Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[Littlelegs]

Nobody has told the foxes near us they only kill at night. They quite happily kill by day too. And I'm not prepared to feed old injured foxes, what would you do? Capture it & take it to rolfs animal rescue to see why it couldn't bear weight on one leg? And even putting that aside, its clear from your suggestion of feeding them you have no concept of how animals live & interact. Do you really see the stronger, healthier foxes saying 'no my friend, go & eat your fill, I'm healthy enough to hunt a rabbit for dinner'? It's not farthing wood, its reality. Or should I gain its trust & feed it in my presence? Great idea, then it will start approaching humans for food on housing estates & end up having that trust misplaced when someone objects. However, if its beyond you to comprehend the basic concept I am trying to explain, something my small child can understand, further debate is rather pointless.
I actually know & respect someone who lives by the rule humans have no right to kill animals. She lives by that principle to extremes. She is vegan, uses nothing that is commercially produced, & even refuses any medicines. So I respect her, despite our differing views because she is not a hypocrite. And for the record, she has always found people who buy factory farmed meat in tescos far more cruel than those who hunt. And she is as respectful of my view as I of hers. But, even she agrees with humans taking animals lives to end suffering.

 

[Shutterbug]

I am by no means anti hunting or pro hunting for that matter - I have been hunting (post ban) and had a great time chasing the scent laid down by the runner. However, I have read things which lead me to believe that some of the comments on here are not entirely the truth. For example foxes do not kill for pleasure, the entire hen coop being killed by one fox is a by product of the foxes natural instinct to kill more than it needs in order to store the rest in the event of a bad hunting night or two - if we were not keeping 20 chickens in one coop, foxes would not kill them all, they would kill what they could catch. eat some and store the remainder - the fact we have numerous chickens in a coop means the fox can get to them all as they have nowhere to run to - foxes do not kill for fun, they dont have the capacity to do so. Also, the statements about hunting keeping fox numbers down, I do believe that the figures following a study before the ban showed that hunts were responsible for less than 5% of the mortality of foxes, with most of them being cubs. As the cub mortality in foxes is quite high anyway, this is not a lot of foxes so I fail to see how hunts can be claiming to be helping a great deal keeping fox numbers down. Prior to the foot and mouth disease break out, a study was carried out that counted fox droppings in a particular area (I forget which one now) to count the number of foxes in the area - a hunting ban was in place during the break out, after which a further count was carried out and the number of droppings had not increased - they deduced from this that lack of a hunt would not mean more foxes. I have also read on these very forums, a pro hunter stating that they" don't kill that many foxes anyway"

As I said I'm not pro or anti, I'm on the fence and always have been but I cant ignore facts and statistics that I have come across over the years and everything I have seen points to hunting not being a particularly effective way of controlling fox numbers and this is something that always crops up in these discussions so I think the numbers are important - and no I didn't get them from an anti hunting website, I tend to avoid those. What I cant get my head around, and the thing that always stopped me hunting pre ban, is why do we have to make it a sport? Why is it this big social event? If hunting with dogs keeps fox numbers down and gets rid of foxes for farmers, why not just have one or two guys on horseback, with dogs out hunting them - why do we have to have a gathering of horse riders running behind the pack all excited and laughing? Wouldn't we catch and kill more foxes if we did it a bit quieter? I think this is what most people have an issue with - its not the fact that animals are needing to be culled for numbers to be kept in line, its the making it a sport while you do it that sits uncomfortably with most folk.

 

[Alec Swan]

T_a_l, that was an excellent post.

AnaV, read the post above, and then continue to read it, until it sinks in.

Alec.

 

[happyhunter123]

Just read the posts:

If you've ever seen a fox killed out hunting & not that many have, then you will know that it is a quick death, much like when my terrier kills a rat.

Simples...

The 'sport' of hunting was not in the 'kill' but the 'chase'.

