Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[KEF]

You say weak and easy, don't you mean " newborn and vulnerable" ?

What does is matter how the fox selects its prey - it is an animal which acts on instinct.

 

[Luci07]

What does is matter how the fox selects its prey - it is an animal which acts on instinct.

Because the wording seemed to be disingenuous and misleading. Weak and easy suggests something that is feeble and of lesser value.

 

[KEF]

Because the wording seemed to be disingenuous and misleading. Weak and easy suggests something that is feeble and of lesser value.

I see. Of course the foxes assessment of prey will have no regard to the economic value of the prey.

 

[AnaV]

What you believe to be natural selection is not 100% natural. The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring is Natural selection. Geographical isolation is an occurrence you would class natural for the process. The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man. It would not naturally be a reason for the selection in alleles to occur. Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept. They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too. With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too. Now your aim is to ‘manage’ fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase. Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away. Ending an animal’s life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely. What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why? Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We don’t kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we don’t call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us.


^My argument which I have selected from a few pages back.^
There are a few questions in there for you to think about and answer. I have not read any answers yet, only you repeating your arguments over and over.

 

[Mossi]

And this is something that you really will have to learn to 'deal with'. It is a beautiful planet but it's not Tellytubby land, and animals - including humans - inflict pain and suffering on each other for a variety of reasons constantly. It's virtually impossible to watch an episode of any David Attenborough programme without something experiencing pain and suffering.

As for the 'sport' side of hunting - I do not, personally, see the sport as being about killing. I hunt within the law, so nothing gets killed, but I still consider my pastime to be a sport.
Live hunting, with hounds, was a method of fox control. If I was live hunting there is a chance that at some stage during the day a fox would be killed. What happens now is that nothing gets killed during the hunt, but we come home, lampers go out that evening and it's likely that a number of foxes will get killed.

As others have said, you came on this forum and posed a question, not out of genuine interest, but just to wind people up. Did you really think that the hunting folk on here would read your 'argument' and say 'Wow, hang on, she's right! I never thought of that Foxhunting is really cruel!' We've heard it all a million times before.

I was anti-hunting for most of my life and I'm sorry to say that I had a closed mind for much of that time. I now live in a rural community and keep my own livestock; I have learnt a great deal about wildlife, habitat, farm animals and conservation, mostly from the people around me - hunting folk with a strong commitment to conserving the nature and wildlife of this country.

And by the way, AnaV - the post about a fox having taken your chickens and your friend's chickens shows that you obviously do not practise what you preach re. building a secure run.

However you try to 'deal with it', the planet is full of creatures that kill and eat each other and that is horrible but a fact, it doesn't mean we have to make it worse though (and I'm not a kid, I've been on the planet a long time and experienced many things - but not hunting - not for me). I suppose some of us just can't understand how anyone can put a gun to an animals head and blast it, let dogs tear another dog (fox) apart, cut animals throats in abattoirs etc, when we couldn't do this ourselves. I don't think Ana posted to 'wind people up', it is a discussion board afterall, and heated debates often arise on them.

 

[iansmithpesty]

It must be a very sad existence going through life being 'against' things. Maybe your the same people who trawl hunting videos on utube just to leave snide comments about toffs and how evil we all are.

I really do feel sorry for people who dont hunt, shoot and fish. I would never impose my will and beliefs on you though.

 

[Mossi]

Please could you define 'things'?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Oh puhleeeze! Are you seriously suggesting that a strong healthy fox in the prime of life will decide NOT to take the easy weak lamb that's hanging around and go after more a difficult catch instead?

Of course not! Almost any fox will attack a newborn (or half-born) lamb that it comes across! But one thing I learned when working in the outback was that the infirm/injured foxes LOOK for lambing fields!

The station I worked on did a LOT of fox shooting. There was NO snaring and NO shooting with shotguns - we only used 303's. Apart from lambing time, some 10% of the foxes shot were carrying lead shot or wearing wire. Around the lambing fields, more than 60% of the foxes we shot were in that disadvantaged state!! So they were travelling in (the station was more than 12,000 acres) - attracted by smell - to the easy pickings. Healthy foxes didn't bother!

