Archangel
Normal, 10 cats ago
It is for HRT rather than contraceptive use - once the cruelty involved was made public there was *shock* *horror* *probe* and it was shunned (think it is still prescribed but there was a huge backlash).
Middleton Hunt fox cubs
- Thread starter hackneylass2
- Start date
It is for HRT rather than contraceptive use - once the cruelty involved was made public there was *shock* *horror* *probe* and it was shunned (think it is still prescribed but there was a huge backlash).
SO1
Well-Known Member
It does seem a bit of a strange situation and I expect we will never find out the reasons they were being kept for.
If pro hunting people say the only reason they want to hunt is to get rid of foxes as they are vermin and and they want the fox population to be as low as possible then why keep more foxes in a shed, why not just get someone in to dispatch them. I think a lot of the issues around fox hunting is the perceived enjoyment that those participating seem to get from chasing and dispatching the vermin rather than people not understanding or realizing that foxes are don't cause damage to livestock. Large numbers of rats which are also considered vermin are killed every year and very few people seem to take offense at that, probably because very few people relish the chance to get rid of the rats or mice infestations, dispatching rats and mice is seem as a necessarily evil rather than a hobby.
I think respect for the fox hunting community was lost due to perceived arrogance of the fox hunting community towards people who live in towns, and they are not always open about the pleasure they get from hunting. I grew up in the countryside and hunted as a teenager and I believe that the main reason people fox hunted was because they enjoyed it. As an adult it is not something I would wish to partake in again.
I don't think fox hunting will become legal again in this country in the same format as it was before. If it does come back I expect it will be under strict licensing laws with a only small number of people with licenses being allowed to participate.
If pro hunting people say the only reason they want to hunt is to get rid of foxes as they are vermin and and they want the fox population to be as low as possible then why keep more foxes in a shed, why not just get someone in to dispatch them. I think a lot of the issues around fox hunting is the perceived enjoyment that those participating seem to get from chasing and dispatching the vermin rather than people not understanding or realizing that foxes are don't cause damage to livestock. Large numbers of rats which are also considered vermin are killed every year and very few people seem to take offense at that, probably because very few people relish the chance to get rid of the rats or mice infestations, dispatching rats and mice is seem as a necessarily evil rather than a hobby.
I think respect for the fox hunting community was lost due to perceived arrogance of the fox hunting community towards people who live in towns, and they are not always open about the pleasure they get from hunting. I grew up in the countryside and hunted as a teenager and I believe that the main reason people fox hunted was because they enjoyed it. As an adult it is not something I would wish to partake in again.
I don't think fox hunting will become legal again in this country in the same format as it was before. If it does come back I expect it will be under strict licensing laws with a only small number of people with licenses being allowed to participate.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
How effective are the MFHA at actually regulating what goes on in individual packs? Do they react robustly to reports of dodgy goings on, like this case? They will be very aware of it.
I notice that the current Director of the MFHA, Tim Easby, is listed having been associated with the Middleton Hunt in the past.
I notice that the current Director of the MFHA, Tim Easby, is listed having been associated with the Middleton Hunt in the past.
hackneylass2
Well-Known Member
Judgemental, READ Lord Middleton's quotes. Tell me he is not speaking utter twaddle. Really, read it slowly, before being so err Judemental and not being able to see how stupid and patronising his words were. Maybe he sees Antis as being townies with no idea, but that also shows his ignorance.
I think people have rung up and said, Hey, look Ive got foxes that needs rescuing, their mothers dead, or, I cant live with them where they are, can you look after them?
What would your hunt, if you have one, respond to this???
Also read my words...
"This does the hunting fraternity no good, whichever side of the fence you care to stand!" Can you tell if I am pro, anti or just someone who thinks that Lord Middleton is an idiot in replying as he did?
PS My ears pricked up at this article because my first hunt, many many years ago, was the Middleton.
I think people have rung up and said, Hey, look Ive got foxes that needs rescuing, their mothers dead, or, I cant live with them where they are, can you look after them?
What would your hunt, if you have one, respond to this???
Also read my words...
"This does the hunting fraternity no good, whichever side of the fence you care to stand!" Can you tell if I am pro, anti or just someone who thinks that Lord Middleton is an idiot in replying as he did?
