Ipsos mori poll

[MillyMoomie]

For pity's sake, fox hunting is banned. Hunting is more popular than ever, there is evidence to strongly suggest this is because more people now feel comfortable with the idea. Things change, it happens every day.
Both sides can release distorted polls any time they like but it will be extremely unlikely that the ban will be repealed. Pretty sure everyone knows that but it's human nature to 'be right'. Pathetic

 

[RunToEarth]

Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!

I agree - I stopped "debating" fox hunting ages ago because most people are just so badly informed on anything to do with it, it would be a waste of my breath.

I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products.

As for the veggie who refuses to eat meat on ethical grounds and still eats dairy products and no doubt eggs - absolutely laughable and proves my point of people being badly informed/ignorant to suit their own cause. The really ironic thing is, if there weren't a wealth of bunny huggers refusing to eat veal on "ethical" grounds there would be a market for it and we would not be shooting the large amount of bull calves which we do in the dairy industry.

 

[Templebar]

To inform those that believe all foxes that go to ground are dug out and shot, you are indeed wrong, i am a daughter of a farming family and do go hunting myself, before the ban was put in place even then no foxes were dug out and shot as we had no problem with them in our line of farming. It was purely the land owners decision to have foxes dug out and shot and that was to be done if there was a problem with them.

 

[Countryman]

To inform those that believe all foxes that go to ground are dug out and shot, you are indeed wrong, i am a daughter of a farming family and do go hunting myself, before the ban was put in place even then no foxes were dug out and shot as we had no problem with them in our line of farming. It was purely the land owners decision to have foxes dug out and shot and that was to be done if there was a problem with them.

Templebar has it exactly right. (This is all pre-ban obviously). Digging out is the pest control aspect of Hunting - it is not the sport side, and it is not the selective management of a wild population side. It is pest control. By varying the proportion of foxes put to ground that you dig out and shoot, you can roughly control the size of the fox population of an area - if it is an area with too many foxes, you cull more, if it is an area with a lack of foxes, you dig none.

 

[fburton]

They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die.

Does that mean the fox population is lower than it was before?

(I agree the LACS poll is highly questionable.)

 

[marianne1981]

OK, but when fox hunting started, there were no cars on the roads that kill thousands each year. Surely that is enough? I had been lead to believe that hunts, in the big scheme of things, did not kill nearly enough to make any difference in their overall population and that it is a very inefficient method of pest control? Run to Earth what is wrong in me eating free range eggs (and I dont mean barn fresh, true free range).

 

[Countryman]

No, the number of foxes killed by cars is not enough to reduce the population. In any case, it would be a very haphazard way of doing things-hoping that each year enough would be killed by cars. Certainly, in some areas, like motorway embankments, it might be enough, but everywhere else, no.

The idea that hunts do not enough to make any difference to the overall population is a false one, though it may have been true a few hundred years ago, and doubtless, many antis would like to imagine it is true. What is true is that the main aim of hunting is not to cull, it is not to drastically reduce the population - it is mostly about selective management of a fox population, but there are two other key aspects - pest control, and sport. The sport is provided by the thrill of hard riding across lovely countryside and watching hounds work. The pest control is not provided directly by ordinary hunting-it is carried out largely through digging out foxes who have been put to ground. Thus, you can reduce the population - while some foxes would be killed by hounds anyway, in a heavily overfoxed country, you can dig lots of foxes that go to ground. In a part of the country where there are few foxes, you can leave most of them.

Remember, the acceptable level of fox density varies from place to place, depending on what the land is used for and what food sources are available to the fox. In a patch of scrubland in a city railway embankment, a large number of foxes could be supported, while in the sparse Scottish highlands, very few can be.

My point is, hunts can and do impact on the overall fox population, and the pest control element of hunting, is largely provided by digging out.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

My point is, hunts can and do impact on the overall fox population, and the pest control element of hunting, is largely provided by digging out.

