Hunting is in a spot of bother

[planete]

Coming from a country where hunting with hounds was never a popular activity I fail to see the necessity of fox hunting for effective and humane wildlife and habitat management. Let us say many first world countries have found viable alternatives...As for any mammal being unable to feel pain and fear, words fail me.

 

[palo1]

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.

Well, this was a committee of actual vets that wrote and published the report. Their real names are available of course so you could address your queries to those professionals...The report, if you read it addresses our human notions of fear and the role that fear plays in a mammal's life more fully elsewhere; it was my mistake to take an excerpt but I had thought people might read the actual document. You certainly don't have to agree though and I guess you will be able to produce scientific evidence that is peer reviewed to counter this and support your views ?

 

[shortstuff99]

Humans and none human animals show the same patterns of fear so I am going to say if you would be scared being chased by hounds and killed, a fox would be too.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763401000562

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159110002637

https://peerj.com/articles/9104/

 

[palo1]

Yes, thank you for pulling these up. The role that fear plays in a wild animal's life is also worth considering. This is an interesting observation: ''These circuits also mediate the raw affective properties of FEAR since animals escape and avoid such brain stimulation and develop conditioned place aversions to locations where they have had such negative experiences.'' (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159110002637)

 

[palo1]

This is also interesting in wildlife/conservation terms : ''Predators induce stress in prey and can have beneficial effects in ecosystems, but can also have negative effects on biodiversity if they are overabundant or have been introduced. The growth of human populations is, at the same time, causing degradation of natural habitats and increasing interaction rates of humans with wildlife, such that conservation management routinely considers the effects of human disturbance as tantamount to or surpassing those of predators. The need to simultaneously manage both of these threats is particularly acute in urban areas that are, increasingly, being recognized as global hotspots of wildlife activity.'' (https://peerj.com/articles/9104/)

Sadly though you have only been able to reference abstracts which are limited but still interesting to read and follow. I haven't read anything in the abstracts that contradicts what I have previously said though I am open minded and interested.

 

[rabatsa]

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.,

Forget the shooting side. Controlled burning of the moors reduces the risk of out of control peat fires, many of which have been seen in recent years due to careless people using a portable bbq.

 

[Sandstone1]

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...

Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting. I do not need a study to tell me about the disruption and distress hunting causes. I have seen the state of other animals after the hunt passes through, the damage they do to land, not to mention once again that it is illegal but continues to take place.

 

[paddy555]

You certainly don't have to agree though and I guess you will be able to produce scientific evidence that is peer reviewed to counter this and support your views ?

why would anyone want to though. Most people don't need a report to tell them what to think, they are able to look at the situation, what they have actually seen etc, and come to their conclusion.

The activity is banned. Thing now is to get action to deal with the hunts still hunting foxes.

this is from sandstones last post. An excellent summing up of the situation.
Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting.

 

[ycbm]

Forget the shooting side. Controlled burning of the moors reduces the risk of out of control peat fires, many of which have been seen in recent years due to careless people using a portable bbq.

That isn't the same as destroying the visual impact of a moor by covering it with obviously man made mown rectangles, which is what happens over huge areas all around here.

 

[ycbm]

So the latest justification for hunting is wild animals don't feel fear, it's just a stimulus they avoid?

Isn't that the definition of fear in every animal, including man? To provide a call to action to take avoidance? Doesn't make it any nicer for a fox than a cat or dog or human.

 

[Clodagh]

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?!

Hunting foxes was a bit of a downer for the individual, but benefitted the species as a whole. Most areas now hav ea zero fox policy, whereas before they would have been permitted to have a population for the hunt.
It is a similar, although less eye catching situation as trophy hunting in Africa. (although I can't personally see why anyone would want to shoot a giraffe, for example).

 

[Clodagh]

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.,

The Peak District has had much worse fires with unmanaged heather moorland I think? Or maybe Yorkshire.
Anyway, I imagine you have no fox problem, as you say, because the keepers are controlling numbers.

 

[Clodagh]

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 ??

So did you not fly your birds at all? Or on a lure? Does a hunted bird not feel stress? Are they always killed cleanly?

Hunting was of benefit to the fox population overall, at the expense of the individual.

 

[ycbm]

The Peak District has had much worse fires with unmanaged heather moorland I think? Or maybe Yorkshire.
Anyway, I imagine you have no fox problem, as you say, because the keepers are controlling numbers.

The farmers and the keepers control the fox numbers by shooting.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Palo1, you are clearly passionate about land management and how hunting benefits the land. However, you need to understand that people find it disgusting that foxes are chased by a pack of dogs and a whole load of horse riders with the intent of killing the fox. For the "sport". It's the enjoyment of it all that people find unpalatable. I think it would be acceptable to most people if, for the purpose of controlling fox numbers, a few estate staff and qualified marksmen (on horseback, with dogs, on foot, on quads, however they find it necessary) went out and humanely dispatched the foxes. The argument is lost when a whole bunch of paying horse riders join in for the fun of it. That's the problem as far as I can see it. I'm almost certain that it doesn't need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs. And when you call those people ignorant for feeling that way, then that says more about you than it does about them.

