Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[Alec Swan]

Alec - you are the one that is being arrogant, in assuming that anyone that doesn't actually hunt yet disagrees with it is 'deaf to reason'.

I apologise, but you've claimed that you have evidence of concrete being used to presumably incarcerate badgers. Making such ridiculous claims, and expecting to be taken seriously is sadly going to promote the odd ill-tempered response.

Again, you assure us that that you have proof. Display it, if you're able.

Alec.

 

[Molasses]

would it help Alec, if we brought some concrete round to your place, did a quick demo, and then you can bang your head on it for a while

 

[happyhunter123]

Happyhunter...this is a genuine question so please don't dismiss but what do you mean by 'enjoyment'?

Getting to see hounds work, and getting a good, exciting hunt. For a follower, neither of these things depend on the death of the fox-that's not to say it isn't important for the hounds themselves or for the landowners. Hounds need a reward.

 

[KEF]

I apologise, but you've claimed that you have evidence of concrete being used to presumably incarcerate badgers. Making such ridiculous claims, and expecting to be taken seriously is sadly going to promote the odd ill-tempered response.

Again, you assure us that that you have proof. Display it, if you're able.

Alec.

For the record I didn't make that claim and the person who did has explained. If you would like me to film the rudeness, general destruction and obstruction that I have seen with my own eyes, I will be more than happy but I suspect that I would be mobbed as a suspect sab and you wouldn't want that on your conscience now would you.

 

[bubbilygum]

My argument would be with those who would claim the preposterous, that Setts were filled with concrete. Nonsense, and those who would make such claims can hardly expect a reasoned response.

Preposterous, most definitely, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen . That said I have no proof other than my relatives anecdote, and I would of course agree that if it did happen (which I believe it did, you can believe otherwise) it was an isolated incident. I've never heard of anything similar to this happening elsewhere before or since.

 

[KEF]

Getting to see hounds work, and getting a good, exciting hunt. For a follower, neither of these things depend on the death of the fox-that's not to say it isn't important for the hounds themselves or for the landowners. Hounds need a reward.

I love seeing animals exercised (safely and properly) and I love that my animals are (not through hunting though) but what I have difficulty comprehending is why that requires a live fox to be chased and potentially killed.

 

[happyhunter123]

Preposterous, most definitely, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen . That said I have no proof other than my relatives anecdote, and I would of course agree that if it did happen (which I believe it did, you can believe otherwise) it was an isolated incident. I've never heard of anything similar to this happening elsewhere before or since.

I don't get why the hunt would do that. It is in no way necessary for hunting, and there would be little point. Are you sure it wasn't a neighbouring farmer who hates badgers? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Nancykitt]

Killing foxes is not about 'fun'.
The lampers I know would not describe shooting foxes as fun and do not do it for enjoyment. Similarly, it's probably safe to say that pest control people who destroy urban foxes don't get enjoyment from the act.

The enjoyment in hunting is, to me, about riding cross-country in a large group with friends; the challenge to me as a rider, and the feeling I get when hounds are running. There is no live quarry involved (our pack is not using other methods to control the fox population). But if all this was pre-ban and a fox may have been killed by hounds, that wouldn't make me feel any worse than being there when the shot was fired that killed the fox in my field a few months ago. Infact, I'm inclined to believe that a fox killed by hounds would suffer less.

Pro-hunt people do get frustrated, I think, by being 'demonised' when there are much, much worse things happening that the general public will accept without question.

 

[bubbilygum]

I don't get why the hunt would do that. It is in no way necessary for hunting, and there would be little point. Are you sure it wasn't a neighbouring farmer who hates badgers? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Well, quite - as Alec said there are other less permanent methods of blocking these spaces in which a fox could go to ground, concrete does seem a bit extreme!

Could very well have been another farmer, or potentially done with the 'blessing' of one of the farm hands who perhaps hated the badgers more than my relative did. As I said though it was one of the hunt representatives who told my relative about it so they had a hand in it somehow. Perhaps it was common practice at neighbouring farms where the hunt had been asked to do this by neighbouring farmers? I have no idea. Also this was of course a long time ago now, a good few years before the ban.

 

[bubbilygum]

Pro-hunt people do get frustrated, I think, by being 'demonised' when there are much, much worse things happening that the general public will accept without question.

This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.

