Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[KEF]

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.

QUOTE]

This I do agree with....perfect....I am off to bed too.

 

[VoR]

Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......

 

[bubbilygum]

Amazing, 240 posts!!!!! Why do we get drawn in by a question like 'Lets justify Hunting for sport!'? The fact it's been asked probably means that whatever a pro-hunting person will say will be (at least there will be an attempt at) 'shot down'. There really is no end to this type of thread......

The thread was thoroughly interesting though!

 

[VoR]

The thread was thoroughly interesting though!

Indeed, a few too many statistics at times, you know that 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot!! More importantly, you ask the right question of 'Joe Public', in the right place you get the right answer......

 

[Fiagai]

It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....

 

[KEF]

It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....

If only life were so black and white...thankfully not all share your position that those with differing views are simply to be tolerated. Its good to question and challenge ones own beliefs...otherwise we become dogmatic...it's a shame you are unable to see that.

 

[Shutterbug]

It's the last day of the old year. Lets put the antis to bed for once and for all. I don't know of any other forum that they would be so kindly tolerated. Bye little anti peep. Time to move on....

Actually I have found this entire thread and both sides of the discussion incredibly informative and educational and am leaning more towards supporting fox hunting each time this subject comes up - and that's from someone who was a staunch anti for many many years. I appreciate all the informed, constructive posts and even though I roll my eyes and disagree with some, I would not wish to participate in a forum where opinions are not tolerated by both sides and one side of any argument was silenced.

 

[Springy]

Actually I have found this entire thread and both sides of the discussion incredibly informative and educational and am leaning more towards supporting fox hunting each time this subject comes up - and that's from someone who was a staunch anti for many many years. I appreciate all the informed, constructive posts and even though I roll my eyes and disagree with some, I would not wish to participate in a forum where opinions are not tolerated by both sides and one side of any argument was silenced.

^^^

 

[Fiagai]

If only life were so black and white...thankfully not all share your position that those with differing views are simply to be tolerated. Its good to question and challenge ones own beliefs...otherwise we become dogmatic...it's a shame you are unable to see that.

yeah and trolling is still an active pastime ... How about maybe the last day of this year going and trying someplace that might actually believe that....x;{

 

[AnaV]

The chickens my friend and I shared had been left under another person’s care for a few days for we both were away. This person had forgotten to close the henhouse one night and the vixen took her opportunity whilst she had it.
I understand this balance you feel when observing nature, yet I shall never understand your urge to destroy it just because you can. If I see a stag I don’t think ‘What a superb specimen, it shall look grand on my wall in composition with my rug’. Why can you not let nature be?

Your argument is you believe fox hunting is the most humane method of pest control for fox numbers are to be maintained as a duty. You see foxes as vermin and believe the act you carry out is Natural Selection.

My opposition is this. Firstly, what motivates me is my perspective of human and animal equality. I see animals equal to us. I do not see a fox as a pest or something that needs to be controlled. What you believe to be natural selection is not 100% natural. The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring is Natural selection. Geographical isolation is an occurrence you would class natural for the process. The interference by man means it is therefore not exactly natural for it is firstly selection by man. It would not naturally be a reason for the selection in alleles to occur. Also through hunting the weaker, old and sick foxes you are leaving behind the stronger, wittier ones. This fox population left to breed is then more intelligent at outsmarting the hounds and breaking into places where poultry is kept. They are not only stronger but their mortality rate gradually increases too. With this their fertility rate increases increasing their chances of reproduction. This effectively increases the amount of fox cubs they have too. Now your aim is to ‘manage’ fox numbers, yet by murdering more and more of these animals you are simply not doing anything and over time the numbers of fox shall increase. Your excuse that marksmen do not like shooting a fox once it has been flushed out by the dogs is because they may take a poor shot. How do people shoot birds, rabbits when they are on the go? When a bird is up in the air it is even harder to shoot for it is not only flying but a fair distance away. Ending an animal’s life to end its pain with it being the last resort is alright if it is done humanely. What about these weaker foxes you kill. They may have obtained wounds from a prior standoff with another fox which made it hard for them to escape the hounds. Just because they had an injury does that not give them the right to their own life? They may well have recovered from it in a matter of weeks but no they had to die. Why? Also do the old not have a right to life? We do not kill old aged pensioners because they find it hard to walk and struggle to get to the supermarket; we help them as we should. We don’t kill them because they can no longer reproduce or are passed their years, we don’t call them pests for they are sometimes reliant upon us. We respect them as we should respect other creatures around us.
I have no alternative for your likes. Picture this please as I have read all the posts you have written for me. You are a fox, you are a little underweight and lumbering through a field you hear a noise. Hounds are fast approaching so you dash for nearby foliage for cover. You find shelter in some hedge and sit there heart beating, you are tired. It is as if someone can just decide on your death and you are defenceless. The hounds are back as they crush through the bush beckoned to push you through it to your death you make a run but are powerless against 50 odd canines. Their jaws fight over you as though a treat, you are in such shock as you leave the world, and your body remains limp on the ground. If the fox had gotten away however, it would have only made its condition even worse. It would have been left even more hungry and weak.