Whilst I'll agree with you that hunting obviously impacts on a rural fox population, it probably wouldn't be simply because of the numbers that are killed by hounds. I'll admit to having no supporting evidence, but it's my belief that when our vulpine population was hunted, and land was maintained for just that purpose, then we had a vibrant and comparatively healthy population. Now that everyone and his neighbour has a c/f .22, and is out at all times of the night, it seems that we now actually have a greater population, and the overall health seems to have declined.

Alec.

 

[Darremi]

OK, but when fox hunting started, there were no cars on the roads that kill thousands each year. Surely that is enough? I had been lead to believe that hunts, in the big scheme of things, did not kill nearly enough to make any difference in their overall population and that it is a very inefficient method of pest control? Run to Earth what is wrong in me eating free range eggs (and I dont mean barn fresh, true free range).

Emm...you do realise that animals are sometimes kept in captivity in less than savoury conditions in order to produce dairy products?? Just because it is kept alive does not mean the animal had a happy existence...

 

[fburton]

No, the number of foxes killed by cars is not enough to reduce the population. In any case, it would be a very haphazard way of doing things-hoping that each year enough would be killed by cars. Certainly, in some areas, like motorway embankments, it might be enough, but everywhere else, no.

Isn't the point that, barring a thorough culling, mere decimation of the fox population (by whatever means) doesn't produce any lasting reduction because the numbers recover within a year or two? Conversely, the population doesn't "explode", i.e. increase exponentially and/or indefinitely, if mortality is reduced (by whatever means) for precisely the reason you gave - the availability of food sources in any given habitat type - along with the limiting effect of the foxes' territorial lifestyle.

 

[Orangehorse]

Years and years and years ago, long before the ban, but there was plenty of opposition to hunting I was asked what I thought would be the future.

I replied that I thought all hunts would be drag/trail hunts as the countryside was getting so overpopulated and a trail means you know where the hounds are going to run, but that the hunts would still be fox control organisations, so would be available to farmers to go and kill by digging out and shooting any problem foxes. Not that far from what has happened.

I see far fewer foxes out and about since the ban, but the local gamekeepers see to it that they are kept very well controlled as they are a real menace to shooting.

Our local hunt always starts the day saying that they will be hunting within the law. Exactly what that means I don't know; the day doesn't seem to be that much different, but I am only an occasional observer.

 

[Alec Swan]

Regardless of the claims of the 'keeper, the fox needs a degree of tacit protection. That's the way that it's always been.

Alec.

 

[VoR]

I am aware of areas around us where the fox population has been virtually wiped out in the last few years as 'over-zealous', usually young and gung-ho shooters are let loose across land as we, the hunt are not able to do the job we once did for farmers. The most I've heard of so far is 35 foxes shot and killed (no details of how many wounded and dying a slow lingering death) in a week by one 'young-gun', not selective management, just wholesale slaughter, would this have happened if fox-hunting in its true form was still allowed????

 

[marianne1981]

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?

 

[Alec Swan]

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?

Tell me, at what stage has VoR mentioned foxes going to ground, and being dug out? As part of your learning curve, allow me to explain to you that foxes which have gone to ground, are generally given best, and it's only in areas where there is serious and unacceptable vulpine depredation where the land owner will request that foxes be killed, rather than providing sport, or in areas where the population has grown beyond a manageable level.

Alec.

 

[Countryman]

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?

Marianne, foxhunting in itself is indeed selective management. The hounds mostly catch the ill, weak and old.

However, Terrierwork is not selective management. This is why, in times gone by, many hunts used to "stop up" earths by putting a bundle of twigs in their entrance, to discourage foxes from going to ground, because it was - accurately - not seen as sporting or selective, to dig them out.

Nowadays however, hunting provides a pest control function *in addition* to its main role as the selective manager of the fox population.