 

[meleeka]

Hunting foxes was a bit of a downer for the individual, but benefitted the species as a whole. Most areas now hav ea zero fox policy, whereas before they would have been permitted to have a population for the hunt.
It is a similar, although less eye catching situation as trophy hunting in Africa. (although I can't personally see why anyone would want to shoot a giraffe, for example).

It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt. How many of that thriving population were actually killed compared to how many there were? I’m pretty sure a zero tolerance hasn’t meant that foxes will die out. Those that stray into places where they are seen would be culled, but I expect plenty live quite happily and don’t cross paths with humans much at all.

I really can’t see any difference in shooting a giraffe or hunting any other animal just for fun.

 

[Wishfilly]

In the UK, the laws around research on animals absolutely accept that animals and especially mammals can feel fear and distress. There are strict rules around how long social species can be kept in isolation, for example, and for what purposes this can be done. Causing fear can be allowed if it is justified, but it is acknowledged this is negative for the animal.

I think it would be a huge step backwards for animal welfare in general if we stopped acknowledging that mammals can feel fear and distress.

I would also add that actually, for many people, the issue is not fox hunting in and of itself anymore but:

a) People blatantly breaking the law, and the police appearing to not take this seriously for a long time. Some people believed this to be due to the perception of hunting as an upper class activity.

b) People who object to the often irresponsible way that many hunts behave (e.g. allowing hounds to run onto A roads or trainlines) which causes disruption and danger to the local population. Locally, it tends to be the "trail" packs who are not fully legit who are more likely to have badly controlled hounds.

A lot of hunters try to persuade us that antis will come for other horse sports next, but IME most people who are anti hunting are not anti other horse sports, except for, in some cases, racing. A lot of them do view hunting animals with hounds as specifically and uniquely cruel.

 

[Clodagh]

It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt. How many of that thriving population were actually killed compared to how many there were? I’m pretty sure a zero tolerance hasn’t meant that foxes will die out. Those that stray into places where they are seen would be culled, but I expect plenty live quite happily and don’t cross paths with humans much at all.

I really can’t see any difference in shooting a giraffe or hunting any other animal just for fun.

It wasn’t foolproof but generally less fit ones were killed.
It also depends on the area, in remote areas like the Lakes and Exmoor hounds would go specifically after lamb killing foxes. That would be counted as targeted pest control?
There are far fewer foxes around generally (Essex) the cubs have also had a hard time with the dry springs and the collapse of the rabbit population.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It wasn’t foolproof but generally less fit ones were killed.
It also depends on the area, in remote areas like the Lakes and Exmoor hounds would go specifically after lamb killing foxes. That would be counted as targeted pest control?

This is all true.

Pre ban, following small non fashionable packs as I did, we would get asked by farmers to target a particular ‘rogue’ fox when we were out.

 

[Rowreach]

It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt.

Well yes in many cases it was, because controlling a population of any species is not about annihilating it, it's about keeping a sustainable number for the relevant environment.

Every year one of our local NT properties has to carry out a secret cull of their deer population to control numbers and remove the old and weak - but of course the general public just sees a lovely herd of deer, because imagine the outrage if they knew that Bambis were being shot.

The problem with shooting, snaring and poisoning any animal is that it is very hard to discriminate and manage. Shooting is ok provided the shot is clean and the animal is dispatched immediately, but not all foxes are that lucky. One thing about being caught by hounds is that the death is very quick, it's the chase that may not be.

But as I said before, this thread is about hunts breaking the law, not about arguing for a return to legal foxhunting - times really have moved on, and I wouldn't support it nowadays.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It’s finally been mentioned by Horse and Hound mag.

https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/leaked-webinars-were-promoting-legal-trail-hunting-731577

 

[palo1]

So the latest justification for hunting is wild animals don't feel fear, it's just a stimulus they avoid?

Isn't that the definition of fear in every animal, including man? To provide a call to action to take avoidance? Doesn't make it any nicer for a fox than a cat or dog or human.

I certainly didn't say that @ycbm. I was just presenting the views and ideas of those vets that produced the report.

@paddy555
Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting.

I agree that most people are against hunting and I would also say that most people have no clue what hunting (legal and pre-ban) actually involves/involved. (Some posters on here do understand pre-ban hunting and have informed views but far from all posters). Unfortunately if you decide to make up your mind about things without being informed that significantly lessens the strength of your argument. I don't want to chase a live animal - I do want to go trail hunting within the existing law. I don't like being told what exactly that activity is, by people who clearly don't know and who just want to exert their own, uninformed opinion. I thought it might be interesting and useful to explore some of the hackneyed expressions and opinions about hunting generally with some of the research around that, produced by professional vets. Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.
Echo chambers don't ever provide answers...