I noticed the thread had been orientated around hunting fox, what about other animals such as rabbit, deer, pheasant? Despite the fact there are thousands of them, imagine if you were the one they shot out of all of them. No true reason for it. The people didn’t need to eat you.
You would think with the brain capacity humans had they would figure out ways in which to deter foxes or keep them at bay. We are at the top of the food chain and we are the most intelligent therefore you would think we would be the most respectful and understanding for we can diminish between right and wrong. Although many of us still make petty excuses to allow ourselves to sleep at night thinking we have every right to slaughter a life form. Just because they are lower down in the food chain does not make any animals life lower than ours. Respect the way nature is; the way animals live and survive. Foxes kill in a way that when they find a food source they will wipe it out the first chance they get in order to allow them to keep a store of it in the ground, that is just the way they are. The tradition is cruel does not do what you believe and make it out to do in terms of ‘pest control’ and is a torment of nature which many of you derive pleasure from as you chase the defenceless around.

 

[Nancykitt]

.
As we're now doing anthropomorphism, let's go through a couple of scenarios:

Imagine yourself as a fox looking for some poultry to rip the heads off....imagine yourself as a buff orpington, dying in the jaws of a fox (I'll spare you the poetic tosh about 'as you feel the jaws start to rip through your neck, you are in such shock as you leave the world etc etc)..imagine yourself as a ewe, watching your first born being massacred...or even 'imagine yourself as a fox looking for food - you see a wolf coming for you and realise that you are in an area where your long lost predator has made a comeback!' you get the idea? This notion of nature taking complete care of itself and maintaining a balance without 'interference' is Tellytubby land stuff.
There is one part of the post that proves to me that so many antis do NOT put animal welfare first and that's the bit about the injured fox being allowed to carry on because it might get better. How cruel! Would you really allow an animal to suffer for weeks? If we're doing anthropomorphism, imagine that - limping around in excruciating pain, hour upon hour. Would you treat a pet animal - a horse, dog or cat like that? When the time comes for my pets, it breaks my heart but the last kindness I can do is to ensure them a quick passage.

As for shooting - I would have more respect for you if you did a bit of research on the topic. Do you understand that game birds are shot with a shotgun, which - providing you are a good shot (and it's not that easy, believe me) will bring a pheasant to the ground. A fox is considerably larger than a pheasant and in order to bring about a quick kill with a shotgun you would need to be very close - less than 30 yards away - because the pellets from the cartridge 'spray' and would injure rather than kill. Larger animals are killed with a rifle, a much more high powered weapon which fires a single bullet. Being able to hit a moving target with a single bullet is, as you can imagine, not very easy. So the comparison with the shooting of game birds is not really valid.

The stuff about deer shows no understanding of why we shoot deer. As for pheasants - do you understand that pheasants are actually bred by people and released? That gamekeeping and country sports are about conservation, so that ALL species stand a chance? Give me a good reason why rare ground nesting birds, such as the Stone Curlew, should have their numbers reduced to such low levels because fox numbers have risen? I recommend a good book on the subject - I quite like 'The Fox and the Orchid'.

 

[AengusOg]

^^^Post #250. Wow! I feel for you. You are obviously deeply hurt.

Humans are top of the food chain, as you say, but there is more to it than simply stating that we, as arguably the most intellegent species on the planet, should use our huge brains to come up with ingenious ways to keep our chickens safe from the local predators.

Your emotive post has many points which could stand debate.