This pest control function is just that - pest control. This element of it is not selective management, and as such, is not selective. Essentially, hounds sometimes put foxes to ground. As you say, whether or not a fox goes to ground is not terribly selective. In many cases, the fox will be left alone. Do not assume that all, or even most, foxes put to ground are dug. However, in some cases, particularly in areas where the hunt, as managers of the fox population, agree that there are too many foxes, or where the farmers say there are too many, or on a shooting estate where the keepers expressly demand all foxes put to ground are shot; then, the terrierman may dig out a fox and shoot it.

I may not have been entirely clear, but I hope you have caught my drift so to speak. Hunting provides two quite different aspects of fox management - selective management of the population, and pest control where the landowner requests it due to the unsustainably high fox population in that area.

EDIT: Just to clarify that the unselective pest control service given to landowners suffering from unsustainably high populations, is terrierwork. My point is, it is a mistake to conflate hunting and putting foxes to ground with terrierwork. Terrierwork is a non-selective method of pest control designed to reduce a fox population.

 

[marianne1981]

Thanks Countryman for being so patient with me! While I will probably never agree with hunting, you put a good case forward.

 

[RunToEarth]

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?

In addition to countryman's post, I think you also have to attribute the effectiveness of having a season. Foxhunting has always provided a season of sport and a closed season for breeding. It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.

 

[Patterdale]

In addition to countryman's post, I think you also have to attribute the effectiveness of having a season. Foxhunting has always provided a season of sport and a closed season for breeding. It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.

Very good point.

 

[Alec Swan]

....... It is very telling (and not in a positive light) that so many keepers are willing to snare in late spring.

Unfortunately, as the vixen will produce her cubs, just when ground nesting birds are sitting, or importantly, brooding their young, and at the greatest risk, so that is the most vital time for predator control. That's the argument that the 'keeper in me will promote, whilst the person who would support the argument of the Huntsman, would say that there have historically been many first class shoots where the fox has received total protection, and that as ground is now rarely 'keepered to the level which it once was, so vermin control is an irrelevance, one would simply rear more game, and to compensate for the predation of vermin.

It's a tricky one, because for the more game that we rear, and the numbers are now approaching an obscenity, in my view, so with a more readily available food supply, we're going to see an increase in vermin numbers, and so we rear more game, and so we go round in circles!

Where wildlife management is crucial, and not just for the rearing of game, but in those areas where all wild birds are part of a conservation plan, then the killing of foxes, along with that awful creature, the Carrion Crow, is vital. Our wild Grey Partridge for instance, cannot be successfully reared and released, in an artificial sense, so with the issuing of blanket laws, we would smite the just along with the unjust, and therein lies the problem, I think.

My honest view is that 'generally', the snaring of any creature is a crime against, and sets back the arguments for wildlife management, and as a 'keeper I snared more than I care to remember.

Were those who are so opposed to foxhunting, to channel their efforts in to the banning of ALL snaring activities, then I would suggest that their efforts would garner more public support, than their opposition to Hounds. The problem with that though, is that there are very few perceived upper class twits who set snares, so where would the accolades sit?

Alec.

 

[Patterdale]

I personally know a shoot that puts down around 60,000 birds a year. For the keepers on this estate, shooting or snaring a fox means instant dismissal.
Now, I am sure there is the odd 'accident' from a frustrated keeper, but there are absolutely NO snares.
The hunt and shoot have a great working relationship, and obviously the shoot is very successful.

The reason that I believe this can happen, is that there is very good communication and understanding between the two parties.
It's a brilliant model of how commercial shooting and hunting can coexist happily.

(But don't get me started on my opinion of the moralities of driven game shooting....!)

 

[RunToEarth]

It's a tricky one, because for the more game that we rear, and the numbers are now approaching an obscenity, in my view, so with a more readily available food supply, we're going to see an increase in vermin numbers, and so we rear more game, and so we go round in circles!


Alec.

