Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[AnaV]

'You have no idea about anyone'. Please don't make a presumption just because I do not know you.
After working with different people I have a fine definition of 'horseman' but I shall not share it here as it means sidetracking from this thread.

Once again...the 'Core Values' of a hunt?

 

[Nancykitt]

'You have no idea about anyone'. Please don't make a presumption just because I do not know you.
After working with different people I have a fine definition of 'horseman' but I shall not share it here as it means sidetracking from /QUOTE]

aaaaaarrrgghhhh Yet again you are missing the point completely!

I was making the point that it's wrong to infer that people don't care about animals just because they din't share your views!!! Do you understand that?

As for the 'true horseman' thing - it was you that brought it up, so if you regard it as sidetracking why mention it?

Out of interest - these few true horsemen - had any of them ever hunted? If they had, did it make them any less of a horseman? Does a person's potential to be regarded as a horseman depend upon their attitudes towards foxes?

As for the core values - they are mentioned throughout the 50- odd pages of this thread and have been highlighted by many. Why not go back and do a bit of research?

The fact is, you don't really want to know what they are. You are not in the slightest bit interested. You have made up your mind, but not content with that you have to try to 'convert' people on here. Well, don't bother. I can think for myself.

 

[AnaV]

I mentioned the horsemen point simply because I found it necessary due to the fact you kept making invalid presumptions about me and I was getting bored of waiting for a reply on the question I put forward a while back.
Both in fact, of these people I know have hunted and no it has not made them any less true for they have since then never participated in the sport due to their beliefs of its methods.

Hunting-
Is this thing, listen carefully now all of you...
which happens in nature to kill an animal for consumption.
Humans used to hunt to eat- for survival. That would be a 'Core Value' of a hunt to kill an animal to feed on. Other animals have managed to stick by the 'Core Values' of hunting for they only have one, which is to kill and eat. It is as simple as that. Nature.
Many on this thread have been proposing the point that the 'Core value' of a hunt is to kill an animal to keep their numbers down because you see their species as vermin when that is not the reason animals hunt.

Also for instance...
Why cull deer? The fact they feed on endangered plant species which are on the brink of extinction is not the job of man to interefere with. It is natures way. If we did not coexist with other animals the plant species would naturally become extinct, so why take it upon yourself to end the lives of other animals?

 

[E13]

Um, we as humans removed the deer's natural predator, thereby causing an overpopulation of deer, which causes the problems with plants. If we did not interfere, the natural predators would still be around so the deer would be naturally controlled as would the plants, so no they wouldn't become extinct. Culling is considered necessary to control population as we have removed mother nature's method of population control.

 

[YorksG]

Also for instance...
Why cull deer? The fact they feed on endangered plant species which are on the brink of extinction is not the job of man to interefere with. It is natures way. If we did not coexist with other animals the plant species would naturally become extinct, so why take it upon yourself to end the lives of other animals?[/QUOTE]

Often because the deer is actually an introduced species, an escapee from private collections in the first instance. Therefore there is nothing natural about the plant becoming extinct.

 

[AnaV]

Please take into account the whole of my arguements when answering. Such as the whole fact it is not part of a 'core value' of a hunt to kill an animal which is not needed to eat.

 

[Nancykitt]

Please take into account the whole of my arguements when answering. Such as the whole fact it is not part of a 'core value' of a hunt to kill an animal which is not needed to eat.

Actually it's very difficult to take into account 'the whole' of your arguments as the various strands are so disparate and fragmented it's impossible to gather them together into a coherent whole.

The only presumption I have made about you is that you are most definitely not interested in considering any point of view that doesn't chime with your own. If you'd have called this thread 'Tell my why you enjoy hunting but I'm going to ignore or discard any view I don't like' then that would have been much more appropriate.


Your latest tack appears to be based on some sort of 'definition' of hunting, ie, that it's about killing for food, and if it isn't for food, then it's not justified. But not everyone has to go with your definition. My neighbour's cat 'hunts', she catches mice, she doesn't eat them. She brings them into the kitchen and puts them on the floor. So does that mean she isn't hunting simply because she didn't eat what she caught?