Natural selection is the means by which a species evolves within its environment. It is entirely dependent on the 'alleles' within the gene pool of the species. If individuals are eliminated from that population, their contibution to the gene pool ceases and their influence, as individuals, on the species is invalidated.

All species on the planet are subject to predation by another or others. Try standing at the edge of a billabong in Australia, or wandering in the Sundarbans, or strolling in the Arctic, and see how long it takes for your contribution of alleles to be negated by the local top predator.

Wolves, foxes and coyotes co-exist in Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, having been cleared out by human intervention, they have now been greatly aided in their return there by humans. I have seen film of wolves pursueing coyotes and foxes, attacking them and leaving them either dead or badly wounded. They didn't eat them, or use any part of them for any purpose; it seems they killed them because they could. I'd be interested to hear your views on that?

There are lots of people who would love to have wolves re-introduced to parts of Scotland. I exclude myself from that group. However, if that were to happen, foxes would surely be predated by wolves. Would you see such re-introduction of wolves as a restoration of a 'natural' state, or interference by humans which would put foxes in a perilous position?

Do you agree, or not, that, in the abscence of a predator higher up the chain than a species, that humans may assume a managerial role of that species should individuals of that species be problematic to co-existing species, and assuming that the method(s) of elimination provide no aspects of sport?

Do you accept that humans, as primates, and on a purely biological basis, are, in some cases, bound to behave as predators of other species, and that the alleles passed on from such individuals are bound to perpetuate the hunting instinct in some individuals of the human species?

Do you accept that homo-sapiens underwent a successful evolution due in the main to the ability of individuals to hunt for food and to defend members of the species from predation by other species, and to compete successfully in their environment?

Do you agree that hunting foxes with hounds mimics the scenario in Yellowstone, and, given that some foxes will escape hounds whilst others will not, that replacing wolves with hounds in that sense is more akin to a natural method of species control than is shooting or trapping?

On the subject of whether I can justify hunting any species for sport, personally I could not condone bull-fighting, badger-baiting, or similar brutal 'sports', but was always able to allow myself to kill animals for food, and I enjoyed the challenge of the hunt. Maybe that's just the influence of the alleles which contributed to my existence.

As far as fox-hunting is concerned, I see a distinct seperation between the professionals who competently and responsibly hunt a pack of hounds, and those who follow. The huntsman is responding to his inherent instinct. The followers enjoy the social aspect and the riding. I don't think either of them are savage killers who delight in the death of any fox.

 

[Nancykitt]

Totally agree with your last paragraph, AengusOg. And I too make a very clear distinction between the brutal sports that you describe - that serve no purpose to conservation whatsoever - and field sports, including hunting, that involve careful land management. I believe that we have a duty to protect and cherish our countryside and our indigenous species.

Although these threads tend to go round and round and so many people who initiate the argument have closed minds, the airing of different views is often very interesting and can lead to other people starting to ask questions and learn more about things.

The only thing that does get me down is that there are groups of people who hold very strong beliefs based on either misinformation or lack of awareness, and can do a great deal of damage as a result. Let's not forget that it was a bunch of animal rights activists that released a population of mink into the wild where they have gone on to wreak havoc. Whatever their reasons for releasing the mink, an ounce of awareness/intelligence between those people would have made them realise that releasing a successful non-indigenous predator into the wild would result in the death of many other animals and birds. But because these so-called activists live in a lovely fluffy world where all animals love and respect each other they no doubt thought that the mink would get on really well with everything else.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

^^^Post #250. Wow! I feel for you. You are obviously deeply hurt.

Humans are top of the food chain, as you say, but there is more to it than simply stating that we, as arguably the most intellegent species on the planet, should use our huge brains to come up with ingenious ways to keep our chickens safe from the local predators.

Your emotive post has many points which could stand debate.

Natural selection is the means by which a species evolves within its environment. It is entirely dependent on the 'alleles' within the gene pool of the species. If individuals are eliminated from that population, their contibution to the gene pool ceases and their influence, as individuals, on the species is invalidated.

All species on the planet are subject to predation by another or others. Try standing at the edge of a billabong in Australia, or wandering in the Sundarbans, or strolling in the Arctic, and see how long it takes for your contribution of alleles to be negated by the local top predator.

