AnaV
Well-Known Member
Thus why I am arising the controversial issue with these hunting supporters and partakers here on the Horse and Hound forum.
Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)
- Thread starter AnaV
- Start date
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
I really don't mind if someone with no knowledge of wildlife & even less ability to have reasonable debate considers me silly & pedantic. That's preferable to actually being stupid & misinformed.
arizonahoney
Well-Known Member
Sorry to be pedantic, but that's not even grammatical...
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Ah, right, so fox control isn't necessary as it seems that the fox population is 'self regulating'.
And it seems that those of us who have livestock have to 'deal with it' by building the equivalent of Alcatraz for our chickens.
What about other livestock? And what about my pet cat, killed by a fox a few years ago?
Or presumably I should only let me cats out in a pen because they have less of a right to live than the foxes? What about lambs? Or should we start penning our sheep too, just so that the foxes can have the run of the countryside?
What about other wildlife? What about ground-nesting birds, some of which have to be protected from foxes (by various means) as their numbers are getting dangerously low? Or do they have less of a right to live than the fox?
One year the local foxes had a very particularly successful breeding season. They fed from the bins on the neighbouring housing estate, and then there were the idiots that were feeding them. The result was that we were overrun with foxes - it was almost impossible to go down the lane without seeing at least one, even in broad daylight. They caused huge problems. The lampers went out one night and shot a record number. None of them were particularly healthy and most were emaciated. Is this really acceptable?
Please do not tell me that foxes do not need controlling as my own experience tells me otherwise. Self-regulating fox populations? Oh please....
And it seems that those of us who have livestock have to 'deal with it' by building the equivalent of Alcatraz for our chickens.
What about other livestock? And what about my pet cat, killed by a fox a few years ago?
Or presumably I should only let me cats out in a pen because they have less of a right to live than the foxes? What about lambs? Or should we start penning our sheep too, just so that the foxes can have the run of the countryside?
What about other wildlife? What about ground-nesting birds, some of which have to be protected from foxes (by various means) as their numbers are getting dangerously low? Or do they have less of a right to live than the fox?
One year the local foxes had a very particularly successful breeding season. They fed from the bins on the neighbouring housing estate, and then there were the idiots that were feeding them. The result was that we were overrun with foxes - it was almost impossible to go down the lane without seeing at least one, even in broad daylight. They caused huge problems. The lampers went out one night and shot a record number. None of them were particularly healthy and most were emaciated. Is this really acceptable?
Please do not tell me that foxes do not need controlling as my own experience tells me otherwise. Self-regulating fox populations? Oh please....
bubbilygum
Well-Known Member
Oh god, there is a whole different debate there: abortion, euthanasia, DNRs, life support machines...
Animals and people aren't one of the same. People kill animals for many reasons. Equally animals don't have any understanding of compassionate care and will kill the weak themselves or accept a predator will. It is perfectly natural for an animal to be killed by another animal higher up the food chain. We have killed the foxes only natural predators.
My point was that everyone draws the line somewhere at how much we interfere with wild animals. Is it any more cruel to kill a weak fox with dogs than to rehabilitate it only for it to become weak again due to it being unable to fend for itself? Of course that isn't always the case but who is to know?
bubbilygum
Well-Known Member
No! If you find a starving or injured fox you must take it to a wildlife rescue ASAP!
{100649}
...
Well said Nancykitt
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Any reasonable wildlife rehabilitation centre has wildlife vets who make that decision as to whether each individual animal will be capable of fending for itself succesfully once again. Otherwise they are pts. Of course you get these ramshackle make shift god awful 'rescue centres' who take anything in and 'rehabilitate it for release' (often with no vet involved).
With regard the killing debate, ie food chain, I was not debating the killing of animals. The 'killing' of animals is necessary in many cases. It is how it's done that should be considered.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Some lampers were telling us that one night they were asked by a farmer to go out into a particular area where a lot of foxes had been seen. Within minutes, a fox appeared and was shot. Then another, then another. The lampers said that these foxes weren't behaving like 'normal' wild foxes. They found out the next day that all of these foxes were injured/sick animals that had been taken to centres to be treated and then re-released - only to be shot dead.
How on earth can it be compassionate to put a wild animal through the stress of being handled and kept in captivity, then to be released and shot? Absolute madness.
How on earth can it be compassionate to put a wild animal through the stress of being handled and kept in captivity, then to be released and shot? Absolute madness.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Oh, as if that story isn't going to be warped and bias!
Anyway, that is why, like I say, any REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE wildlife centre has wildlife vets who make the decision as to whether they are suitable for release and to thrive after captivity. There are certain species of animals that are known not to do well in that area. Also, any decent centre will have extensive and well designed facilities to ensure the most minimal handling and human contact with the wild animal as possible.
Molasses
Well-Known Member
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
It's quite simple Nancy kitt. It's called turning a blind eye. Taking the poor injured/ill fox to a rescue or feeding it makes you feel all fluffy inside, & you can ignore reality, & feel like a much better person than the person who actually has the decency to put the poor thing out of its misery. As to the problem of foxes versus farm animals, for plenty of antis it isn't one. Ime the majority couldn't care less how their food was raised, so if everything was intensively farmed foxes wouldn't be an issue for farmers.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Hey AnaV
People hunt
Deal with it
Absolutely!