 

[Littlelegs]

My biggest problem is that while the general public are being (mis) lead to believe hunting is barbaric & cruel, they overlook the real cruelty that happens regularly to animals. So real cruelty goes unchallenged. Regardless of whether you are pro or anti, whether you believe hounds are a quick death or not, there's no denying the actual figures that prove more animals suffer in food production than hunting. Even forgetting the money burning exercise regarding the heythrop, the amount of time & money that went into banning hunting, even if you genuinely believe hunting is cruel, could have prevented far more suffering by highlighting battery hens, or intensive farming, or halal slaughter. However battery hens aren't as cute as foxes. The main reason most antis are antis is purely down to a) not knowing the facts, and b) if they focus their attention on the nasty toff on the horse, they can tell themselves they are an animal lover despite the disgusting systems they are happy to endorse as consumers. Imo if any sab was genuinely acting out of concern for animal welfare, they'd be outside the supermarket telling people how the vast % of their food became so cheap. And just to be clear, I'm trying to look at hunting from the pov that its cruel with the above, even though I think nothing of the sort.
A while back my daughters school did a project on foxes, during which my 7yr old cheerfully informed the idiot supply teacher we had one that was being shot soon. It didn't go down well with the teacher & her fluffy view of foxes, & the upshot was me going into school. Yet my child was probably the only one who could tell her how her packed lunch lived & died, & why we don't use certain cosmetics brands or eat meat from unknown sources. It's almost as though to be an anti, its compulsory to be a hypocrite, with a few rare exceptions.

 

[Alec Swan]

would it help Alec, if we brought some concrete round to your place, did a quick demo, and then you can bang your head on it for a while

By all means, you will be made most welcome. We've had several ostensibly "Practical Demonstrations" recently. Demonstrations offered by idiots, and not just ordinary idiots, but super qualified ones, to boot.

If those with neither knowledge or experience, were only to ask, then they would be made welcome by the hunting world. They don't, they lecture, they make incredibly stupid observations and state equally stupid "FACTS", and then wonder why we react.

For those who disagree with me, and I'm sure that you're legion, were you only to accept that your well intentioned drivel could, how shall we say, have the creases ironed out, and you could achieve that by listening to those on here who have an understanding, then progress will be made.

RIGHT, don't anyone tell me that I haven't at least made the effort. On another tack, by now, our Rosie would be apoplectic!

Alec.

 

[Nancykitt]

Quite - and the image of rich toffs dressing up to engage in sadistic activities makes it easy for so many people to hate it all!

When non-riding friends have come to hunt gatherings the first thing they remark on is how 'down to earth' everyone is.

 

[KEF]

This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.

For me, the issue is in the front of my mind because of the time of year. Hunting is more public than other forms of animal control/culling/slaughter so it is an obvious target but that does not mean it is not legitimate to question its merits/practice.

 

[happyhunter123]

This. There are far worse things in the world than a few foxes being despatched by the hounds but I guess this is an easy cause to jump on the bandwagon with.

In animal terms, yes there are. Factory farming is an example of one of them-the biggest source of animal cruelty in this country ever.
As KEF says, the reason it has been chosen is that it is very public, and seen as a soft target. Millions of pigs and chickens are hidden away behind closed doors without public knowledge of their living conditions, and the methods by which they are slaughtered. It annoys the hell out of me when I see people I know to be 'anti-hunting' happily sweep a cheap chicken off the shelves or buy non-free range eggs.

 

[bubbilygum]

In animal terms, yes there are. Factory farming is an example of one of them-the biggest source of animal cruelty in this country ever.
As KEF says, the reason it has been chosen is that it is very public, and seen as a soft target. Millions of pigs and chickens are hidden away behind closed doors without public knowledge of their living conditions, and the methods by which they are slaughtered.

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.

 

[Nancykitt]

For me, the issue is in the front of my mind because of the time of year. Hunting is more public than other forms of animal control/culling/slaughter so it is an obvious target but that does not mean it is not legitimate to question its merits/practice.

But here's the irony - it isn't any more public than other forms because hunting with hounds is banned. So many people I speak to think that killing foxes is illegal. If I ask them to tell me how foxes are controlled these days, they are unable to do so. Some have never heard of lamping and don't have a clue what it is.
So all the focus is on something that isn't actually anything to do with fox control any more.

It's fine to ask questions - that's what I did, and that's what ultimately moved me from anti to pro, together with actually living in the country and keeping livestock. No-one on here, I'm sure, objects to anyone asking questions and we can all present a clear case for hunting with hounds. It's the closed minded people that demonise who are the problem as they are generally out just to cause trouble and express hatred.