You keep on and on and on about 'nature's way' and 'this is nature'. The truth is that the natural environment has been altered so radically over time that it HAS to be managed in order to conserve and maintain. As you yourself have pointed out, man caused a lot of problems - and while I am fully aware of the disdain you have for your own species, I would suggest that neither you nor I, as individuals, were directly responsible. But the best we can do now is to try and manage the situation as best as we can. We have to keep numbers in check and protect those things that are seriously endangered. You cannot just 'leave it to nature' because the situation simply wouldn't have arisen if predators hadn't been removed, habitats hadn't been destroyed, etc. In effect, it is not 'nature' at all.

Why 'hunt' the fox? (I put 'hunt' in inverted commas because the lampers don't say that they are 'hunting' even though they are out to kill foxes). Because the fox has no natural predator any more and the population needs to be kept in check. The over-population of foxes in some areas leads to serious problems for farmers and for other animals, such as ground nesting birds.

Why hunt the mink? Because a bunch of idiot animal rights activists decided to release them into the wild without a second thought about the consequences. The mink is not indigenous and causes massive problems in certain areas, killing all sorts of wildlife.

Why hunt the deer? The deer, like the fox, has no natural predator in this country. Also, as others have pointed out, several species of deer are not indigenous. Deer breed rapidly and overpopulation is a problem.
But wait a minute - we eat deer! I'm a big fan of venison! So, does that make it OK to shoot deer?

Or should we only eat meat that has been farmed - factory farmed, even, slaughtered in a commercial abbatoir and sent on the production line, possibly to be mixed with all sorts of things before it appears neatly wrapped on our supermarket shelves?

I've heard the anti-hunt arguments a thousand times, but what is slightly unusual about your approach is this rather strange view on eating meat, and how it's dreadful to take an animal's life in principal but OK if you're going to eat it. I have to say that's a new one on me.

However, as I keep saying, you're not interested in what anyone says unless they are on 'your side'. And the only reason I've responded is that I've got half an hour to kill before I go up and muck out.

 

[Marydoll]

Exactly, farmers and such want them gone, and whilst hunting with dogs may cause suffering, controlling fox numbers by other means is even more cruel. For example, shooting foxes can cause either an instant kill, or lengthy periods of agony for wounded animals which can die of the trauma within hours, or of secondary infection over a period of days or weeks.

Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there

 

[Marydoll]

Thats ok then SO1? the fox should be caught instead by the pack of 50 odd dogs and tossed around like a rag doll? Thats perfectly alright is it? It

Foxes hunt for survival. They will not just kill a brood of chickens for no reason. The way foxes feed is once they find a food source they will try and kill as much of it as they can. They will then eat one or two and bury the rest so they can return to it when need be. Do we not do the same? We raise cattle for ourselves, its planned out feeding. We know there will food tomorrow, the day after and the day after that.

With the brains we have we should look for ways around foxes getting poultry such as improving chicken runs, hen houses.

Sorry AnaV but thats a crock !!
Having seen a yard littered with bodies of hens and geese, that was clearly done for nothing more than the fact it could if id seen the fox id have shot it myself

 

[Nancykitt]

Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there

It's not always to do with the skill of the marksman, Marydoll - I've known some excellent marksman take a shot and the fox move slightly within a split second, meaning that they will still the fox but get a limb rather than a vital organ leading to a quick death.

That's why most pro-hunting people will say that at least if hounds manage to get a fox, it will die - foxes don't escape wounded once they have been caught by hounds.

Agree with you totally about the poultry attacks - the devastation caused by a single fox can be incredible. I can't believe the old thing about they kill everything and then return to take what they can't carry - I've no evidence of this at all.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Sorry but imo if the marksman cant dispatch with one shot he shouldnt be there

That IS cloud cuckoo land thought! We just don't have tribes of 'marksmen' running around the countryside shooting foxes! Gamekeepers can do a reasonable job - as can some 'sporting' shooters - but it can be damn hard getting a licence for a decent calibre rifle for fox control purposes. Some police forces won't go past a .22 - others MIGHT let you have a .222 if the land is suitable.