As for my supposedly biased account of the lampers shooting the 'rescue' foxes - shooting foxes is perfectly legal. Therefore, any person or organisation who treats a fox and re-releases it must know that there is a definite chance that it will be killed by some means or other. However much care is taken to prevent a wild animal becoming stressed, it will be impossible to prevent this. I therefore question the practice of treating a sick wild animal that stands a chance of being culled soon afterwards - or even worse, according to the OP, dying at the claws and teeth of its own species!
You are right, T_a_l, most of the antis I'm sure would rather see all farm animals raised indoors in totally unnatural - and sometimes inhumane - conditions, just so that the foxes could have total freedom. Let's get our priorities right, shall we?
Last edited:
AnaV
Well-Known Member
So by killing the weaker, less witty foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, more intelligent ones to attack your poultry and livestock?
Countryman
Well-Known Member
It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull that are most likely to go for the easy prey such as poultry! Face it, hunting is the only selective way of managing the fox population - not culling as many as possible, but taking out the weak and old.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Take note, OP, this has definitely been my experience.
Molasses
Well-Known Member
Oh my dear you are missing the greater point.
Hunts folk no matter their means or target love the countryside for that is their domain. We love the early misty morning, we love the sight of healthy stock, wild life and peace for that is where hunting flourishes. Of course we want to see a healthy population of any animal. For we love nature, hard that that might be for you to understand. That is the magic of it. If you have ever looked down the gun sight at a deer through the mist or given chase to a hare or fox, then you will know what is to be alive and celebrate the balance and know that all things pass but all things are connected. I wish I had a way with words to explain it, until then I recommend you try otherwise you are just judging
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
As I've said earlier, the stronger, healthier foxes were never much of an issue. They can find ample food without risking daylight raids on hen coops etc. A starving fox will though. Our now departed emaciated fox would dart into the barn when we were turning out every am, & exit as we returned. Only a starving fox would risk that for the chance of spilt pony nuts, & a bowl of dry cat food. Especially with a large dog on the loose.
Countryman
Well-Known Member
As Molasses says, hunting people ultimately want the best for the countryside and their quarry species. I still get a thrill when I see a fox hunting a young rabbit, or cubs crossing a field. I'm as much a nature lover as any anti. But part of the idea of needing to care for nature includes the need to ensure that there is a healthy population.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
I can see your point, but how about not just supplying some food for the fox then? In a more accessible position outside of the coup?
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
The fox was unable to bear weight on one leg moomin, it needed putting out of its misery. The barn it was darting into every morning is an old cow byre converted into stables. That's how hungry it was. And forgetting the leg, as I said earlier how do you successfully feed a country fox? Leaving food out the other foxes would soon see it off, & taming it enough to feed it would encourage it to approach humans. Which with a housing estate not far away would be stupid.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Ah, now the whole business of feeding a wild animal population - especially animals classed as 'vermin' - is a different argument entirely.
There are all sorts of reasons why this is a bad idea. In the case described by T_a_l, we have a fox who is clearly suffering. Providing it with food and prolonging its suffering is questionable, but also, as pointed out, it just wouldn't work like that as other foxes would soon be onto a food source.
And where would it stop? As I mentioned earlier, the local foxes had a bumper breeding year as a result of being well-fed on the bins, or being fed by people on the estate. But soon there were foxes everywhere and they all wanted feeding. It could get to the stage where humans are effectively propping up a population of vermin that is incapable of survival otherwise. There are all sorts of problems with this.
Star_Chaser
Well-Known Member
You don't encourage a predator to feed by a source of prey
Talk about asking for trouble Moomin1
Well-Known Member
You don't encourage a predator to feed by a source of prey
But it's already sourcing the prey.
AnaV
Well-Known Member
From past experience I have found that it is the stronger foxes that dare to attack chicken coops. When my friend and I had several poultry a healthy vixen killed them all to feed her den. More recently another friend of mine who is neither for or against hunting sighted the fox that killed nearly all her chickens. Now he was a big 'dog'.
Mossi
Well-Known Member
Could I, perhaps, remind you of your species, as in "Human"? It isn't how I feel about myself, but I'm pleased to see just how contrite you are.
Alec.
We are, we have probably done more damage to the planet and other species than anything else, intentionally or not. There is a horrible side to our otherwise beautiful planet in that it is full of creatures that inflict pain on, kill and eat each other to survive and to inflict pain on and kill for sporting pleasure is quite shocking.
Last edited:
AnaV
Well-Known Member
Nicely put Mossi. I could not agree more. It is even more shocking as people then try and justify it.
Simsar
Well-Known Member
This is getting silly now, you ask us to justify killing animals to YOUR closed mind, as most of us live it we know the justification and don't need to TRY to do it to appease YOUR unjust mind! You posted on a hunting forum to simply stir, perhaps when you are mature enough to listen to those who MAY know more than you and possibly see these things yourself before closing your mind, then maybe come back for some reasoned debate.
Simon
Simon
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
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.
Jesster
Well-Known Member
Cos it's the most fun you can have on a horse
Disagree. Polo is the most fun, hunting a very close second.