 

[happyhunter123]

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.

Indeed. People all too often don't remember that the meat they were once eating was an animal, and they often don't question how it was produced. Most of them are completely ignorant about the matter, having nice fluffy pictures of chickens clucking around a farmyard.
These are the same people who have a fluffy, cute picture of foxes. The urban public are, by and large completely ignorant about animals and animal rearing as a whole, I think.

 

[KEF]

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.

Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.

 

[Nancykitt]

My own daughter is vegetarian but is pro-hunting simply because she understands that the fox population needs to be controlled, and believes that death by hounds is more humane/natural than other methods
The main reason she is vegetarian is because she feels that she should not eat meat unless she is prepared to face up to what is involved and take some responsibility for that. So she is actually the complete opposite of the antis who buy the cheap chickens and the battery eggs!

 

[happyhunter123]

Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals

Indeed, but what's the betting that that person still says they're anti hunting? I really can't stand that!

 

[Littlelegs]

The misconception of hunting being a load of toffs certainly plays a part. I live in a different environment to which I grew up or lived in when I first left home. My boyfriend, & his friends are town born & bred, & although I don't have the local accent, I'm accepted as normal & one of them. Yes, I have horses but that's just an added bonus, everyones child gets to play ponies. The fact I'm pro hunt, & not landed aristocracy or stuck up was a revelation to many. As were the actual facts on hunting, coming from someone they know has very strong views on animal welfare.

 

[Nancykitt]

Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.

Some would say that if you hand over your money to the supermarket then you are, indirectly, taking part in such an activity. I am very pro-ethical farming but it is extremely difficult to live a life where we are guaranteed that what we buy has not involved suffering of one sort or another.

This year, for the first time, we raised some geese. We supplied them with the very best living conditions and food. And last week we slaughtered them - humanely - and ate one of them on Christmas Day. It was the first time I had been involved in something like this and although it was not all pleasant by any means there was a great deal of comfort in knowing for sure that the geese did not suffer.

Foxes have to be controlled. Hunting with hounds is considered by many to be the most humane method of maintaining a healthy fox population. If a fox was killed when I was out hunting in the field I would not feel any more 'responsible' for causing suffering than when I allowed the men with guns on to my land.

 

[KEF]

Some would say that if you hand over your money to the supermarket then you are, indirectly, taking part in such an activity. I am very pro-ethical farming but it is extremely difficult to live a life where we are guaranteed that what we buy has not involved suffering of one sort or another.

This year, for the first time, we raised some geese. We supplied them with the very best living conditions and food. And last week we slaughtered them - humanely - and ate one of them on Christmas Day. It was the first time I had been involved in something like this and although it was not all pleasant by any means there was a great deal of comfort in knowing for sure that the geese did not suffer.

Foxes have to be controlled. Hunting with hounds is considered by many to be the most humane method of maintaining a healthy fox population. If a fox was killed when I was out hunting in the field I would not feel any more 'responsible' for causing suffering than when I allowed the men with guns on to my land.

But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).

 

[KEF]

Indeed, but what's the betting that that person still says they're anti hunting? I really can't stand that!

There is hypocrasy in all walks of life. What I object to is being dismissed just because I don't agree with hunting. I think its entirely conceivable for people to have differing views and for them to be respected - as long as they are informed and considered. If all hunts people were so, I doubt I would have the practical objections that I do.

 

[happyhunter123]

But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).

No, no, I was talking about percentage of time spent killing foxes ! 99.9% of a days hunting is not spent killing foxes-mainly because it is very quick. That doesn't mean that they didn't kill any. In our best years, when our hounds were at their peak, the pack I hunt with were killing 100 brace a year (200 foxes).
In some areas, the fox numbers may have actually declined since the ban, since farmers will tend to shoot more than the hunt used to take. In others, such as the Lake District, where fox control relies to an extent on hounds, the population may have increased.
Remember, though that many hunts (84% I believe) still carry out forms of fox control.

 

[Nancykitt]

But if only 0.01% (previously quoted by another contributer) of hunts (pre ban) results in a kill how can that be effective control. It is also my understanding that 1) foxes are pretty good (better than most) at regulating their own numbers and not overpopulating and 2) fox numbers have not notably increased since the ban (which isn't a surprise if only 0.01% ended in a kill).