Precisely-I have always said this and this is a point that must always be made. For some reason, antis can't seem to grasp this fact. If we simply wanted to kill foxes for fun, we would be perfectly happy with the Hunting Act. It, after all still allows foxes to be killed out hunting, and sometimes in a more brutal manner (shooting a running fox, or using a bird of prey is often slower and more bloody!)
If it was all about killing foxes for fun, we'd be perfectly happy for hounds to chop a fox. Or we would use sight hounds to bring the fox down within seconds. Understand?

And I have never heard any anti actually deny that the kill is slow. The faster death occurs, the better. The pain is almost certainly nulled by the effects of the hormone adrenaline-you might know this if you've ever had a scary accident.

 

[Carefreegirl]

^^^^ agree with this. Years ago I spent 2 seasons working in a hunt yard (private owner not actual Hunt) and went out twice a week from the start of Cubbing til the end of the season and only ever saw two actual dispatches. The first time I was surprised how quick it actually was and quite glad as well.

Asides from anything else I think a day out hunting is the best education for horse and rider and will always try to get a few days out with different packs each season.

 

[Star_Chaser]

Clearly you have not seen enough hunts. It happens very frequently where when a fox has been sighted the so called 'Masters' have allowed the hounds to chase the fox instead of shooting it. Only the other week when the Grove and Rufford Hunts were about they sighted a fox and a friend of mine witnessed the fox along with them run through not one but two open fields which were not occupied by any livestock so open range in which perfect to shoot it and they let the hounds chase it as not one gunshot went off. The dog got away however, it shows even if you have a list of reason for killing foxes because you believe they are pests you follow around low life people who totter around to see hounds rip foxes to shreds.

As for it being the most fun you can have on a horse? You clearly have a wild imagination of your own there if you think of hunting being the most fun you can have on a horse. It is sad how truth is many of you do go on hunts and dont actually take into consideration what goes on.

I do find the first part of your argument interesting... the distance of a man with a rifle or shotgun is relatively limited, the distance of wondering hounds in front of the huntsman with the gun, the horses and the riders some of whom maybe children and unused to the sound of a gun going off would make it DANGEROUS to actually shot the fox from a distance and leave the poor animal unlikely to be dead it would be more likely to be seriously injured leaving it at risk. It wouldn't be safe to take that shot for the fox or for the people and hounds around. It is certainly not easy to control a group of dogs the huntsmen do an admirable job but are not infallible. Then of course their is the ability of the person with the gun... NONE of us are a perfect shot.

I always find it fascinating the arguments for and against I actually did a whole years study into this at university and I must ask one question of you as this is YOUR debate on the topic so here goes:

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR SOLUTION TO MAINTAINING A HEALTHY FOX POPULATION?

given that feeding them only increases numbers as they will breed out of season. That animals not healthy cannot survive without human intervention or they suffer prior to death (usually from starvation). Survival of the fittest is the best way to cull inferior animals from a population.

Being enlightened in this matter I await your response with curiosity and am of course prepared to change my view if you are able to provide a suitable alternative. It really is very easy to be in the No Kill camp but few are able to offer a real and viable alternative when pressed.

 

[Angelbones]

''Now other animals eat and drink as much as they need to survive. They do not for no reason kill other species''

Foxes do.

Indeed, so does my terrier who occasionally fancies the odd cat or two. He does it for fun but if doing it for fun is a reason and that's ok then I guess we are all off the hook

 

[JanetGeorge]

Also, the statements about hunting keeping fox numbers down, I do believe that the figures following a study before the ban showed that hunts were responsible for less than 5% of the mortality of foxes, with most of them being cubs. As the cub mortality in foxes is quite high anyway, this is not a lot of foxes so I fail to see how hunts can be claiming to be helping a great deal keeping fox numbers down.