PS My ears pricked up at this article because my first hunt, many many years ago, was the Middleton.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Assuming that Middleton's been quoted, and word verbatim, then I agree with you. If his words were as you've quoted, then the display of stupidity will be there for all to see and as you say, regardless of any fence.
Alec.
Alec.
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
You really have no right to speak so disparagingly of Lord Middleton.
No one has been charged. No laws have been broken. This is a non-story.
fburton
Well-Known Member
Has anyone come forward to say it was they who put the young vermin in the shed?
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
True.
Possibly true. Depending very much on how the cubs were obtained, what happened to their mothers, and what the true future plans for the cubs were.
False. This is a BIG story that plays right into the hands of the antis, and quite rightly too.
I will move out of the pro hunting camp, and straight into the anti camp, if it became clear that it is common practice for hunts to raise captive foxes for hunting.
TP (Has hunted with 7 different packs - 5 foxhound, 2 harriers, 0 drag, all pre ban).
Orangehorse
Well-Known Member
There was a local MFH, who was very much an eccentric, and she had pet foxes on long chains all over the place. I think she had a pet one in the house too. This was in her house, and the hound kennels were in the yard next door.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
I quite agree. Indeed when I saw the comments initially, I was immediately surprised and struck by the venom they contained.
It really is a symptom of 'these people' who have an on-going antipathy towards anything that amplifies our traditions, customs and the seam, particularly in the countryside, that goes through our society that acts as a catalyst, that supports our governance by consent.
Frankly, if 'these people' have a problem with people with titles, they should hop off to North Korea for example,
angrybird1
Well-Known Member
Good God.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Quite agree.
JM, if you think that your little tirade is going to persuade any waverers that Repeal is the way forward, then you are sadly mistaken.
<goes off to lie down in a darkened room, vowing never to attempt to defend hunting ever again>
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Thank you so much. I was becoming a little bored with Judgemental
Countryman
Well-Known Member
I don't know anything specific about this case, except that it seems to be nothing to do with the hunt. To say it occurred on land leased out by a local land owner - a large landowner, who apparently attended just 3 meets in a season is really clutching at straws. In our country I doubt you could find a single farmer or landowner who hadn't been to say, 3 meets in an entire season-just one every 2 months!
What I will say is that any suggestion hunts "breed" foxes for hunting is categorically untrue.
HOWEVER in days gone by, the hunt terrierman was often called upon by farmers out of season to dispatch problem foxes. Unfortunately these foxes were often vixens with young - hence why organised hunting had stopped, out of respect for the rearing period.
In some cases, the troublesome fox may have been killed, but the young cubs would not always necessarily have been put down - if they were not causing any harm to the farmer.
Instead, the farmer may demand that they be moved - perhaps to a part of the local area which had very few foxes, for instance after a mange epidemic had destroyed the population. In this case, "management" of the fox population actually meant moving these cubs to that area. Left alone, the cubs would have died-and indeed, usually they would be culled along with their parents, but sometimes a case was made to rehome them elsewhere where there was a low fox population. (Which can certainly occur - an ideal fox population for the purposes of biodiversity is neither too high or too low).
The fact that it was the hunt terrierman undertaking this work was irrelevant - he was simply the most likely local pest control man the farmers turned to, and probably the only expert at digging out.
No foxes were bred for hunting, and as far I know no hunts have ever bred foxes, or done anything like that, for at least 100 years!
What I will say is that any suggestion hunts "breed" foxes for hunting is categorically untrue.
HOWEVER in days gone by, the hunt terrierman was often called upon by farmers out of season to dispatch problem foxes. Unfortunately these foxes were often vixens with young - hence why organised hunting had stopped, out of respect for the rearing period.
In some cases, the troublesome fox may have been killed, but the young cubs would not always necessarily have been put down - if they were not causing any harm to the farmer.
Instead, the farmer may demand that they be moved - perhaps to a part of the local area which had very few foxes, for instance after a mange epidemic had destroyed the population. In this case, "management" of the fox population actually meant moving these cubs to that area. Left alone, the cubs would have died-and indeed, usually they would be culled along with their parents, but sometimes a case was made to rehome them elsewhere where there was a low fox population. (Which can certainly occur - an ideal fox population for the purposes of biodiversity is neither too high or too low).