The figures are very, very difficult and not particularly reliable. I've come across many different sets of figures and it does get confusing. It's not going to be any easier to get reliable figures now as no-one needs to 'record' how many foxes they kill. So trying to base any argument on numbers is always going to be tricky.

The thing about foxes self-regulating - as I've said in an earlier post, my experience is that this is complete rubbish. The three basic things affecting the success of a species are food, habitat and predation. Foxes are incredibly versatile and this is one of the reasons for their success, including in moving to urban areas. 2011 was a bumper year for the foxes round here. They spent a great deal of time in bins on the estate. There were also people feeding them because they thought foxes were cute. The result was a lot of cubs who then, as they grew older, all needed food. Believe me, foxes were everywhere, it was unusual to go out at any time of the day and not see one. They started to cause a lot of problems - I lost almost all of my poultry and so did my neighbour. My pet cat fell victim too. The numbers had to be reduced and this was done by lampers - essentially, we had to become the predators.

When people talk to me about foxhunting and are genuinely interested in my justification, it comes down to this:
Does the fox population need to be controlled?
If they say no, then we go down the evidence for and against. If they say yes, then the next question is:
How can we control fox numbers and maintain a healthy population?
An exploration of the various methods of fox control usually reveals facts a lot of people didn't know - including those related to the misconception that shooting always results in an instant kill.

There will be certain areas where foxes couldn't practically be hunted by a mounted pack and other methods will have to be used. But to ban the method that, to many, is seen as the most humane was just ridiculous.

 

[KEF]

No, no, I was talking about percentage of time spent killing foxes ! 99.9% of a days hunting is not spent killing foxes-mainly because it is very quick. That doesn't mean that they didn't kill any. In our best years, when our hounds were at their peak, the pack I hunt with were killing 100 brace a year (200 foxes).
In some areas, the fox numbers may have actually declined since the ban, since farmers will tend to shoot more than the hunt used to take. In others, such as the Lake District, where fox control relies to an extent on hounds, the population may have increased.
Remember, though that many hunts (84% I believe) still carry out forms of fox control.

Sorry - misquoted you - doh! Hopefully legal forms of fox control.

 

[Nancykitt]

Sorry - misquoted you - doh! Hopefully legal forms of fox control.

Yes - flushing to guns or to a bird of prey is perfectly legal. But IMHO neither are more humane than a fox being killed by hounds.
And don't even get me started on poisoning, gassing and snaring, which are also legal.

 

[Alec Swan]

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.", as Paul McCartney said. Not perhaps entirely true, but I'm sure a lot of people would think twice before stuffing their faces with cheap chicken nuggets.

....... and how I agree with you!!

Completely agree..there are some that just done give a s**t about animals but most of us would say that we do (to differing degrees of course). I said earlier in the thread that I am coming around to the idea of rearing for food but I think that would make me a veggie too but I still can't get my head around the thought of actually and literally taking part in an activity in which an animal suffered.

Oh dear Oh dear, there is so much well intentioned, but ill informed thought to get through here.

Bubbily, McCartney is a phenomenally wealthy man, but given that he's of limited intelligence, he makes such sweeping statements, whilst forgetting that we would all have a slaughterman kiss our protein goodbye, as he cuts it's throat, but the reality is that whilst you and I may be able to afford the meat which has arrived where death was a complete surprise to the creature, there are many who can't afford such luxury, and they live here, in the UK.

KEF. I speak with some experience here, and accepting that there are, and will always be, bad-eggs, generally the UK slaughter trade is and takes a focused and committed stance in the support of animal welfare. You don't believe me? I've looked and can't find it for quoting, but if you source "The Slaughterman's Creed", you may have a better understanding.

I will have no argument with the vegan, but for other less etherial mortals, I'd suggest that you look, very carefully at how and where your poultry is sourced, I'd suggest that you look carefully into the machinations of our meat producing industry, and the reasons and need for it, and then step away and consider the fox which we hunt; consider his quality of life, and consider that he is far more brutal and supportive of killing, than you and I, even though we support our slaughter houses.....

There are flaws in my argument, I'll accept, and that's because we don't and can't live in a perfect world, but I suppose that the truth is that we have to live with our consciences. Perhaps it's all to do with research and looking into the realities of our daily lives, and then living with our decisions.

Dunno!!

Night night, and sleep well. Alec.