 

[Luci07]

I see. Of course the foxes assessment of prey will have no regard to the economic value of the prey.

Yes..the wording from the original post would suggest otherwise. Glad you agree!

 

[Nancykitt]

"The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man".

I think we can agree that on a global basis 'interference' is some way down the line, so this is all academic really.


"Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept."

Seems utterly barmy to me. Wittier?? More intelligent? How on earth could you know? It's not as if each fox goes through an IQ test and the outcome determines whether or not it gets hunted.

"They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too".

I think you've got this wrong as you are saying that they are stronger but more die.


"With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too".

What, they have more cubs because they're cleverer? No, it doesn't matter how clever (or initially healthy) they are, they won't breed successfully if there isn't a plentiful food supply. Hence the vast numbers of foxes in my local area.

"Now your aim is to ‘manage’ fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase".

There's got to be some sort of twisted logic here. Or am I missing something? Lampers shot seven foxes in two hours but this means that they will actually increase in number??? Again, I think you need to consider the whole food source issue.

"Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away".

See previous post about the difference between shotguns and rifles. You clearly know absolutely nothing about such things.


"Ending an animal’s life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely".

Agreed - our only bone of contention here is the perception of 'humanely'.

"What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why?"

Because it is exceptionally cruel to subject an animal to continuous agony. Or do these injured foxes with infected wounds and mangled limbs hobble around thinking 'well, at least I'm still alive!'

"Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We don’t kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we don’t call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us."

This has been explained clearly by other contributors. You are into a whole different area here and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the original question. There is no parallel between the impact of OAPs on the landscape and the issue of 'hunting for sport'. It's just daft to even bring it up.


"There are a few questions in there for you to think about and answer. I have not read any answers yet, only you repeating your arguments over and over"

Well, there you go. I've responded to every point. But it won't make the slightest difference.

You don't think that the fox population needs to be controlled.
I do.
So the question about sport doesn't even come into it. We don't even get that far.

It's been interesting in some respects but hugely frustrating in others. Go and do some PROPER research. That's what I did.

 

[AnaV]

If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations.

I was supposed to write that the fox populatons mortality rate decreases for they are more liable to escape the hounds.

Natural Selection not only allows animals to don favourable traits to survive it also increases the chance of an animal reproducing and its young surviving for they are adapted to their environment.

Do hunters not attempt shooting rabbits which flee? I have read your previous post yet you only brought up my question on pheasants.

Ok. An animal is wounded in a territorial dispute. It has a few wounds. Nothing major. It will most likely be fine tottering around continuing its life. Has it not the right to go on if it is not affected by its injuries for long?
You just assume it would have died so that you can sleep easy at night. Well that is not good enough. If the fox had escaped it would have only become weaker from the chase.

As I have said before, putting an animal to sleep is humane if it is the last resort, not because it is the easier option for the humans behalf.

How is it nothing to do with my original question? I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.

 

[happyhunter123]

AnaV, you must remember that while hunts are successful in catching the injured or sick, most foxes caught are probably perfectly healthy foxes. The difference is that with an injury or sickness, the fox is almost 100% certain to be caught, whereas there is only a one-in-three chance that a healthy fox will get caught. As there aren't that many unhealthy foxes compared to healthy ones, more healthy ones are caught. When I say injured or sick, I mean severely injured or sick (e.g a broken leg), not just some scratches and bruises from a fight!

If animals are equal to humans, surely hunting is justified-after all, many animals kill other species to protect their territory, or food sources etc.

 

[Nancykitt]

I take great exception to you stating that I think the lives of animals are 'worthless'. How dare you! You know absolutely nothing about me and the work I do for animals.

The aim of culling is to maintain a healthy population. With no apex predator, the adaptable fox - with a good food source- can breed unchecked. Surely you are not suggesting that I should simply stand by and allow the local foxes to help themselves to my livestock? I don't recall anyone saying that taking out injured foxes leaves a more intelligent population. Foxes become weakened through disease and injury, not because they are less clever than other foxes.

Shooting rabbits - my experience is that most are shot at night using the lamp, so like the fox they are stationary when shot. But again, there is quite a size difference and a rabbit is much more likely to be a quick kill from a shot. I mentioned pheasants because you seemed to have some daft notion that it is harder to shoot a bird (with a shotgun) than a moving fox (with a rifle).