Wolves, foxes and coyotes co-exist in Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, having been cleared out by human intervention, they have now been greatly aided in their return there by humans. I have seen film of wolves pursueing coyotes and foxes, attacking them and leaving them either dead or badly wounded. They didn't eat them, or use any part of them for any purpose; it seems they killed them because they could. I'd be interested to hear your views on that?

There are lots of people who would love to have wolves re-introduced to parts of Scotland. I exclude myself from that group. However, if that were to happen, foxes would surely be predated by wolves. Would you see such re-introduction of wolves as a restoration of a 'natural' state, or interference by humans which would put foxes in a perilous position?

Do you agree, or not, that, in the abscence of a predator higher up the chain than a species, that humans may assume a managerial role of that species should individuals of that species be problematic to co-existing species, and assuming that the method(s) of elimination provide no aspects of sport?

Do you accept that humans, as primates, and on a purely biological basis, are, in some cases, bound to behave as predators of other species, and that the alleles passed on from such individuals are bound to perpetuate the hunting instinct in some individuals of the human species?

Do you accept that homo-sapiens underwent a successful evolution due in the main to the ability of individuals to hunt for food and to defend members of the species from predation by other species, and to compete successfully in their environment?

Do you agree that hunting foxes with hounds mimics the scenario in Yellowstone, and, given that some foxes will escape hounds whilst others will not, that replacing wolves with hounds in that sense is more akin to a natural method of species control than is shooting or trapping?

On the subject of whether I can justify hunting any species for sport, personally I could not condone bull-fighting, badger-baiting, or similar brutal 'sports', but was always able to allow myself to kill animals for food, and I enjoyed the challenge of the hunt. Maybe that's just the influence of the alleles which contributed to my existence.

As far as fox-hunting is concerned, I see a distinct seperation between the professionals who competently and responsibly hunt a pack of hounds, and those who follow. The huntsman is responding to his inherent instinct. The followers enjoy the social aspect and the riding. I don't think either of them are savage killers who delight in the death of any fox.

This. Plus the added point that unlike shooting, hunting will inevitably take out more of the weaker, the diseased and the old foxes, the young and fit more likely to escape, making it much less problematic in my view where numbers need controlling for the health of the population as well as the health of other species.

 

[KEF]

Totally agree with your last paragraph, AengusOg. And I too make a very clear distinction between the brutal sports that you describe - that serve no purpose to conservation whatsoever - and field sports, including hunting, that involve careful land management. I believe that we have a duty to protect and cherish our countryside and our indigenous species.

I also agree that there is a distinction between the huntsmen and the followers/other riders and also between hunting and brutal sports. Animals and humans are not equal but it because we are the superior species that we owe a duty of care to animals, which can include putting an animal out of its misery to keeping domestic pets in good health. What I would be interested to know however is to whom or what does the huntsmaster owe his/her primary duty of care - is it the animal which they hunt or the followers/other riders?

 

[Simsar]

Huntsmans duty of care is towards the hounds and the fox, masters duty of care is towards the people within the hunt, huntsman, whip, mounted field, terrier men and foot followers etc.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

... What I would be interested to know however is to whom or what does the huntsmaster owe his/her primary duty of care - is it the animal which they hunt or the followers/other riders?

Where does the responsibility settle with the man who hunts the hounds? That's easily answered;

He has a moral responsibility to care for firstly, his quarry, secondly his hounds, thirdly (and perhaps of the greatest importance), he has a duty to the tradition which supports his calling. He has hundreds of years of established and totally correct protocol to abide by, and within those arms, so care is administered evenly. There's little in the way of preference, it seems to me, except for those who follow!

Lastly, and if you don't believe me, and were he here Captain Wallace would assure you, the mounted field come last, or should do.

Alec.

 

[Simsar]

Better put than mine Alec.

