On death and dying.

[Festive_Felicitations]

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion.
If any one can provide a rational arguement proving me wrong I would be glad to hear it.

OK, I don't read this forum religously, but the basic concensus among the Antis appears to be an objection to the killing of the fox at the end of the day.

If Hunts don't go out foxes still get killed, just not by hounds.

General alternatives are shooting, poisoning and snaring.
Shooting: unless you are at close range, or are a very good shot, the chances are that the fox will only be injured, not killed out right and will die at some later period.
Poisioning: I have had the misfortune of having to watch two of my dogs die from Strychnine poisioning. Poisioning is a SLOW & HORRIBLE way to go, no one (animal or human) should ever have to die that way. The only truly fast acting poisions are banned on H&S reasons becasue they are too leathal.
Snaring: if not killed out right the animal is caught till it starves to death, a slow and I think nasty way to go. Also snares are not selective in that you may get non-targeted animals.

Dogs are predators and fairly good at killing there prey, compared to some of the above options, I would have thought it would be a prettty quick way to go and at least they stand a chance of escaping. It may not be pretty but at least it is fast.

I would be interested (please keep your arguments rational) for both parties to post their opinions.

 

[Hebegebe]

From a welfare point of view hunting can be compared with other control methods in terms of it's net effect on animal suffering.

Three factors weigh in hunting's favour.

Firstly it does not wound.

Secondly death is often much quicker

Thirdly it tends to select weaker diseased animals because they have less ability to escape.

 

[stencilface]

From a welfare point of view hunting can be compared with other control methods in terms of it's net effect on animal suffering.

Three factors weigh in hunting's favour.

Firstly it does not wound.

Secondly death is often much quicker

Thirdly it tends to select weaker diseased animals because they have less ability to escape.

Well, the last point is only valid if all the foxes holes have not been filled in really.

I tell people that although they might not like fox hunting, its actually better than other methods - mainly cos most of the time they don't actually get anything!!!

I worked on an estate where the gamekeeper had snared and shot 80 foxes in one summer season. That is excessive imo

 

[rafferty]

All you say is very true, however snares, poisoning and shooting went on along side hunting not as alternative.
Regardless of a ban these methods will still be used and are still used. The frequency of use maybe debatable.
I may be wrong but I think its because hunting is not a Particularly efficient method of control.
Yes I would prefer the fox to have a fighting chance but I don't think this romantic view of hunting is a true one.
Blocking, stopping, releasing, digging may be as bad as the things you mentioned.

 

[Scratchline]

I tell people that although they might not like fox hunting, its actually better than other methods - mainly cos most of the time they don't actually get anything!!!

I worked on an estate where the gamekeeper had snared and shot 80 foxes in one summer season. That is excessive imo

So it shouldnt really matter that hunting with hounds is banned then, true? Compared to other hunting methods they do not catch that many and those that they do are killed by a pack of dogs which is unacceptable to most people.

 

[stencilface]

Yes, I am a fence sitter on this one, as can see it from the animal welfare pov and from a countryside management one, can never make my mind up, and am likely to argue both sides on different days - depending on who I am speaking to!! :grin:

There is no black and white answer to it really.

 

[Scratchline]

IMHO only lamping of a night time by licensed people with rifles should be legal. Nothing else is as humane.

 

[Hebegebe]

That all depends how you measure efficiency and how you measure efficiency depends on your aims.

My interest is in the maintenance of a strong and healthy fox population at sustainable levels.

Fox hunting is more efficient at producing this because it tends to select weaker animals. Shooting less efficient because it produces wounded animals.

I would measure efficiency by having the desired effect while killing the fewest animals.

It seems a strange argument against fox hunting that it does not kill enough animals.

 

[Hebegebe]

IMHO only lamping of a night time by licensed people with rifles should be legal. Nothing else is as humane.

Surely flushing out and chasing deer without killing them is more humane than shooting them?

Shouldn't non lethal means of controlling damage done by animals be legal?

 

[rafferty]

I wasn't looking at it from an Anti POV just trying to be realistic.
I'm just trying to see it from the sheep farmers Perspective.
would a fortnightly visit from a hunt keep the fox population to an exceptable level.
If the answer is yes and there was no need for additional methods then I dont think you can argue with it.
Not as a control method anyway.

 

[Hebegebe]

Indeed the best method depends on the circumstances and the desired effect.

 

[Scratchline]

The "others', will stop talking to you if you also dont put all the nasty anti's on ignore! lol lol lol

 

[Scratchline]

Surely flushing out and chasing deer without killing them is more humane than shooting them?

Shouldn't non lethal means of controlling damage done by animals be legal?

Yes Yes Yes ) I do absolutelty agree with you on this.

 

[Hebegebe]

Right and how about regulation over all means of controlling animals which promotes the best one for specific circumstances and aims with a view to minimising the impact on animal welfare?

 

[zigzagzig]

G'day Felicity. My basic problem with hunting is that hunts deliberately ensure that there are enough animals to hunt. In the case of foxhunting this traditionally meant introducing foxes to fox-free areas (such as the Isle of Wight) and then killing them. Look at Australia, foxes only exist there because of hunts.

 

[Hebegebe]

True.

Hunts spend a lot of time and effort improving habitat for foxes. Such as planting trees and maintaining cover.

Another example is creating woodland rides which has a marked effect on woodland butterflies.

As for introducing foxes into Australia. That would be illegal now and quite right too.

 

[zigzagzig]

Yup, agreed. Hunts preserve and even regenerate the countryside. I just wish hunts could be more honest about the steps they take to boost fox numbers, which they then kill for reasons of 'pest control'.