That particular figure is a national one - i.e. hunts kill 5% of the national fox population. It was a pretty dubious figure - but assuming it's true - consider the large areas in which there is NO foxhunting - but plenty of foxes!! A much more precise and careful study was carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust about 10 years before the ban which showed that in big shooting areas, the % of foxes killed by hunts was small - and in other areas - particularly hill countries where shooting/snaring etc were more problematic, it was up to 70% of the fox cull being done by hounds.

But hunting's primary aim is not to 'control numbers' (what equation would you use?) but to manage the fox population in a set area to the satisfaction of the local farmers and landowners! Many hunts who are 'trail-hunting' for the paying customers are still carrying out fox control for the farmers - by legal means - because that is the trade off hunts have with farmers. The hunt controls the foxes and takes the deadstock and the farmer lets the mounted followers ride over his land.

Why is it this big social event? If hunting with dogs keeps fox numbers down and gets rid of foxes for farmers, why not just have one or two guys on horseback, with dogs out hunting them - why do we have to have a gathering of horse riders running behind the pack all excited and laughing? Wouldn't we catch and kill more foxes if we did it a bit quieter?

To hunt foxes effectively (pre-ban of course) you needed at least 15-20 couple of hounds. They're big hungry animals who need a LOT of food and a LOT of exercise! The average hunt kennels employs at least 2 people full-time to look after hounds and run the flesh house. A SMALL hunt costs at least £60,000 a year to run. Without the followers, who would pay for it???

 

[VoR]

No need to, the OED does it for us!
Definition of sport
noun
[mass noun, usually with adjective] success or pleasure derived from an activity such as hunting or fishing: I have heard there is good sport to be had in Buttermere

 

[Littlelegs]

Thankyou I_s_s. And for the record, shooting Santa is fine, just don't let your dogs kill him!
I see your point hevs re it being the followers people take issue with, I do think you are probably right. Especially as they are commonly thought of as 'toffs on horses'. But imo the antis sitting down to a turkey on xmas day are no different to those that hunt boxing day. Humans do not need meat to survive, & even if we did, from the pov of not killing animals, slaughtering a cow provides more food than a bird. Yet most are quite happy for a turkey to die for their enjoyment of xmas dinner. Or a chicken for sunday lunch etc. It's an animals death for our pleasure in how it tastes. Pre ban hunt followers the pleasure was the chase, rather than the culinary enjoyment. And the big difference is, hunt followers or not, the fox would need culling anyway, so there isn't an extra death just for the followers enjoyment, which there is in food production. And the fox has a far better life & death than factory farmed animals do. However Mr & Mrs working class with their factory farmed turkey, halal slaughtered kfc bucket, factory farmed Bacon & ham aren't as easy to hate as Mr & Mrs upper class with the big house & horses. What about the average little old lady who's pet cat kills rodents & birds needlessly? Is it the fact most people understand the enjoyment of having a pet cat, or because rodents aren't as cute as foxes, or because cat owners aren't perceived as toffs, that makes hunting cruel & cat owners acceptable? The amusing thing is, hunting ime is hardly just the upper classes. I've witnessed more snobbery at the school gates than out hunting.

 

[bubbilygum]

I agree with Countryman whole heartedly. We do have a duty of care to our environment and that includes maintaining healthy populations of fox. Fox decimate other species including your wild song bird population, ground nesting birds many of whom are facing serious issues with reductions in population. A healthy fox is one that can feed itself, have you ever seen a fox that is pretty much starved to death?? I have purely because it was unable to catch and kill anything to eat and had little or no food available beyond raiding the bins. That is no life for a fox and you should not wish it on them. If you want to have other species population success or at least maintaining them at the rate they are then you have to removed SOME of the predator population. We have no wolves or other predators that would keep the fox in check we destroyed those populations so we have to take on that role - it is a duty.

If you think that all animals have a right to life you are correct they do but they also have a right to a fight for survival which is what they have always done so that they do not go into old age suffering. A quick death is much more suitable than a slow and painful one.