 

[AnaV]

Once again you are missing the point. Wolves were eliminated from places such as Scotland by humans in the first place. So bringing them back would be rightfully done. There you go, that would be a ‘natural selection’ process. Humans have not done one thing to benefit this earth without trying to fix something they have already messed up.
I do not agree that humans should take the managerial role, entitling them the right to kill off lower predators such as the fox. Why should they? It was not their role in the first place; it was the animal which was made absent by them.
Whether or not primal traits are apparent in human behaviour we should be moral enough to not act on them. If in that case you disagree, would you allow your primitive way to rule your actions? You feel the need to seduce something, you do not in the modern day go and take advantage of someone in which case a chimpanzee would.
A subject such as the evolution is not one which can and cannot be accepted because there is so much evidence valid making it true and fact. I am aware that homo-sapiens survived due to them developing adaptive traits in their alleles allowing them to make use of other animal resource around them (such as meat, skin, and fur). They used wood to make simple spears which enabled them to kill prey from a distance. They also used the fur and skin to clothe themselves and their children. This gave them raise above other species such as rhodesiensis, rudolfensis and Homo sapiens idaltu for their young had more chances of survival. However, what you are clearly oblivious to is the fact the species we evolved from although did coexist with other species such as the Neanderthal they did not actually meet or face opposition between themselves. According to scientific evidence it is the fact we more able to take care of ourselves and produce the alleles giving higher mortality of young which enabled us to survive through the years.
I do not agree humans collaborating with 50 odd hounds to kill foxes is mimicking the situation in nature (such as that in Yellow Stone). I have said I do not see foxes as something that need to be controlled as I do not see any animal population. They self regulate themselves, and humans should not have the law behind them to interfere.
The followers derive pleasure from the hunt because without it being there to kill foxes they would not be allowed to ride across farmers land. I do not see how you all struggle to grasp this.
Anyway, so do the weak and old not have the right to live? Not all territorial scraps result in a fox bound to die, they may well recover, would you be aware?

 

[happyhunter123]

Humans have not done one thing to benefit this earth without trying to fix something they have already messed up.

What nonsense! Many wild animals (the fox included) have actually benefited from human activity. We have created and preserved numerous habitats (such as heather moorland), and some wild animals live very well with us. Their is a great diversity of habitats in this coutnry because humans interfered. The fox is only as widespread and common as he is today because he lives alongside humans. Hunting has played a role in the introduction of foxes to many parts of the country, and their preservation there.

Anyway, so do the weak and old not have the right to live?

I sincerely hope that you don't own a pet. You'd never have it put down if it was suffering.

I do not agree that humans should take the managerial role

Taking a managerial role (not just with animals, but with plants too) is a good thing. We take a managerial role when we preserve important habitats such as sand dunes-yes, we are killing off plants species that should naturally be there (such as brambles), but we are protecting many more, rarer species of plants and animals. This is beneficial.

 

[cptrayes]

Do you understand that game birds are shot with a shotgun, which - providing you are a good shot (and it's not that easy, believe me) will bring a pheasant to the ground.

"Bring a pheasant to the ground"? Well at least you are not trying to pretend that they are all dead, just "brought to the ground", very often alive, in pursuit of, in my opinion, an utterly barbaric and indefensible sport.

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.

 

[cptrayes]

What nonsense! Many wild animals (the fox included) have actually benefited from human activity. We have created and preserved numerous habitats (such as heather moorland), and some wild animals live very well with us. Their is a great diversity of habitats in this coutnry because humans interfered. The fox is only as widespread and common as he is today because he lives alongside humans. Hunting has played a role in the introduction of foxes to many parts of the country, and their preservation there.
.

The poster said that earth has not benefitted, not single species. I believe that she is correct in that. Man's interference has done nothing for earth except to unbalance it.

 

[happyhunter123]

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well

Conservation of moorland is for grouse shooting, generally, not pheasant shooting. And yes, because it brings in money, the habitat is protected. Otherwise, it could so easily be turned into farmland. It's not the actual shooting of the birds that protects the moorland (obviously!).

 

[happyhunter123]

The poster said that earth has not benefitted, not single species. I believe that she is correct in that. Man's interference has done nothing for earth except to unbalance it.

I was using the fox as an example. Many species have benefited from human activity. The earth, as a whole hasn't and that can only damage us as a species in the end.

 

[Alec Swan]

AnaV,

genuinely, it is not my intention to be offensive, but you aren't just stupid in your arguments, you're incredibly stupid.

I suspect that it's your refusal to consider reasoned and simple debate which sets you apart from most. You don't know, and you wont be told. Your anthropomorphised twaddle, along with your theorised thoughts for our future, leaves most in a state of bewilderment!!

Good night.