The fact that it was the hunt terrierman undertaking this work was irrelevant - he was simply the most likely local pest control man the farmers turned to, and probably the only expert at digging out.
No foxes were bred for hunting, and as far I know no hunts have ever bred foxes, or done anything like that, for at least 100 years!
hackneylass2
Well-Known Member
Crikey, now class has become involved. (which in a roundabout way, also does hunting in general little favour). If I think someone is speaking 'utter twaddle' (excuse abject venomosity) I will say so, no matter how titled/linebred/inbred/influential that person may be.
Now, more than ever, hunts need to keep their acts in order.
Goodnight Master
(Backs away tugging forelock)
Now, more than ever, hunts need to keep their acts in order.
Goodnight Master
(Backs away tugging forelock)
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Should think so too. I shall take that as a grovelling apology.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Insulting one another does little to support any discussion. I wasn't present, none of us were, when Lord Middleton made his alleged comments. Assuming that he's been correctly quoted, it would seem on the face of it, that his response to the accusations made for little sense. But then neither did the original accusations.
As the claims made by those who are opposed to Hunting become ever more ridiculous, so it seems are some of the responses. Children who squabble rarely apply any common sense to their claims, and the argument regarding Hunting is following a similar route, generally. To return to the base of the argument, it seems to me that the off-the-scale claims offered by those who are opposed to Hunting are given a level of false credibility when they're matched with equally puerile responses.
J_m's opening lines on another thread which concern the money which is expended by those who hunt and on their mounts is an irrelevance, as the money will be spent on horses regardless of whether they are used for hunting, or not. Similarly, to claim that hunting is the only efficient way of 'controlling' vulpine numbers is equally flawed, for the simple reason that the number of foxes accounted for in the course of a year (pre-ban) and solely by hounds, would be an infinitesimally small proportion of the national head count.
There can be no question in my view that since the ban on hunting, our previously balanced, ethically and effectively managed vulpine population has been done a great disservice. When Hunting was within the Law, vast areas of land were given over to the wholesale protection of the fox and for the purpose of sport. There were those who nibbled away at the outside of it all, by shooting and snaring, but even their influence was minimal. Hunting is the only effective way of promoting the good health of our fox population, for the simple reason that it would be the diseased and the elderly who would fall before hounds, generally, and as with all properly managed wildlife plans, it was the general well being of the animal concerned, regardless of the argument of class or privilege, which had us at that happy state. Today we have the hand of just about everyone who owns a rifle or sets a snare, turned against our fox population and with no possible thought to selection, so the killing is indiscriminate, sadly.
As a similar example of management, consider our native deer population. It's the responsibility of all that selection is vital and mostly, that's why we have such a healthy, if oversized population. The same thing could once be said about the West Country Red Deer, until hunting with hounds was placed outside the Law. For centuries a system evolved which promoted the wellbeing of our hunted wildlife, which has been brought to its knees by those who with a lack of understanding or care, for the damage that they have done.
I don't and have never ridden to hounds, but along with a previous director of the lacs (amongst others), feel that hunting is the only selective and ethical system of natural selection and promotion of our fox population, and I also feel that it's the most compelling reason for a reversal of the ludicrous ban of 2004 by an Act of Parliament which was bought rather than justified.
I suspect that those who oppose Hunting do so because others enjoy it, rather than for any altruistic protection of an animal to whom they've committed untold damage.
Alec.
As the claims made by those who are opposed to Hunting become ever more ridiculous, so it seems are some of the responses. Children who squabble rarely apply any common sense to their claims, and the argument regarding Hunting is following a similar route, generally. To return to the base of the argument, it seems to me that the off-the-scale claims offered by those who are opposed to Hunting are given a level of false credibility when they're matched with equally puerile responses.
J_m's opening lines on another thread which concern the money which is expended by those who hunt and on their mounts is an irrelevance, as the money will be spent on horses regardless of whether they are used for hunting, or not. Similarly, to claim that hunting is the only efficient way of 'controlling' vulpine numbers is equally flawed, for the simple reason that the number of foxes accounted for in the course of a year (pre-ban) and solely by hounds, would be an infinitesimally small proportion of the national head count.