The stuff about analogies with humans - they are a waste of time because FOXES ARE NOT HUMANS. Simple as that. I could go into all the complexities of this but if you cannot see the obvious - that there is essentially no comparison - then it is a waste of my time.

Your original question was 'let's justify hunting for sport (smiley face)' - look at the content above. it's not about sport, it's about the whole notion of killing. You don't think hunting is wrong because some call it sport. You think it's wrong because foxes get killed and you think they should be allowed to run around killing anything they like. Sport just isn't the issue.
I've had some interesting discussions with all manner of people over the years but this is getting really stupid now. OP is out to demonise and is coming up with all sorts of tripe in order to do so.

 

[JanetGeorge]

If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations.

I don't think anyone here thinks the lives of ANY animals are 'worthless'! Killing wounded/ill foxes leaves a HEALTHIER fox population. It has NOTHING to do with a genetic predisposition to evading hounds - any healthy, fit fox can do that unless it runs into bad luck!

Natural Selection not only allows animals to don favourable traits to survive it also increases the chance of an animal reproducing and its young surviving for they are adapted to their environment.

Natural selection takes more than one or two generations to have any effect on survival - and adaptation to a changing environment would take a lot longer!

Do hunters not attempt shooting rabbits which flee? I have read your previous post yet you only brought up my question on pheasants.

You don't listen. Shooting rabbits and pheasants with a shotgun is FAR easier as it requires far fewer pellets to bring them down. Shooting a fox with a shotgun - even at 30 yards - can result in severe injury and the fox getting away to die slowly and painfully. Shooting a moving fox with a rifle can do the same!

Ok. An animal is wounded in a territorial dispute. It has a few wounds. Nothing major. It will most likely be fine tottering around continuing its life. Has it not the right to go on if it is not affected by its injuries for long?
You just assume it would have died so that you can sleep easy at night. Well that is not good enough. If the fox had escaped it would have only become weaker from the chase.

A few minor wounds would not make a fox a natural victim to hounds! In the outback, I shot a lot of foxes that WOULD have been easy catches for hounds - and their wounds certainly weren't minor. One I particularly recall (which made me anti-snaring ever after) had the wire noose around its belly so tight that maggots were eating into the wound! I didn't have ANY trouble sleeping at night after shooting healthy foxes around the lambing fields - I saw enough of what they did to new-born lambs - but shooting THAT one made me feel good!

As I have said before, putting an animal to sleep is humane if it is the last resort, not because it is the easier option for the humans behalf.

Wrong! Too many humans can't BEAR to put a much loved pet or horse to sleep, despite the fact that it is dying slowly and in pain! It's too HARD for them to do the right thing! When you care about your animals, a decision to PTS FOR THE ANIMAL'S SAKE is bloody hard - it's never 'easy'!

I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.

Yep - I assumed you were an AR nutter! In many ways, animals are treated FAR better than humans. I watched both my father and my father-in-law die horribly painful and prolonged deaths from incurable illnesses! If I'd done the only humane thing, and helped them go more quickly, I'd have been prosecuted for murder! If I left one of my horses to die so slowly and in so much pain, I'd also be prosecuted - but for cruelty!

 

[Bourbons]

^^This!

Good grief, this thread has gone around in so many circles I am getting dizzy.

OP - you appear to purposely not be reading or twisting what people are saying for the sake of being arguementaive. There have been many fantastic replies from hunting folk who have politley answered your questions, but you have failed to acknowledge their replies and have completely taken them out of context.

I think we have established that you do not agree with hunting. I think it is time that you should acknowledge that their are many people that do, and have provided pretty solid reasons as to why.

Either you are a troll or an incredibly bored, argumentative anti who has nothing better to do.

 

[Countryman]

Yes, the quicker foxes usually escape and so yes over time the fox population may get fitter a d faster. This does not mean number of kills will decrease, because hunts will proportionately breed faster hounds!