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

A weakness can be any aspect. For animals it is mostly physical. Just because one has endured an injury does not mean it is destined to die. If someone is diagnosed with cancer. They do not think, 'You know what, I might as well die' no people always try and prolong their lives. Most people do try and prolong the life of pets and animals too with medicines, extra care. With a wild animal such as a fox they may not die from a few cuts. Hunting does nothing. Nothing for fox populations or the health of either a single fox nor a population. It does nothing but aggravate animals lives. If you obtained a cut you would hate to think you had to die. Wouldn't you? Finally, with pets we try our best to help them then if it is the last resort we shall put them out of them misery. Those of us who respect animals will try our very best to help them. The issue? People exploit animals. No man has not benefitted the earth without trying to fix or solve what we have already destroyed. Conservation work is done because the human race had eliminated a few species or put them at the brink of extinction. It is done to try and heal the land we have already manipulated for our own uses.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

And I always love that argument that you have used in your full post, that somehow conservation of moorland depends on breeding birds that don't fly very well so that people can pay very large sums of money to shoot them out of the sky half dead, then send a dog to fetch them so that someone can wring their necks to put them out of their fear and pain.

Conservation does not depend on killing animals for sport.

CPT, once again, as fond of you as I am, you really shouldn't offer such argument, at least, not if you want to be taken seriously. Correct Moorland management relies totally upon those who graze the land with sheep, and those that would promote the Red Grouse. Google "The Moorland Trust", and if you approach it with an enquiring and open mind, then you may come away informed. Approach it with your ill-informed, ignorant and at odds approach, and you will learn nothing.

The Red Grouse is the fastest game bird, and the most testing, in the British Isles. Grouse are not artificially reared, to suggest that they can't fly is quite preposterous, and having shot Grouse, there's a very good reason why they are charged out at such phenomenal cost, they are quite priceless!

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

I am not insulted by people who do not know what they are talking about. I am sorry my state of mental health is based according to what your own opinion? I have taken into account each and every one of your excuses alongside everyone elses however have not been swayed. You have left much of my opposition to you unanswered, which has left me presuming you cannot? Therefore you can not justify your own actions.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Better put than mine Alec.

But both of you missed one of the most important 'duties of care' - shared by the Masters and the Huntsman - and that is to the farmers!!

MOST farmers who support hunting want foxes controlled - at very little cost to themselves! That's reasonable. And - prior to the ban - if the fox control wasn't good enough the farmers made their views known! My local hunt - some years back - had to fire a Master who was also Amateur Huntsman because - although he was a very nice guy and put a LOT of money into the hunt - he couldn't catch enough foxes to keep the farmers happy. So the farmers got together and told the Committee: "Get a huntsman who can catch foxes - or you won't be welcome!"

 

[Nancykitt]

'Left much opposition to you unanswered'???? What on earth have the majority of the 27 pages been about? I think that there has been a response to every single point you've made. The issue is that you are simply not prepared to accept anything that doesn't fall in with your lovely, cosy, fluffy little view of the world.

As for the self-regulating argument - in many circumstances, it is true that a species will self-regulate. If there is a limited food supply then that is a major factor. In the case of foxes, particularly semi-urban and urban foxes, we are looking at a highly successful, adaptable creature that can feed from waste bins on housing estates amongst other food sources. There are parts of the country where urban foxes are being shot by pest control wardens regularly because they are proving to be a terrible nuisance.
Please do not tell me that with a plentiful food supply the fox population is self regulating as I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced the problems caused by large numbers of foxes. In my area, the core population moved to the housing estate to source food. Some idiots were even buying cheap supermarket chicken pieces and leaving it out for foxes 'because they are so cute.' (Would they have done that with rats, by the way? No, these same people were taking shots at rats with an air rifle!) We had a large population of well fed foxes who produced lots of cubs - who then needing feeding themselves.
At one stage we were literally overrun and everyone in the area who had livestock was utterly fed up of our animals being taken. When the lampers came in they said that they'd never seen so many foxes within a short space of time.

There are two aspects to your argument that, in my eyes, remove any credibility from it. One is the anthropomorphism. The second is your belief that an animal should be left to suffer as that is preferable to death.

Why not just leave this thread now and go and sit in a corner with your fingers in your ears going 'lalalalalala not listening'? The fact that you have failed to persuade anyone here to change their views should say something to you. And you are clearly not prepared to consider the viewpoints of other people, far more experienced in such matters than you or I.