A .22 HAS to mean lots of wounded foxes - even a .222 in the hands of a good shot isn't guaranteed!

 

[Marydoll]

That IS cloud cuckoo land thought! We just don't have tribes of 'marksmen' running around the countryside shooting foxes! Gamekeepers can do a reasonable job - as can some 'sporting' shooters - but it can be damn hard getting a licence for a decent calibre rifle for fox control purposes. Some police forces won't go past a .22 - others MIGHT let you have a .222 if the land is suitable.

A .22 HAS to mean lots of wounded foxes - even a .222 in the hands of a good shot isn't guaranteed!

Youve your opinion, ive mine, my brothers and uncle can do the job no probs, if they cant dispatch it they shouldnt be there, thats my opinion

 

[AnaV]

Nancykitt-
As incoherent as you may find my arguement, I find yours. Funny how your arguement does not connect to that of others? I have not only been told that hunting kills off 'vermin' but that it has a core value still to this day? I am still waiting to hear it. The core value of a hunt is to kill another organism to consume. That is not the reason you have given me as to why hunting still occurs to this day. When humans first begun to hunt there was no predatoration absence problem for foxes meaning their population had to be maintained.

I agree the environment has to be maintained and looked after now but killing other animals is a backward mentality. How does the human race have the right to call any other organism on this planet 'vermin' or a pest when we have caused the most damage by far.

If you are so worked up about maintaining a balanced population because you deeply believe it is the role of humans to do so, why the methods you choose? It would cost less to grow grain to feed endangered bird species and monitor them than to spend thousands of pounds on dogs to kill fox and men to sit on horse (who are incapable of using a firearm to their best ability).
Why not make more stable living conditions for your poultry? We are on top of the foodchain afterall and did not get there through strength alone. The minds 'some' of us possess whilst we are on this earth should be able to prove fair justice to all other organisms without killing. If having to resort to hunting as we did back then, why, we may as well pack up our cars and modern technology and go back to live in caves.



Marydoll-
If you knew of how foxes hunt you would know that when foxes find a food source they will kill it; all of it if they can. They then take as much of it as they can and bury it, before coming back and retrieving the rest to store. It much reminds you of how we eat. We breed animals so that when need be we have them to kill and eat. Foxes survive by using the same method of planning also.

 

[Nancykitt]

I was a teacher for many years and I don't think I ever had as much difficulty getting through to anyone...

One of MY core values of hunting is conservation. Before you start telling me I'm wrong, don't bother, you stick to your view if it makes you happy but don't keep throwing the same rubbish at me. Don't you realise that if any of your supposed conservation methods worked then we would be doing them? Yes, we can keep chickens from foxes by keeping them in cages. But Imdon't agree with that, I want my chickens to be free range and that"s where the problem comes when there are too many foxes in an area.

The ground nesting birds aren't endangered because they haven't got enough 'grain', they're endangered because fox and mink eat their eggs and chicks, for goodness sake! Waders and stone curlews are insectivorous, they don't even eat grain! How stupid. I don't know which google page you got that from but don't bother with it again. The idea that feeding a prey animal will stop predation is so barmy I can't find the words to describe it. If you want to learn about such birds try the RSPB, who recommend that in areas where stone curlews nest farmers should use predator control because eggs and chick are at high risk where there is a large fox population. The RSPB is a conservation organisation.

I really have had enough of your nonsense now. You came on a hunting forum supposedly to start a reasoned discssion but your real motive is to try and 'convert people to your ridiculous way of thinking, no matter what anyone says or what anyone has experienced.

Other posters- the OP is so child-like in her approach it would not surprise me if it's a case of her having to have the last word as this will somehow make her feel she has 'won'. Well, she is welcome to the last word. The whole thing has served only to strengthen my own views.