 

[Littlelegs]

To answer your argument regarding pets & injured foxes anaV, which yet again demonstrates your lack of ability to grasp the concept of wildlife, I shall try to explain. Pets & domesticated animals often have injuries & illnesses which are treated successfully, which a wild animal would not survive. It's simple & relatively stress free to obtain medical help for a domesticated animal, & provide things like food, water & shelter until such time it is healthy again. It's not as simple with a wild animal. If for instance a pet cat or dog gets a lame infected leg as the result of a bite from another animal, most of us would clean the wound, visit the vets & then care for the wound, provide a warm bed, hide antibiotics in food we provide, place fresh water nearby etc. A fox however is entirely different. Even examining the wound yourself would be extremely stressful, let alone several hours of poking & prodding by humans. And to nurse it you'd have to tame it. A good few years back we found an urban fox with wire wrapped round its leg & trailing along behind, eating from the neighbours bin. It took 3 of us & several towels over its head to prevent us being bitten just to untangle it. Although it had bald patches, it wasn't injured & we let it go. But still it was scared witless at the human interaction. Now if that wound had required veterinary treatment at a surgery, imo given the stress this would cause, pts is kinder. I think where animals are concerned, the mental well being is equally important to the physical well being. So just like I don't condone the owner who puts an old animal through extensive, intrusive treatment to the detriment of its quality of life, needlessly stressing wild animals to satisfy some bizarre need to 'rescue' is also not my idea of animal welfare. We should always balance the physical & mental needs. And if we do, then we have to accept that wild animals die of things pets are easily treated for.

 

[KEF]

It must be a very sad existence going through life being 'against' things. Maybe your the same people who trawl hunting videos on utube just to leave snide comments about toffs and how evil we all are.

I really do feel sorry for people who dont hunt, shoot and fish. I would never impose my will and beliefs on you though.

But you do impose your beliefs on others...if you hunt, you disrupt the lives of those that live in the area...it is you that imposes your actions/views on others not the other way around.

 

[Alec Swan]

Can anyone explain to me, just why there are those who come on to a pro-hunting forum, to simply disagree? I can only imagine that those who are so opposed to hunting either think that they'll manage to persuade those of us who see the benefits to hunting, that we are in fact quite wrong, and despite our, mostly, factual and well reasoned responses, that they may be able to change our minds, or they're simply here in an attempt to provoke and anger, without any other intention.

Those who are so opposed to hunting seem unable to gather any factual or reasoned arguments, they make claims which verge on the ridiculous, and yet we still attempt to defend our law abiding ways.

We attempt to educate the idiot, and that's where we've gone wrong. There are those who've kept an open mind, who've listened, and though never wishing to hunt, have accepted that those who do, speak with experience, but there's a small nucleus of clowns, and I'd suggest that we leave them to their delusions.

Alec.

 

[KEF]

Can anyone explain to me, just why there are those who come on to a pro-hunting forum, to simply disagree? I can only imagine that those who are so opposed to hunting either think that they'll manage to persuade those of us who see the benefits to hunting, that we are in fact quite wrong, and despite our, mostly, factual and well reasoned responses, that they may be able to change our minds, or they're simply here in an attempt to provoke and anger, without any other intention.

Those who are so opposed to hunting seem unable to gather any factual or reasoned arguments, they make claims which verge on the ridiculous, and yet we still attempt to defend our law abiding ways.

We attempt to educate the idiot, and that's where we've gone wrong. There are those who've kept an open mind, who've listened, and though never wishing to hunt, have accepted that those who do, speak with experience, but there's a small nucleus of clowns, and I'd suggest that we leave them to their delusions.

Alec.

I can only speak for myself...I am open minded and am happy to be convinced to an alternative position. On this occassion my mind has not been changed (on the principle issue) but what I am realising (and this is not intended to be patronising) is that there are those that hunt that have well considered reasons for doing so...its a shame that those that I have witnessed hunting do not portray this. The status quo will be maintained (for the time being at least) so it is for those that hunt to convince others and not the other way around.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I can only speak for myself...I am open minded and am happy to be convinced to an alternative position. On this occassion my mind has not been changed (on the principle issue) but what I am realising (and this is not intended to be patronising) is that there are those that hunt that have well considered reasons for doing so...its a shame that those that I have witnessed hunting do not portray this. The status quo will be maintained (for the time being at least) so it is for those that hunt to convince others and not the other way around.