When you look at the other options available and if YOU ever have to do it you'll find hunting with hounds where the best of the foxes get a chance to live another day is by far the BEST option. It might not be a pleasant end but it is swift. I have to mop up other peoples messes when they fail to shoot cleanly and believe me there is nothing more upsetting than seeing a pregnant fox or one with obvious cubs or a young and healthy fox killed because there is no way for the wheat to be sorted from the chaff in the population looking through the end of a gun. The hunt have the decency to provide a breeding season to avoid killing pregnant or nursing foxes and to allow young the opportunity to mature. The gun has NO breeding season.

I don't think anyone has the right to make the decision about how an animal should be dispatched to maintain a healthy population unless you are prepared to get out there and do the job YOURSELF so that you can see first hand just how difficult it is to do. You might not like hunting but believe me its the best thing for the population. At the rate they are being shot we are decimating yet another wild population whilst leaving the town bin raiders increasing in numbers! I know what I would rather have a wild healthy fox than a townies bin bandit!

NSC, I am very much on the fence when it comes to hunting (I don't dislike it enough to protest, nor to I agree with it enough to support it), but your post made a lot of sense to me, and this is possibly one of the most valid and coherent reasonings for hunting I have heard.

My only question is regarding the bin raider foxes - if we continue to hunt foxes "in the wild" won't urban foxes become the stronger, dominant strain of fox? To an extent, by killing foxes that are still able to hunt other species for food rather than the scavengers, aren't we WEAKENING the fox population?

 

[Littlelegs]

Bubbily gum- years ago I worked on a yard not far from the kennels. So we regularly had hounds past. Also somewhere very close by, from the regularity he was spotted, a dog fox lived. He was a huge healthy specimen in the prime of life. In the years I was there, although the hounds must have scented him every time they passed, they never got close to getting him. It was not uncommon to see Mr fox calmly trotting through our fields 30mins after the hunt had passed. There was no way a cumbersome hunt was going to catch him. Yet I never saw mangy, thin old foxes regularly. The young healthy male had no need to bin raid, he could hunt. Whereas the old or injured, if the hunt didn't get them were spotted bin raiding at the local villages.

 

[bubbilygum]

Bubbily gum- years ago I worked on a yard not far from the kennels. So we regularly had hounds past. Also somewhere very close by, from the regularity he was spotted, a dog fox lived. He was a huge healthy specimen in the prime of life. In the years I was there, although the hounds must have scented him every time they passed, they never got close to getting him. It was not uncommon to see Mr fox calmly trotting through our fields 30mins after the hunt had passed. There was no way a cumbersome hunt was going to catch him. Yet I never saw mangy, thin old foxes regularly. The young healthy male had no need to bin raid, he could hunt. Whereas the old or injured, if the hunt didn't get them were spotted bin raiding at the local villages.

This works well in the countryside but what about inner cities? I lived in Cardiff for a few years and saw manky, scraggy foxes raiding bins everywhere. Of course it isn't practical to hunt these in the traditional sense (although that could be interesting!) but if we continue to hunt only those that survive in the wild, won't the bin raiders become the stronger fox? They aren't being hunted, have a food source and will breed more generations of bin raiders! Wild fox populations will continue to be controlled whilst urban fox populations will increase.

 

[Littlelegs]

Yes, I see your point regarding urban foxes. I'm not sure what the solution is, except for making sure the old or injured country foxes don't get chance to make it to towns & add to the existing problems. Although I am loving the idea of a traditional hunt through a town, that would be rather fun!

 

[Jake10]

That is not a reason.
'What gives anyone the right to deny any animal its life?'
was the question asked. Go ahead and justify hunting and assist the peril of humanity.

You could always ask a far more interesting question like:

Why humans feel they have the right to use animals in scientific research when they could use a computer simulation or another human if the end product is aimed at humans?

Or why are yellow cars so manky? And why do kids feel the need to hit each other when they see one

Fox out smarts hounds = better genes passed on = better quality of fox cubs

 

[irish_only]

Oh I know this has been done to death but it still makes good reading

Anthropomorphism................?