 

[Simsar]

Predatoration...... how funny.......... making up new words the OP must be from Essex, Reem

 

[SueD]

Nancykitt-
As incoherent as you may find my arguement, I find yours. Funny how your arguement does not connect to that of others? I have not only been told that hunting kills off 'vermin' but that it has a core value still to this day? I am still waiting to hear it. The core value of a hunt is to kill another organism to consume. That is not the reason you have given me as to why hunting still occurs to this day. When humans first begun to hunt there was no predatoration absence problem for foxes meaning their population had to be maintained.

Anyone else waiting for the English version of the "debate"?
I can't make head nor tail of this pony.....

 

[AnaV]

Nancykitt- The alternative I gave to you about feeding endangered birds was a mere preposition you could say to encourage a narrow mind like yours to 'think outside the box'. I also did not at any point suggest keeping chickens in small confined spaces/cages.
You are telling me it is impossible to buy or make a large, secure run for poultry? Amusing that is, for I know of not only one but two people who have made their own large runs and have not experienced a fox issue since.

^^My post prior to this should have contained the word 'predator', I made a typing error due to the fact I was writing something slightly different before.

 

[cptrayes]

Youve your opinion, ive mine, my brothers and uncle can do the job no probs, if they cant dispatch it they shouldnt be there, thats my opinion

Plenty of good people around here to shoot foxes too Marydoll, and I've never seen a shot one still alive. This area has not been fox hunted with hounds in over 20 years, control has been by gun.

We had a couple of shooters come onto a similar discussion once a couple of years back. They were absolutely livid because they supported the fox hunters in trying to stop the ban, only to find out that they were being told that they maim foxes and leave them to a miserable death.

 

[JanetGeorge]

We had a couple of shooters come onto a similar discussion once a couple of years back. They were absolutely livid because they supported the fox hunters in trying to stop the ban, only to find out that they were being told that they maim foxes and leave them to a miserable death.

No RESPONSIBLE shooter lets a fox get away wounded if he can possibly avoid it! But there are plenty of irresponsible lads around popping off at foxes with unsuitable weapons, from too far away! Sadly, that is a FACT!

 

[cptrayes]

No RESPONSIBLE shooter lets a fox get away wounded if he can possibly avoid it! But there are plenty of irresponsible lads around popping off at foxes with unsuitable weapons, from too far away! Sadly, that is a FACT!

And they always have, even when there was fox hunting. There may even be some basis to the argument that now hunts are not conserving fox there are fewer foxes in the countryside for the irresponsible lads to maim. I've certainly heard at least one hunter claim on this forum that there are fewer around.

 

[YorksG]

And they always have, even when there was fox hunting. There may even be some basis to the argument that now hunts are not conserving fox there are FEWER foxes in the countryside for the irresponsible lads to maim.

Sadly that is not the case locally, as we have had a number of 'urban' foxes, with recently healed operation wounds, released to go on to be shot at by local lads with shotguns

 

[Nancykitt]

Nancykitt- The alternative I gave to you about feeding endangered birds was a mere preposition you could say to encourage a narrow mind like yours to 'think outside the box'. I also did not at any point suggest keeping chickens in small confined spaces/cages.
You are telling me it is impossible to buy or make a large, secure run for poultry? Amusing that is, for I know of not only one but two people who have made their own large runs and have not experienced a fox issue

A mere preposition to encourage a narrow mind like mine to think outside the box?????
Hahahahaha, yes, my narrow mind and all the narrow-minded conservationists out there! All those narrow minded ornithologists, why can't they be more creative just like you!
So the suggestion that we should protect animals from foxes by feeding them wasn't serious then?
What a pity, I'm sure that Mr Fox would thank you for proving nice fat birds to eat rather than thin ones!!

If you haven't got a valid suggestion to make, don't make one. Fact is, you haven't got the answers at all.