 

[palo1]

Palo1, you are clearly passionate about land management and how hunting benefits the land. However, you need to understand that people find it disgusting that foxes are chased by a pack of dogs and a whole load of horse riders with the intent of killing the fox. For the "sport". It's the enjoyment of it all that people find unpalatable. I think it would be acceptable to most people if, for the purpose of controlling fox numbers, a few estate staff and qualified marksmen (on horseback, with dogs, on foot, on quads, however they find it necessary) went out and humanely dispatched the foxes. The argument is lost when a whole bunch of paying horse riders join in for the fun of it. That's the problem as far as I can see it. I'm almost certain that it doesn't need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs. And when you call those people ignorant for feeling that way, then that says more about you than it does about them.

Thank you for your reply - I only suggest that people are ignorant because they express views and ideas that demonstrate they do not understand hunting. Your post clearly demonstrates that the anti-hunt brigade are NOT interested in foxes or animal welfare but certainly offended by those that go hunting. That is totally irrelevant to any discussion of cruelty or costs and benefits of hunting. As I have said many times before the riders following a hunt are there to watch hounds work and to cross the country as best they can and certainly it does not need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs - the huntsman and whippers in control the dogs (hounds) and the field of riders are usually at a discreet distance so that hounds can do their thing.

 

[palo1]

In the UK, the laws around research on animals absolutely accept that animals and especially mammals can feel fear and distress. There are strict rules around how long social species can be kept in isolation, for example, and for what purposes this can be done. Causing fear can be allowed if it is justified, but it is acknowledged this is negative for the animal.

I think it would be a huge step backwards for animal welfare in general if we stopped acknowledging that mammals can feel fear and distress.

I would also add that actually, for many people, the issue is not fox hunting in and of itself anymore but:

a) People blatantly breaking the law, and the police appearing to not take this seriously for a long time. Some people believed this to be due to the perception of hunting as an upper class activity.

b) People who object to the often irresponsible way that many hunts behave (e.g. allowing hounds to run onto A roads or trainlines) which causes disruption and danger to the local population. Locally, it tends to be the "trail" packs who are not fully legit who are more likely to have badly controlled hounds.

A lot of hunters try to persuade us that antis will come for other horse sports next, but IME most people who are anti hunting are not anti other horse sports, except for, in some cases, racing. A lot of them do view hunting animals with hounds as specifically and uniquely cruel.

No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans, that fear is essential for a wild animal's health and survival and that fear is beneficial within an ecosystem - just read the report to see where these things are said and what they actually mean.

You may feel that people are breaking the law/ hunting outside the law - there are convictions for that for sure, though there are more for sab/anti-hunt violence. However 2 wrongs don't make a right. I hope that the current situation does not result in all hunting folk being tarred with the 'illegal' brush, I really do as the mechanism of hunting (within the law) remains uniquely valuable to the countryside in a number of ways.

I think it is extremely likely that if hunting is completely banned then other horse sports, fishing, shooting and eventually pet ownership and land access will be contested and then removed from our culture and society. That may be seen as progress but I don't have to agree with that or facilitate it.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Thank you for your reply - I only suggest that people are ignorant because they express views and ideas that demonstrate they do not understand hunting. Your post clearly demonstrates that the anti-hunt brigade are NOT interested in foxes or animal welfare but certainly offended by those that go hunting. That is totally irrelevant to any discussion of cruelty or costs and benefits of hunting. As I have said many times before the riders following a hunt are there to watch hounds work and to cross the country as best they cam and certainly it does not need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs - the huntsman and whippers in control the dogs (hounds) and the field of riders are usually at a discreet distance so that hounds can do their thing.

I don't know if you are wilfully not taking the point, or if you generally don't understand what myself and other posters have said, but I'm not going to go through it again - except to say that my earlier post literally started out with the animal welfare angle.

 

[ycbm]

No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans

It's impossible to prove that, it's just an assertion. I see no reason at all why the chemistry which creates fear in a human, the same chemistry as creates it in all mammals, shouldn't feel exactly the same to any other mammal.

 

[ycbm]

Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.

You are failing by quite a margin to meet the standard of adult debate you requested here Palo.
.

 

[AmyMay]

I was someone who loved hunting, attended the protest rallies and was as gutted as the next when the ban came in to affect.

But my view is now completely changed. It’s not based on any science- it doesn’t need to be. Just plain old common sense and morality.

It really isn’t complicated ?

 

[Tiddlypom]

I thought it might be interesting and useful to explore some of the hackneyed expressions and opinions about hunting generally with some of the research around that, produced by professional vets. Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.

Just because they are qualified vets doesn’t mean that they aren’t barking mad and are over promoting their own personal interests.

I do not buy the premise that the hunted fox does not experience fear, certainly in the latter stages of the chase.

I have a large number of doctors in the family. I’d like to assure everyone that all doctors are in it for the benefits of their patients, but that would be a lie. Most of them are, of course (including all my rellies), but not all.

 

[Rowreach]

It's impossible to prove that, it's just an assertion. I see no reason at all why the chemistry which creates fear in a human, the same chemistry as creates it in all mammals, shouldn't feel exactly the same to any other mammal.

That's an interesting point for debate - I've no doubt there are some physiological similarities present, but really and truly a hunted animal, or a dog being frightened of fireworks for example, bears absolutely no relationship to a hunted human or a person living through the Blitz, because cognisance of a quantifiable threat exists for a person in a way it can't possibly exist for a fox.