Oh - just thought. Why are rabbits allowed to be kept in cages until death from boredom?

 

[Star_Chaser]

My only question is regarding the bin raider foxes - if we continue to hunt foxes "in the wild" won't urban foxes become the stronger, dominant strain of fox? To an extent, by killing foxes that are still able to hunt other species for food rather than the scavengers, aren't we WEAKENING the fox population?

Its a difficult question and a valid one. In some respects better to look at them as two different subjects they face different problems and so do we in managing them.

The rural fox faces the issue of reduced food source due to our farming methods, traffic increase and current management policy. But as mentioned above a healthy dog fox in his prime is rarely dispatched by the hunt. Number will never be as significant as those in the town because of the food source available. Their management requirement is to maintain a healthy sustainable population. Take out the weak, injured, old, diseased.

The Urban fox faces no true issue on food source, although there maybe issue on territory, we throw out enough and often feed them so that they can now reproduce several times a year and not just in one season. They have significantly increased numbers which creates a pest problem for us and given their location and proximity to people also creates conflict and an issue on how to manage them safely. They do face other problems including health, injury etc. Potentially disease transmission. This is a good example of that conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10363646 it is a rare incident but increase the numbers in population and so too will our conflict with them increase.

It was interesting that in both areas there was a baying for blood on the local fox populations they changed from being angel to devil overnight. We are VERY fickle.

Like others I've seen urban foxes that would otherwise have died in pain, not the beautiful specimens that I see from the urban foxes in their prime. I prefer the latter no matter where they are. The hunt is a preferred method for me purely because it gives a good evaluation of the health of the animal. We just cannot do that with the other methods available to us. The fact that we dress for the occasion with all the pomp that goes with a days hunting may appear to be just a day out for the toffs but I prefer to see it as a form of appreciate for an adversary.

 

[Bryndu]

It is not 100 percent instinct when it comes to dogs attacking foxes

Nobody told my working collie this when he shot off after the fox screaming his head off...hackles up from head to tail....
He has never....ever chased another living thing...but I worry if he had caught up with Mr Fox...I would be at the vet right now having stitches in my boy

Bryndu

 

[Star_Chaser]

That particular figure is a national one - i.e. hunts kill 5% of the national fox population. It was a pretty dubious figure - but assuming it's true - consider the large areas in which there is NO foxhunting - but plenty of foxes!! A much more precise and careful study was carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust about 10 years before the ban which showed that in big shooting areas, the % of foxes killed by hunts was small - and in other areas - particularly hill countries where shooting/snaring etc were more problematic, it was up to 70% of the fox cull being done by hounds.

But hunting's primary aim is not to 'control numbers' (what equation would you use?) but to manage the fox population in a set area to the satisfaction of the local farmers and landowners! Many hunts who are 'trail-hunting' for the paying customers are still carrying out fox control for the farmers - by legal means - because that is the trade off hunts have with farmers. The hunt controls the foxes and takes the deadstock and the farmer lets the mounted followers ride over his land.

To hunt foxes effectively (pre-ban of course) you needed at least 15-20 couple of hounds. They're big hungry animals who need a LOT of food and a LOT of exercise! The average hunt kennels employs at least 2 people full-time to look after hounds and run the flesh house. A SMALL hunt costs at least £60,000 a year to run. Without the followers, who would pay for it???

An excellent response.

 

[Star_Chaser]

I wish I'd taken a picture of the large mange (sp?) ridden fox that walked in front of my car the other week. Pitiful creature that would of been glorious if in a good healthy condition.
It stopped in the middle of the road and scratched for a good few seconds then stood back up and walked over to the other side and then stood there looking at me. I wish I'd been in OH's 4x4 as it needed putting out its misery. As I drove off I thought about him and knew that one more cold night or one more fight will give him a long slow painful death.