I do think pre ban a lot of hunts and shoots did coexist without any real issues, the problem around us is the amount of much smaller syndicate shoots which appear to be...everywhere.

I love my shooting as much as I love my hunting and I have a huge respect for the keepers who do the job, I just don't like the thought of snaring sucked vixens and I don't think I will ever really get over that as I have a huge respect for the fox.

I do think snaring on released shoots is a bit lazy, on grouse moors I can understand there is a much greater need.

 

[Countryman]

I personally know a shoot that puts down around 60,000 birds a year. For the keepers on this estate, shooting or snaring a fox means instant dismissal.
Now, I am sure there is the odd 'accident' from a frustrated keeper, but there are absolutely NO snares.
The hunt and shoot have a great working relationship, and obviously the shoot is very successful.

The reason that I believe this can happen, is that there is very good communication and understanding between the two parties.
It's a brilliant model of how commercial shooting and hunting can coexist happily.

This sounds really brilliant, and an example that many could do well to follow. The situation has definitely got worse post-ban, because the larger shoots and the farmers are understandably reluctant to leave the job of fox control to the hunt, and in some places, almost total extermination has resulted. The problem is, as Alec says, many keepers will snare during the birth-season, and many will also use this opportunity to dig out a vixen and all of her cubs in one fell swoop. I agree with what RunToEarth says re the smaller shoots - I can totally understand why they feel they have to do such intensive predator control, as they may only have a few days a year, and each lost pheasant means a lot to them; but with often just a couple of copses owned, it is very easy for them to ensure any fox in the vicinity is called out and lamped.

 

[Alec Swan]

I once worked under a Head keeper who's father had been Head at Ragley Hall. A vixen had acquired the knack of lifting birds from their eggs (greys that is), and when enough was enough, she was shot, and so was the dog fox, just to be certain! Her cubs at the time would have been probably 6-8 weeks of age, I expect, so they were fed at the earth, and daily. Perhaps a couple of pigeons or a rabbit, or maybe even a hare, if they were lucky. The Head who I worked under was only a lad at the time, and a part of his duties was to feed the cubs. He never got to actually handle them, but by being quiet they often came out to greet him and grab their evening meal!!

I've fed a wood in the morning and known for certain that I've had 1000 birds on the feed ride. That same wood has been drawn by Hounds at 11:00 and barely a bird has been put to flight. Hounds don't disturb pheasants, because they're not hunting them. It's that simple.

Shooting and Hunting can and must work together, field sports is the umbrella under which we all shelter.

Alec.

 

[VoR]

VOR, maybe I am missing something, but how is foxhunting selective management when any old fox you have chased has gone to ground, and is dug out and killed? The fact that it has gone to ground doesnt mean it is old, ill or weak, just a fox trying to get to safety?

Have read my post again and can't see any reference to foxes that have gone to ground, please see previous posts which quite adequately answer this issue.
The fact is that a hunt in an area hunting say, twice a week might kill 4 or 5 foxes at best and those that are NOT killed are free. A 'shootist' can shoot every night and kill 4, 5 or more foxes a night and some of those that are NOT killed will be wounded and die a long slow death, far longer and slower than the average 17 minute (apparently there has been a study!) hunt by hounds and quick death at the end.
So, the fox population survives with traditional hunting, without out it farmers call in the guns and the population is wiped out/reduced by greater numbers than would be expected under traditional hunting.
Are the antis unaware of this or do they just turn a blind eye as their true motivation isn't cruelty or protection of wildlife but some misplaced belief that hunting is a sport for rich toffs so should be stopped? Just a question as the hunting act (in our area) has failed to protect foxes and led to the death of many more than pre.ban and every anti.hunt forum/website seems to fall back on the description of hunters as 'Toffs' and refers to their apparent 'wealth'!

 

[s4sugar]

Reading this thread reminded me of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

 

[VoR]

Reading this thread reminded me of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Ahhh, 'Yes Minister', pure genius!