There can be no question in my view that since the ban on hunting, our previously balanced, ethically and effectively managed vulpine population has been done a great disservice. When Hunting was within the Law, vast areas of land were given over to the wholesale protection of the fox and for the purpose of sport. There were those who nibbled away at the outside of it all, by shooting and snaring, but even their influence was minimal. Hunting is the only effective way of promoting the good health of our fox population, for the simple reason that it would be the diseased and the elderly who would fall before hounds, generally, and as with all properly managed wildlife plans, it was the general well being of the animal concerned, regardless of the argument of class or privilege, which had us at that happy state. Today we have the hand of just about everyone who owns a rifle or sets a snare, turned against our fox population and with no possible thought to selection, so the killing is indiscriminate, sadly.
As a similar example of management, consider our native deer population. It's the responsibility of all that selection is vital and mostly, that's why we have such a healthy, if oversized population. The same thing could once be said about the West Country Red Deer, until hunting with hounds was placed outside the Law. For centuries a system evolved which promoted the wellbeing of our hunted wildlife, which has been brought to its knees by those who with a lack of understanding or care, for the damage that they have done.
I don't and have never ridden to hounds, but along with a previous director of the lacs (amongst others), feel that hunting is the only selective and ethical system of natural selection and promotion of our fox population, and I also feel that it's the most compelling reason for a reversal of the ludicrous ban of 2004 by an Act of Parliament which was bought rather than justified.
I suspect that those who oppose Hunting do so because others enjoy it, rather than for any altruistic protection of an animal to whom they've committed untold damage.
Alec.
fburton
Well-Known Member
Thank you, Alec. Your levelheadedness is commendable.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Alec I really have to disagree with you and being entirely serious for the following reasons.
Going back in history to 1936 when Nazi Germany banned all hunting with hounds, including trail and drag. Indeed they had all the hounds shot along with a number of hunt servants.
Everybody in Germany simply gave up keeping horses and their lack of economic input simply disappeared.
Where it not for the 'hope' and now PROMISE of repeal, many hunters would have been disposed of and their economic input/output would have been lost.
So whilst folk have been Dragging/Trailing, in the main they are only maintaining their establishments for the day of the wonderful Repeal.
oakash
Well-Known Member
This thread has made interesting reading. For me, whilst it seems unlikely that hunts would keep a barn full of foxes, if it IS true, then personally I would have no problem with that. I see hunting as the most natural way to control the fox population. It is a system perfectly at one with the natural world. If there are an excess of foxes then more will be killed by hounds. If there are too few then many countries will help them to breed. No-one in a hunt country wants to see foxes totally eradicated from the land - except the anti-hunters in some cases. Surely a balanced population at a level which allows sheep farmers to operate is what is required. Add to that the point of natural selection which has already been raised, then I fail to understand why the anti hunters are not marching outside parliament and writing to their MPs to get this remarkably wicked ban on hunting lifted for the sake of our wildlife and countryside.
Last edited:
fburton
Well-Known Member
Not good (efficient) at regulating absolute numbers though, right?
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
J_m, we live in a different world to almost 80 years ago. It's better in some ways, but not others, I'll grant you that! I would though, point out that the 'promise' is not of repeal, but of a free vote for our Parliamentarians, and I honestly suspect that there won't be enough of them who are prepared to risk the backlash of a return to the status quo, without clear argument as to the ethical reasons for a return, also ……..
…….. you'd think so, wouldn't you?
I remember a television programme from around the time of the ban when there was a West Country vet being interviewed. The programme focused on stag hunting, and he gave a lucid and well argued case for the fact that the native red deer, as a group, were in the happy condition that they were, because of hunting. Deer, indeed just about all animals, benefit from being preyed upon. It's being a part of a food chain which has had them develop as they have, by the process of natural selection, and specifically with Red deer, then particular stags were targeted and hunted, and as a gender balance, then it was hunt staff who generally shot the older and the failing hinds. The process in the West Country has previously produced a well balanced and healthy stock of red deer. Ill-informed, though presumably well intentioned bodies decided that they knew best, and just look at the damage that has been done to the deer themselves.