(excuse any typo's, on phone)

Thats what I can't bare an animal that in its prime is a beautiful thing but left to suffer is tragic, you never see someone whose anti hunting there doing what needs to be done.

 

[AnaV]

Putting an animal out of its pain (whereby it is the last resort) is alright if it is done humanely by a person or two should no help be available. Not a whole crowd of every other punter wanting to go along for an afternoon. There are charities which aim to capture wild animals and release them back into the wilderness around Britain. Want to raise money for something good organize fun rides to raise money for them. I'm sure you could all twist a leg here and there with your farmer friends.

I disagree with culling. Would you cull old, ill pensioners? I don't think so.
You find a starving fox? You can ring a wildlife sanctuary to capture it and take it back into the wild and you could have a heart to give it a few scraps for he journey. I do not see foxes, badgers and so on as pests however, if there was to be an alternative it would have to be to someone with only the best intentions and some bullets.

Those of you still trying to justify it, please save your time for if I wanted to reread any repeal acts I would have. I was curious as to how those of you immoral, heartless beings wanted to worm your way out of what you have made yourself to be.

 

[Alec Swan]

AnaV,

not that I can speak from experience, but just a thought; Have you ever tried "Mumsnet"? It'd be far more to your style, I'd have thought.

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

Alec you know you should be a comedian.

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec you know you should be a comedian.

There's a very fine line between the "Comic" and the "Concerned". You've obviously failed to grasp the distinction.

Alec.

 

[Nicnac]

Would you cull old, ill pensioners?

Yes I would actually having watched my grandmother breathe for the last 4 months culminating in her death on Christmas Eve.

That's not living - we wouldn't allow our animals to endure such indignity - so yes, I would have 'culled' her.

 

[AnaV]

Sorry to hear that.
I failed to specify 'those ill and old who could still be helped' ...not 'in pain and on their death bed where it may be of kind heart to step in'.

 

[AnaV]

You have obviously failed to grasp the concept of face icons whereby a 'Wink' face instigates humor or suggestion.

 

[Star_Chaser]

AnaV do you get the concept of WILD animal?? See a starving fox and call a rescue, honestly do you know nothing about wildlife?? A starving fox is starving for a reason usually ill health or serious injury, how are you planning to catch it?? By the time you've called this rescue the poor creature will be long gone. These are not pets and that is what you are making them.

It really is depressing that there are people like you out there who have absolutely no working concept of animal management.

Release back into the Wilderness... totally and utter madness. We have no wilderness unless you count certain parts of scotland and there is no food sustainable food source there. Rescue foxes are 'released' after they have become dependent on people for food, they are 'released' back into areas more often than not where there is no place for them either with their own kind who are territorial or by the people who live or manage the locations they released in. Your living in lala land if you think more than a small % survive after release.. and those numbers are not calculated.

Why do you feel the need to bring in the old and infirm in people to justify you argument for a wild animal and its management??? You lost your credibility doing that, keep to topic.

 

[Star_Chaser]

I do not see foxes, badgers and so on as pests however, if there was to be an alternative it would have to be to someone with only the best intentions and some bullets.

AnaV do you shoot? Have you ever used a rifle or a shotgun?

If you do not and have not then I would like to issue you with a challenge, a new years resolution if you like for yourself... and I say this as an anti that went away and DID this myself... there are various shooting schools around the country they do a taster lessons at most go and book yourself a lesson and have a go, then go and spend the day with someone who has to dispatch these creatures as part of their job (any gamekeeper, pest controller or even someone with the RSPCA or RSPB can offer you a days work experience) and then when you have seen and TRIED yourself all the possible options come back and revisit this question. Based on fact and experience not based on some wishful thinking easy option of man with a gun who will never be 100%

 

[bubbilygum]

To all of those who hunt, justify why anyone has the right to deny an animal its life?
Thank you

Those of you still trying to justify it, please save your time for if I wanted to reread any repeal acts I would have.

It is ironic that the only thing that really makes me feel like supporting hunting is antis...!