You're not wrong, KEF! I've seen some idiots out hunting - AND had 'professonal' dealings with some MFH's - that have made me wonder why I bother defending hunting. Particularly as I don't hunt any more myself! So - for me - defending hunting is also a matter of principle! (And I don't hesitate to give a good mouthful to those I see out hunting who ARE letting the side down!)

 

[Nancykitt]

Once again, JG, you are spot on. I went out a few times with a particular hunt and I did not like the attitude of several individuals one bit. I have been out with a few others and found their attitude to be totally different. Although I will always defend foxhunting in principle, I feel that a few individuals involved do need taking to task as they play straight into the hands of the anit-hunt movement.

As far as the whole thread is concerned, it's very much like the writer Stephen Covey said - "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply". If certain individuals believe that the fox population should simply be left alone, then any subsequent argument about methods of control is redundant.

 

[iansmithpesty]

But you do impose your beliefs on others...if you hunt, you disrupt the lives of those that live in the area...it is you that imposes your actions/views on others not the other way around.

What a twisted way of seeing things.

 

[happyhunter123]

You're not wrong, KEF! I've seen some idiots out hunting

Those who behave in an arrogant, reckless or violent manner are just as great enemies of hunting as the antis themselves. They are also, thankfully, in the minority!

 

[Littlelegs]

Tbf though kef, the same could be said of many activities done by those in all walks of life. Nearly all of us disrupt others going about their daily lives, whether we hunt or not. Along with many others I drive my daughter to school, its not possible to walk home for the car before going to work, & thus I contribute to disrupting traffic. When its harvest time I avoid certain hacks because of busy farmers. Likewise when bt dug up a local road. Or when my daughter & other local kids are disrupting the peace playing out on summer eves. Next door building an extension was disruptive. Sometimes our pursuits inconvenience others, othertimes we ourselves are inconvenienced by others doing what they choose. It's not unique to hunting, its just part & parcel of living with each other.

 

[bubbilygum]

If you read some of the other posts -by others like you who think the lives of animals are worthless- you will find that they have told me killing weaker foxes leaves a stronger fox population which can find food and pass on its traits (of outsmarting hounds) to future generations.

If you read some of the other posts you would see that nobody here has said the lives of animals are worthless...

 

[Vulpinator]

How is it nothing to do with my original question? I have asked a fair amount of them relating to humans so that you would open you minds and rack your brains. I see animals equal to humans. The comparison does have a parallel for humans are part of the Animalia kingdom along with animals.

AnaV. can you tell me what responsibilities animals have as to my un university educated tractor driving mind I thought to have rights you first have to have responsibilities.

To what extent is there any rational thought gone into, "animals are equal to humans" where is the consequencal action for the wrongs animals do, and if this a negative? then should consequences be removed from humans?

I can read and I can write, But Ican drive a tractor.

 

[micki]

Can someone please answer this question for me. Everyone keeps saying that you can no longer kill the fox with the hounds, the hunting ban that now exists, but through out this thread people are still saying it is quicker to kill the fox with hounds which it sounds like is still happening(by the sound of people are saying on here). What happened to the ban?
The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?

 

[bubbilygum]

Can someone please answer this question for me. Everyone keeps saying that you can no longer kill the fox with the hounds, the hunting ban that now exists, but through out this thread people are still saying it is quicker to kill the fox with hounds which it sounds like is still happening(by the sound of people are saying on here). What happened to the ban?
The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?

I think the points being made regarding hunting foxes with dogs aren't necessarily saying it is still common practice but that they feel it is a quicker, ore humane method of fox control than the methods being used now.

 

[JanetGeorge]

The hunt is around here where i live quite regularly and i can honestly say i haven't heard the shotgun once when they are here, which is as i understand it is what they are supposed to kill the fox with. What i understood is the hounds are supposed to flush out the fox and then it is supposed to be shot. So have i understood the ban wrong or what?

There are various ways of hunting within the law. The first - and most obvious - is to hunt a trail. The trails are laid to simulate a fox hunt (rather than they type of 'drag' set by draghunting packs which tend to go faster and hunt fixed drags in relatively straight lines.

You can flush foxes to shotguns, or to a bird of prey.