With deer, selection for those who know what they're doing is a natural and relatively simple process. With the fox, that's simply not the case. The opportunity to give consideration to which fox should be hunted, snared or shot, simply isn't there, because deer will often stand and stare, foxes tend not too. Those who would orchestrate an attempt at repeal, would be well advised to seek out and promote the opinions of those who's opinions are such that they can explain to our parliamentarians and the voting public who can be bothered with the matter, that the benefits to the well being of our wildlife, in general, of being hunted are of paramount importance. Those voices, Giles Bradshaw and Robin page being amongst them, though neither of them men who Hunt, should be the support that is garnered, I'd suggest. The views of those who can apply the logical benefits to the well being of the hunted animal should be the sought out support, rather than taking part in a bickering contest which achieves nothing in the way of benefit, or none that I can see.
We all too often focus upon those of the Hunting fraternity who behave in an unethical or unacceptable fashion, and they're all so often held up as examples or the reasons in part, why Hunting should remain illegal. Do we ban Football because of the minority who bring the 'game' in to disrepute? Of course we don't. Those who ride to Hounds today have had their ranks swelled since the ban of 2004, and I wonder what that tells us.
Before any attempt at repeal, we have to consider the debacles which have previously been obvious, but conveniently forgotten. We should consider the pointless attempts, for instance at a badger cull which quite predictably achieved absolutely nothing, barring 30 or 40 dead badgers. Again, it was a Government attempt to appease both sides of the argument without actually having any effect, whatsoever. Both Government and the general public need to have a well reasoned and logical argument put before them.
I could go on and on!
Alec.
Countryman
Well-Known Member
Not at a national level, no.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Hunting alone no longer has the ability to reduce our vulpine population to the previously healthy and sustainable levels. Hunting will though, as it always has, remove the old, the weak, the diseased and the generally infirm, and by so doing enable only those which by age and 'condition' are best prepared to produce and rear healthy cubs.
Alec.
fburton
Well-Known Member
As a matter of interest, wouldn't this tend to increase the population overall by increasing the number of family units producing next generation foxes?
While I find the argument for improving the health and vigour of wild animals by culling the less healthy and vigorous quite appealing on an emotional level, it also seems somewhat contrived and, well, speciesist - considering that other wild animals don't receive this kind of attention. It's true that foxes are apex predators, so prey species with get some 'weeding out' treatment naturally, without man's intervention. Indeed, that might be an argument to (re-)introduce other apex predators to e.g. 'look after' deer populations. However, we don't perform the same service for aerial predators (eagles and owls); they are left to fall off their perches. I suppose that's because they have less (potential) impact on agriculture and there is less sport to be had.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Para 1; I'm not too sure, but I'd doubt it because any environment can only support any given species by the availability of a food supply. It's an interesting point that over the last 30 years, the massive expansion in the rearing of game, supplies our fox population with a ready food supply. Similarly, after WW11 the Forestry Commission was formed, there were quite literally millions of acres of tree planting programmes, and as the forestry at the time went through growth stages which were 'staged', so it provided the perfect environment for (certainly in the South of England), our native Roe Deer. The effect was a colossal increase in numbers with Roe in the South being at near plague proportions. Thanks to the remarkably incisive work of men like Richard Prior who was at the forefront of Roe management, so what could have become a pest and demonised has been saved by being viewed as an asset. Our native vulpine population has, I suspect, been similarly though unintentionally, supported.
Para 2: The reintroduction of other 'apex' predators would be a disaster, for all of our wildlife. If not a disaster, then there would likely be a chain of events when the introduced creatures would become of a real and detrimental influence. Whilst not at the top of any food chain, just look at the damage done by the grey squirrel which has no natural enemies of any real substance.
I'm also not too sure how any prey species which isn't itself preyed upon, would receive any natural 'weeding out' process. Birds of prey, I'll grant you, through protection seem to maintain a reasonable level of numbers, with the exception of buzzards, which now seem to be just about everywhere, or at least they're seen in numbers and in areas where 30 years ago they were a rarity. Specifically and considering our birds of prey population, the numbers have never really recovered from the appalling effects of DDT, which is something else that I don't really understand.
Much of what we have is supported, or it isn't, by the environment which we provide, or we don't, which neatly takes us back to the 16 cubs which are or were, being reared in a barn!
Alec.
fburton
Well-Known Member
As ever, I appreciate hearing your thoughts, Alec.
hackneylass2
Well-Known Member
And I will take that as proof positive that you are a complete Jenny.