You'll be suggesting that I build a seven - acre pen for my sheep next. Or is that just me thinking outside the box about keeping them inside a box?

You're just hilarious, really. Just when I think you can't possibly come up with anything dafter, you do. I'm just cracking up. Excuse me while I go and feed some endangered birds...

 

[cptrayes]

Sadly that is not the case locally, as we have had a number of 'urban' foxes, with recently healed operation wounds, released to go on to be shot at by local lads with shotguns

I don't see the relevance to the hunting debate Janet, bad boys have been a problem since time immemorial.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I don't see the relevance to the hunting debate Janet, bad boys have been a problem since time immemorial.

And when foxhunting was legal, many didn't get permission to shoot on many farms! It was a polite way of telling them 'no way' - when it was your neighbour's son! If you were a hunting supporter, it was ok to say 'Sorry, no, I'd get drummed out of the hunt!' when he asked for permission (when what you would have liked to say was: "I wouldn't let you on my land wih a gun if you paid me!" - but it wouldn't be neighbourly!)

Many farmers preferred to leave fox control to the hunt - they didn't want foxes exterminated - just numbers kept in check.

And - of course - hunts found wounded foxes and despatched them! Just as they provided a tracking service when lambs were being killed - NOT as part of 'sport'. The huntsman and terrierman would take a couple of hounds around to where a lamb had been lost and track the guilty fox back to its earth - and deal with it! Foxhunting was never JUST sport - it was only 'sport' for the followers.

 

[cptrayes]

I understand your reasoning completely, thanks for that.

But I do wonder why I never see these problems around me, where there has been no hunting of fox with hounds for 20 years and more, in an area of open countryside within easy reach of exactly the kind of bad boy populations you would expect to be causing the problems. They deal drugs from a car in a layby up the road

 

[JanetGeorge]

I understand your reasoning completely, thanks for that.

But I do wonder why I never see these problems around me, where there has been no hunting of fox with hounds for 20 years and more, in an area of open countryside within easy reach of exactly the kind of bad boy populations you would expect to be causing the problems. They deal drugs from a car in a layby up the road

Ah - I'd guess you're somewhere near a busy urban area - different sort of 'bad boy' altogether. There's no MONEY in shooting foxes - the lads who are keen are farmers' sons, ag.workers' sons, etc. They think they're good (and the odd one IS a good shot) but too many don't take enough care about what they're shooting at, the distance away they are, and what's behind the quarry (if they miss!)

Thankfully I now have enough horses on my land that I can decline politely for fear of shooting by spotlight upsetting pregnant mares or youngstock. And although our local hunt IS abiding completely with the law, the fox population hasn't increased - rather it's decreased noticably - because of the number of gamekeepers around now (I have 5 shoots within earshot) and they no longer have ANY reason to go easy on foxes now the hunt isn't 'needing' them. Before the ban, gamekeepers were a bit more tolerant of foxes - and shooting and hunting worked hand in hand. Gamekeepers kept numbers down - but didn't aim to kill them ALL (as so many of their friends hunted.) Now - EVERY fox is fair game!

 

[cptrayes]

I'm on the open moorlands of a National Park Janet I don't have a neighbour in sight.

 

[happyhunter123]

I'm on the open moorlands of a National Park Janet I don't have a neighbour in sight.

Then I'm really surprised you don't have any hunting around you! Or is it just fox hunting you don't have? Which NP?

 

[cptrayes]

Some key landowners refused to allow the Staffs Moorlands, who used to hunt the area, to come across the land because they caused too many problems. This was 20 years ago and they have not been back since.

The foot beagle pack stopped with the hunting ban.

The Peak Park, western side.

 

[happyhunter123]

The foot beagle pack stopped with the hunting ban.

I think there are still beagle packs (the Colne Valley I can think of) that hunt parts of the Peak District, but maybe they don't hunt your area. What about the High Peak Harriers?
Sorry, this is irrelevant I know, but I'm just interested as I don't know this piece of country (and the packs which hunt it) very well!