idea why although the suggestion is as vermin farmers are now having them killed by more effective methods where previously they let them be so the local hunt could dispatch, which inevitably resulted in the older sick or slower being the ones caught not all and any.

The anti-hunt movement have never managed to improve the lot of foxes in any way. They have never campaigned against the shooting or gassing of foxes and have been responsible in part for the release and subsequent starvation of urban foxes. Anti hunt campaigners have never done anything to secure habitat for foxes (as hunts did pre-ban) nor have they conducted any research around fox numbers or the problems they are having. No money, time or energy has been directed at the fox population generally; only individual foxes have had some dubious 'rescues'. Some antis support fox sanctuaries where multiple foxes are kept together (very stressful for them). Some are even castrated before being released into the countryside in entirely unfamiliar territory. That is not about fox conservation at all...

 

[Sandstone1]

The anti-hunt movement have never managed to improve the lot of foxes in any way. They have never campaigned against the shooting or gassing of foxes and have been responsible in part for the release and subsequent starvation of urban foxes. Anti hunt campaigners have never done anything to secure habitat for foxes (as hunts did pre-ban) nor have they conducted any research around fox numbers or the problems they are having. No money, time or energy has been directed at the fox population generally; only individual foxes have had some dubious 'rescues'. Some antis support fox sanctuaries where multiple foxes are kept together (very stressful for them). Some are even castrated before being released into the countryside in entirely unfamiliar territory. That is not about fox conservation at all...

So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then? Not sure where pest control fits in there. Or for that matter trail hunting.

 

[lannerch]

Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they? They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either. They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses. They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.

My cat does it for pure fun though, and he tortures for a long time after the chase , no quick death. How many sabs have cats I wonder.

 

[palo1]

Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they? They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either. They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses. They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.

That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish. The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill. In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds. They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...

 

[lannerch]

So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then? Not sure where pest control fits in there. Or for that matter trail hunting.

Were not are. And yes before the ban definitely so .

 

[Sandstone1]

That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish. The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill. In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds. They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...

you are just trying to deflect from the question of fox hunting. Yet another smokescreen. For the record I do not own a cat.

 

[Sandstone1]

Were not are. And yes before the ban definitely so .

So, how does pest control fit in then????

 

[AmyMay]

Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting). Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting. I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...

Ok, I’ll give it one more go. Generally speaking, for many of our native breed birds (song birds included) numbers in inner city areas particularly are thriving. Native songbirds and ground nesting birds in rural areas are not. The impact of agriculture is to blame in rural areas. It has has nothing to do with the presence of cats.

However nature, again generally, is very good at managing its numbers when the issues are not man made (ok you could argue that the domesticity of the cat is man made, I agree), but you get the idea.

In the big winter freeze of 1962/3 over 50% of our native birds perished. The impact on some of our smaller fluffy friends was near catastrophic- this had nothing to do with cats, and everything to do with a disastrous weather event. Within several years the numbers for many birds exceeded the pre-freeze numbers. The Wren, which was nearly wiped out by the big freeze, stormed back to become one of the nations most prolific birds - despite there being a prolific number of domesticated cats.

Whilst cats certainly can have some impact on an area of wildlife, that impact where a domestic cat is located is not as effective as some would like us to believe.

 

[palo1]

So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then? Not sure where pest control fits in there. Or for that matter trail hunting.

It is no secret that 'hunting' estates actively managed their land to enable foxes to live there. Foxes were recognised as absolutely necessary, a part of the ecosystem but one that needed controlling. Not exterminating. The two are different. Since the ban, there is no support for land that encourages foxes - and that is part of the reason foxes are in decline. Previously, hunts were good for foxes in general and thus enabled other species to thrive in the habitats that were maintained for foxes. There was a balance that was well maintained and that balance has been lost.

 

[Miss_Millie]

That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish. The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill. In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds. They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...

Once again, cats killing wildlife has nothing to do with fox hunting. Nothing at all. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

 

[Tiddlypom]

My cat does it for pure fun though, and he tortures for a long time after the chase , no quick death. How many sabs have cats I wonder.

But presumably you don't derive pleasure from this aspect of cat keeping, and the fact that your cat catches wildlife is not your the prime reason for keeping him?

We've been down the cat whataboutery diversion a few times on this thread before, btw.

 

[Sandstone1]

Once again, cats killing wildlife has nothing to do with fox hunting. Nothing at all. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

I do, they are trying to take the heat off hunting. Scrapping the barrel I think you will find.

 

[skinnydipper]

It is a legacy issue; the Hunting Act was so difficult and so contested that many 'accomodations' had to be made - the Act would not even have made it as far as the deployment of the Parliament Act (where an Act can be passed without going to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords as our legislature usually demands - sorry if you know this but I think you are in the US so you may not be familiar with our parliamentary process!) without significant compromise. The unique qualities of traditional fox hounds were recognised in the agreement that an animal based scent could continue to be used; though any idiot could see the problems with that. Both sides were (and remain) completely entrenched and the pro-hunting lobby were determined not to lose the ability of fox hounds to hunt foxes as they felt that the act, utterly dire and nonsensical as it is, was bound to be repealed. In fact several governments considered that and everybody associated with the Act has publicly expressed great regret over it.

But now, several years down the line hunters are determined not to give any more ground up and the use of animal based scent is a problem in itself. It is one of those unintended consequences of an Act that was never fit for purpose. Drag hunts have always used a non-animal based scent and fox hunters never wanted to become drag hunters (on the whole anyway) so the traditionally minded packs who want to hunt legally hold the animal based scent as somewhat symbolic of their traditional ways. For some packs it is a loophole that they seem prepared to abuse at times. Whilst that behaviour is reprehensible and causes much angst and fury amongst law abiding packs, the use of traditional fox scent is still something of a sacred cow...

That compromise was always a pyrric victory - now also a liability in my eyes but my local pack manages to hunt legally in any case. It can be done - the scent used shouldn't really be an issue tbh but...

ETA - sorry @skinnydipper - I am mistaken; I saw your avatar and thought you were another poster with similar who is in the US. I don't think you are so I apologise for the parliamentary process explanation!

Thank you for the explanation.

It would make sense to me, Josephine Public, for trail hunts who genuinely do not wish to hunt fox to change the target scent.

 

[palo1]

So, how does pest control fit in then????

Pest control fits in because of the way that a number of foxes would be killed, seasonally, by the hunt whilst the remaining population were supported. Hounds killing foxes helped to maintain healthy populations of foxes that were part of a healthy ecosystem. Wholesale killing of foxes across all seasons has been very damaging to the fox population. They remain considered vermin so the issue of killing them is pretty irrelevant. The manner of killing was very pertinent to their on-going success pre-ban as it was in no way wholesale. There is huge difference between pest control and pest extermination.