On death and dying.

[Festive_Felicitations]

On Australia (look where I live!)

Foxes were introduced to control rabbits (introduced cortesy of Thomas Austin 1859) which were allready in plauge proportions by the 1880's.
But I don't think you can use Australia in any argument as its history reads like a "Comedy of Errors":
- Rabbits (early 1800s)
- Foxes (late 1800's)
- Buffalo (early 1900's) God knows what inspired that one...
- Cane toads (mid 1900s)
- any domestic animal that has escaped... since 1780, feral
pigs being are a major problem in the north.

At the moment on the edges of Sydney Bandicoot numbers are in decline as they are pushed out by rabbits. Rabbits are reaching plauge levels due to the large food source and the 'aren't they cute, don't hurt them' philosophy which makes it impossible to shoot them (spectacular oppostion and complaits to council at the suggestion and very few were on OH&S grounds). You can't poision because Bandicoots and Possums eat the same stuff. It is really fustrating when you can see native animal numbers declining but a few welfare groups oppose to the most humane form of rabbit control. But this is a major ongoing argument in Aus...

Apart from that, thanks for your replies it has been very interesting!

 

[Hebegebe]

ah yeah but hey lets blame ecological mayhem in australia die to the introduction of foreign invasive species on fox hunters

hell look what they've done to the Isle of wight!!!!!

 

[Eagle_day]

But at least foxes would have existed on the Isle of Wight in the last 10,000 years or so - but certainly when there was a land bridge to the mainland. In which case, the EU Directive about the reintroduction of species will apply?

 

[zigzagzig]

"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?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.

 

[zigzagzig]

"But at least foxes would have existed on the Isle of Wight in the last 10,000 years or so - but certainly when there was a land bridge to the mainland. In which case, the EU Directive about the reintroduction of species will apply?"

WTF? Are you an actuary?

In any case, we know that the Countryside Alliance loves the EU, spending its members money on completely pointless legal cases in its courts.

 

[Eagle_day]

"WTF? Are you an actuary?"

No, a zoologist.

 

[Hebegebe]

"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?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.

In other words. He can't

 

[Chestnutter]

I just don't see the point in the fox dying in the first place.
fair enough, it may be the best death for them, but i don't see the need to kill things in nature to begin with, culling just isn'y a good enough reason tbh. it's nature, i think it should be left like that.

 

[jrp204]

Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance. Arne, an RSPB reserve has been overrun by sika deer, they have had to cull hundreds. They were out competing the native deer and leaving any areas of grassland like a bowling green, left, they would have limited food resources and the fallow deer would have gone. In the scottish highlands, caledonian forest regeneration has been affected by the deer, without predators the 'natural' balance does not exist. So should these culls take place? its all very well saying leave it to nature but at what cost to those other creatures within the food web who would lose habitat or food resources?

 

[wurzel]

"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?"


I couldn't care less how you get your kicks. If you do so by tormenting animals then that's a matter for you and your conscience. I suppose I wish you well, since I'm a nice person, but frankly I find you as boring as I find eagle_day miserable.

But you seemed to be saying that we do something to boost fox numbers?!

Now I guess it is one of three things...

1. You know it to be true.
2. You told a little lie (and you admiring honesty and all!)
3. You have not got a clue what you are talking about.

I wonder which one?

 

[rafferty]

{Quote}Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance.

This natural preditor arguement is a load C**p, I don't think anyone really believes it. Wolves and bears did not have mobile phones and quad bikes and didnt chase an animal for hours for a laugh Hunting is not natural selection.
Theres no piont us lying to each other I think we all have an interest in this for one reason or another so we may as well not treat each other as idiots.

 

[Festive_Felicitations]

I object to the apparent belief by (some) Antis that anyone who hunts does it out of cheer blood lust, and that we all stand around cackling and laughing at the kill.

I don't know of any one who laughs, and if I ever meet any one who does I would probably report them to the police, out of concern for their mental stability.
All hunts I have been involved in (fox and pig (in Aus)) go to considerable effort to make the actual death as quick as possible, with the least amount of blood spilt.

Most people who do Hunt do so becasue they enjoy watching the hounds work, as a social event, for the pleasure of riding across country,
AND (as the above can be done without a fox) because they belive it is the best thing for the fox population, as a means of controling population numbers as there are no natural predators left in England.

Re-the predator argument: a lot of people do believe it, and there is a lot of highly respected, scientific literature to support it (written by non-hunting ecologists).

 

[Hebegebe]

{Quote}Culling is sometimes the only option, since bears, wolves etc were made extinct in this country foxes and deer have no natural predators, so nature isn't always best when man has already intervened in the natural balance.