 

[Hebegebe]

There are studies out there if you want to read them. Management and control of the fox population is about maintaining a sustainable number of healthy animals.

Control can be up as well as down.

Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor changes in animal populations.

 

[Hebegebe]

My local begle pack has shipped in thousands of brown hares to Devon from the East the country.

 

[Eagle_day]

"Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor changes in animal populations."

Indeed it was the otter hunters who drew attention to the population crash of otters in the 60s and 70s. (And stopped hunting of their own violition.)

 

[Box_Of_Frogs]

You're all missing a major point.

What is the difference between fox hunting and bear baiting, dog fights and cock fighting? The last 3 "sports" have been recognised as barbaric and stopped. But all have the same formula: human beings enjoying the one-sided fun process of killing animals.

Can anyone provide a convincing and reasoned argument on why fox hunting is different?

 

[Hebegebe]

Yes fox hunting is about catching a fox and killing it as quickly as possible.

Dog fighting, bear baiting and cock fighting are about doing things with animals once they are in captivity.

People enjoy lamping foxes too. They also enjoy catching and killing rats.

 

[Eagle_day]

"You're all missing a major point."

You might think so but, no, we aren't.

Foxhunting has nothing to do with baiting, which is usually done for betting purposes. In fact, the only time I see hunting linked with such activities is when the antis' old lies and smears are dragged out again.

 

[joe_carby]

1st comment Excellent discussion

I agree hunts do up the numbers of fox hare populations but as said before regulating a population isnt just about keeping numbers down its about keeping numbers of healthy fox's up. no one wants foxes to be extinct i love watching the cubs on a morning when i wake up.

When i used to work on a farm we were bordered by a large shoot on 2 sides. through spring we lost alot of lambs due to foxes but when the foxes were caught (lamped by us) they had always or nearly always been mamed by traps or guns which we can only presume came from the shoot. Fit healthy foxes very rarely caused us a problem.. i guess what im trying to say is that hunting gets rid of the ones causing the majority of the problems. where as other forms of control do not differentiate (sp) between species or how healthy an animal is.

Hope that all made sense.

 

[JanetGeorge]

When i used to work on a farm we were bordered by a large shoot on 2 sides. through spring we lost alot of lambs due to foxes but when the foxes were caught (lamped by us) they had always or nearly always been mamed by traps or guns which we can only presume came from the shoot.

That's an interesting observation because I saw exactly the same thing in Australia when I worked on a large sheep station. The elderly owner wouldn't let ANYONE shoot foxes until he was convinced they were good enough to kill them with one shot! And shooting foxes with shotguns was forbidden (we used 303's - VERY effective!!) It wasn't because he cared about fox welfare - he hated foxes with a passion. It was because he was convinced that it was the injured foxes who preyed on lambing ewes.

This was borne out by the foxes we shot around the lambing fields. Some 70% of these foxes had shotgun wounds or were wearing wire (snares). As there was NO shotgun shooting or snaring on that station, they had obviously followed the smell of lambing from nearby (and this WAS a 20,000 acre station!) stations looking for 'easy pickings'.

And - contrary to the much loved anti claim that they only take afterbirth and dead lambs - I saw - in broad daylight - a fox waiting as a ewe was in labour. I spotted it and rode towards it yelling (and I was riding one horse, leading 3!!) The fox calmly tore the head off the emerging lamb and made its escape - leaving the poor ewe to deliver a headless lamb - one of the most pathetic things I've seen!! They would also take the first lamb born while the ewe was delivering the second - ewe would then be tearing around looking for the first (ewes CAN count!!) - often neglecting to attend the second in the process.

Lambing some 8,000 ewes outdoors, the losses to foxes were pretty horrendous despite rigorous fox control. (A group out shooting at night would kill 70 - 100 foxes in a night and it was a drop in the ocean!!)

Of course, in the UK, the BEST you can do with a firearm is a .222 - and even that isn't guaranteed to kill a fox! The police in many areas won't permit more than a .22 for fox control - even an expert marksman can't guarantee a clean kill every time with THAT!

But then the police are more interested in public safety than fox welfare or control (quite rightly). There are a LOT of places in the UK where even a .22 is dangerous!

 

[zigzagzig]

An excellent illustration, Janet, of how hunts f***ed up the ecological balance by introducing foxes into oz in the first place.

 

[JanetGeorge]

An excellent illustration, Janet, of how hunts f***ed up the ecological balance by introducing foxes into oz in the first place.

PEOPLE have screwed up the ecological balance EVERYWHERE - particularly over the last 100 years! Actually, they screwed up just as badly by introducing rabbits! And the justification for introducing foxes was that they would control the rabbits! Both were incredibly stupid things to do.

 

[zigzagzig]

Can't you understand why onlookers find it hard to accept the "pest control" justification from people like Liam on his hunting forum, when it was the hunt which introduced foxes to the Isle of Wight, where he's based? Can't you understand why we roll our eyes when hunters trot out with the "ecological balance benefit of hunting" tripe when they so obviously interfere in the balance, and sometimes disasterously for the worse?

If hunters had had their way, they would have introduced the fox into New Zealand. Fortunately, the Governor had better ideas and dumped the poor beasts into the sea.

 

[joe_carby]

"the Governor had better ideas and dumped the poor beasts into the sea"

Animal Welfare????????????????????????????????????????

 

[wurzel]

Yup, agreed. Hunts preserve and even regenerate the countryside. I just wish hunts could be more honest about the steps they take to boost fox numbers, which they then kill for reasons of 'pest control'.

Tell you what, old girl.

If you can provide proof of the steps hunts on Exmoor take to boost fox numbers, I will cease hunting this August.

How does that sound for a deal?