This natural preditor arguement is a load C**p, I don't think anyone really believes it. Wolves and bears did not have mobile phones and quad bikes and didnt chase an animal for hours for a laugh Hunting is not natural selection.
Theres no piont us lying to each other I think we all have an interest in this for one reason or another so we may as well not treat each other as idiots.

It's not a load of crap. Predators have a significant role to play in maintaining a natural equilibrium. In the case of deer without predators or some kind of control the population will expand until it exhausts its food supply. This is extremely damaging to the environment.

Hunts do not chase animals for hours either. They may hunt an animal for hours but they don't chase it for hours.

In actual fact the average time from finding a fox to either killing it or losing it is something like 20 minutes.

However wolves have in fact been observed to chase animals for significant distances.

With respect to fox hunting it is very hard to argue that a fit young fox has an equal chyance of escaping the hounds to a wounded or sick animal.

 

[zigzagzig]

""WTF? Are you an actuary?"

No, a zoologist."

The zoologists' annual fun day out must be a riot.

 

[zigzagzig]

Would a letter sent to all hunt masters from the Chairman of the MFHA, asking them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed suffice?

 

[wurzel]

Would a letter sent to all hunt masters from the Chairman of the MFHA, asking them to do more to persuade landowners to encourage foxes to breed suffice?

No. Because you can't produce a letter sent to us by the Chairman of the MFHA asking us to do that.

And you know you can't.

Why do you lie?

If you have the letter why not just put it on the board and humiliate me.

How would the farmers in Minehead Harriers and Exmoor Foxhounds country actually go about encouraging foxes ?

You have not got the slightest clue.

Why do you lie?

It is pathetic.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

he's not a liar, just plain bloody ignorant in all things hunting wise- he and that other creep scratcharse haven't a clue so make it all up!waste of spaces.

 

[jrp204]

At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling) are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.

 

[zigzagzig]

Consider yourself humiliated, Tim
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20041003/ai_n12910763/?tag=untagged

 

[zigzagzig]

"Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology?"

What do you think of the theory that the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was an ecological "godsend"?

 

[jrp204]

I don't know if i would call it a 'godsend' Many reports have suggested that the exclusion zone is a thriving ecosystem and it appears that in the low level radiation areas this is probably the case BUT there is also evidence of mutation and chromosomal aberration in some species in the exclusion zone surrounding chernobyl, these have led to partial albinism, feather asymmetry, reduced clutch sizes,hatching failure and a reduced survival rate in some birds (swallows have been studied quite extensively) - more so in areas of high radiation. There is a 66% decline in in the abundance of birds between areas of most contamination and those with normal background levels of radiation, species richness decreased by more than 50% in the same areas.
I think the only positive thing to come out of the disaster is that it has allowed research to be conducted into the long term effects on the whole ecosystem of radiation poisoning.

 

[Hebegebe]

maybe we will get some new species out of all those mutations

 

[Eagle_day]

I think we've got one or two posting on this forum now.

 

[wildduck]

well said "Eagle_day" not been a member long (2 days) and read some posts on here,and enjoying the banter.Can't say that I have come across any mutant wild duck yet whilst out myself.Still perhaps "zig" has, whilst out shooting.. have you zig? Do let us know when you do get one in the bag.

 

[rafferty]

Quote{At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling) are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.}

No i havn't. I have spent 30 years getting drunk and I thought I was on a hunting forum.
I was saying hunting is not quite the same as having wolves and bears. the above creatures did not have mobiles quads and shovels.

 

[rafferty]

Wild duck you know you're not really a tiger, well zig zag......oh it doesn't matter.

 

[wildduck]

NO? I cant download a decent picture from my computer so I chose this tiger from the avatar menu on here.Wife says i'm her tame (pussycat) will that do?

 

[rafferty]

Its not really Zig

 

[Hebegebe]

Quote{At what point did i mention hunting? Have you spent 3 yrs studying conservation biology and ecology? Probably not, many conservation measures (which can include culling) are needed now to counteract inbalance (mainly caused by mans interaction at some stage) or should we just accept that no animal should be culled but the indirect killing through competition for resources is ok.}

No i havn't. I have spent 30 years getting drunk and I thought I was on a hunting forum.
I was saying hunting is not quite the same as having wolves and bears. the above creatures did not have mobiles quads and shovels.

Indedd but they run fast, chase their prey and dig them out.

 

[rafferty]

Anyway now your here you must state your cause.

All pros are *******
All Antis are *******
I'm just here to wind up the antis/pros
I would like to hear both sides conducting well thought out arguements so I can make up my own mind
I just like killing things