papers and stuff....

[endymion]

Been away in Bonnie Scotland for a few days so not been on the forum, the thought of trudging through old posts ive not been able to reply to is giving me a headache, so Giles, SM or anyone else, feel free to re0ask me anything ive not answered!

..and here are some more papers FYI. I've not read all of them so I dont know what they're all about, but they are all relevant and I was supposed to PM someone with this stuff but forgot so here it is...

Moberly, RL, White, PCL, Webbon, CC, Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2004) Modelling the costs of fox predation and preventive measures on sheep farms in Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 129 - 143.


Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2006) Does culling reduce fox (Vulpes vulpes) density in commercial forests in Wales, UK? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 52, 99 - 108.

Moberly, RL, White, PCL, Webbon, CC, Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2004) Modelling the costs of fox predation and preventive measures on sheep farms in Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 129 - 143.

Sadlier, LMJ, Webbon, CC, Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2004) Methods of monitoring Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Badgers (Meles meles): are field signs the answer? Mammal Review, 34, 75 - 98.

Moberly, RL, White, PCL & Harris, S. (2004) Mortality due to fox predation in free-range poultry flocks in Britain. Veterinary Record, 155, 48 - 52.

Moberly, RL, White, PCL, Webbon, CC, Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2003) FactorsWhite, PCL, Newton-Cross, GA, Moberly, RL, Smart, JCR, Baker, PJ & Harris, S. (2003) The current and future management of wild mammals hunted with dogs in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 187 - 197.

Baker, PJ, Harris, S & Webbon, CC. (2003) Hunting and fox numbers in the United Kingdom. Nature, 423, 400
Harris, S & Saunders, GR. (1993) The control of canid populations. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 65, 441 - 464.

Enjoy peeps

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Links would have helped Endy.

Do you have anything on the comparative welfare between shooting a deer and flushing them out with dogs?

 

[endymion]

No offence but I'm just pointing out to people whats available for them to read if they are interested. I'm not bloody sciencedirect.com!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Ah right.

What do you think would hurt a deer more. Getting flushed out or getting shot?

 

[endymion]

Change the record G!

Flushing and leaving or flushing and chasing for a short period of time has only a small effect on the animals welfare.

Flushing and chasing for extended periods is cruel.

The bill does not demand that flushed mammals are shot, it states that IF you intend to kill a wild mammal then that animal should be flushed and shot rather than chased with hounds and torn apart. Or killed by other, legal, methods.

So exactly what are your thoughts on hunting with hounds Giles? You say you cause no cruelty as you dont kill the deer, do you therefore think that to chase and kill a deer with dogs is cruel?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Endy I'll do a deal with you. I'll answer your questions if you are prepared to answer mine.

Do you think that deliberately searching for, flushing out and chasing away a wild mammal with a dog should in all cases be illegal?

I'll happily 'change the record' if you are prepared to answer my question.

 

[endymion]

Not in all cases. But then it isn't illegal. Its illegal to hunt a wild mammal. Chasing a deer with a few Collies would never warrent a prosecution against you. Chasing deer with pack of hounds is another matter altogether.

Most people want to make an ass of the bill by using the tactics you use, so forgive me for being suspicious of you.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So if chasing a deer with a dog is not illegal, why has the only police conviction under the hunting act so far been against an individual chasing a deer with a dog?

Was this a miscarriage of justice?

If what he did wasn't illegal why was he convicted?

Chasing a deer with a dog is illegal. It's ridiculous to say it isn't.

 

[endymion]

No, its not illegal. Hunting is illegal.

The conviction was brought on the basis of a person intentionally hunting a wild mammal with dogs. All the evidence supported this fact. The chase was encouraged in a manner that strongly suggested the intent to kill.

G, your arguments are transparent, I can see where you're trying to take things a mile before you get there. This line you're taking is paper thin. Get some new tactics.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Right. So what you are saying is that if there is no intent to kill then someone isn't hunting?

Intent to kill has to be proved to get a conviction?

That's a very important point because if it is the case then it is still perfectly legal to chase a deer with dogs as far as one wants as long as there is no intent to kill.

 

[endymion]

Not with a pack of hounds. Not for a prolonged period. There is no reason to chase a mammal for a long length of time.

 

[endymion]

and you still havent said whether you think hunting with hounds is cruel

 

[CARREG]

".....So exactly what are your thoughts on hunting with hounds Giles? You say you cause no cruelty as you dont kill the deer, do you therefore think that to chase and kill a deer with dogs is cruel?...."

Do Staghounds kill deer I always thought the deer were brought to bay and shot............Carreg

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"and you still havent said whether you think hunting with hounds is cruel "

It depends on which of the many types of hunting you are referring to.

As far as organised staghunting is conserned I think it's cruelty depends on the length of the chase.

I'd like to see a law regulating hunting on the basis of cruelty.

Short chases would be legal, chases beyond a certain length would not be.

Intent to kill has no relation to guilt. If it were then an un harmed stag hound pack could chase a stag as far as it wanted.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Endy,


Hardly impartial scientific documents all have been tainted by our good old vehemently anti hunting friend Prof Stephen Harris. Let’s not forget he was the one that took twisted data on chased foxes from an animal rights website and published in a scientific document without bothering to check the data for authenticity. How many of those documents you listed were funded by the I.F.A.W?


Ask Professor Harris to get his study on wounding rates from shooting foxes peer reviewed, we have only been waiting 3 years since he said he was applying the finishing touches.

Cheers

Nigel

 

[wurzel]

Got anything that not biased ?

Racial integration guidelines by Reynhard Heidrich for example?

 

[endymion]

I suppose some hunts may shoot a deer at the end of a chase (which begs the inevitable question of why they didnt shoot it at the START of the chase) but Ive seen lots of footage of stags being brought down by hounds. Anyway, never been to a stag hunt so dont pretend to be a expert.

The question i asked giles was whether he thought huting with hounds was cruel in general, not just specifically to stags.

 

[endymion]

Harris is used as an advisor by all the top goverment bodies across Europe and by various British and international mammal conservation bodies. Just because he is anti-hunt on the grounds that he has accumulated years of scientific data that prove it be unessesary does not mean he is biased. it means he has formed an opinion moulded from cold, hard, facts. Look at all the other highly respected names that have contributed to his reports. These people would never work with a man that was biased as it is scientifically unsound.

...and I have a paper on wounding rates that is not by Harris and states that wounding rates in shooting are not high enough to render shooting worse than hunting with hounds. Anyways, a couple of gun dogs with a marksman will usually track all injured escapees. Give me time to find it.....

 

[endymion]

Intent is guilt. Why chase a stag that will be shot/brought down by hounds when you could shoot it in the first place?

 

[endymion]

....and how is racial integration related to the hunt debate???

Tom are you trying to make yourself sound intelligent? Seriously, I can't imagine you sitting on a stonewall watching the sheep somewhere in Exmoor while contemplating the cultural and contextual significance of Durkheim or the likes!

 

[CARREG]

"...The question i asked giles was whether he thought huting with hounds was cruel in general, not just specifically to stags...."

You asked, "...do you therefore think that to chase and kill a deer with dogs is cruel?....." ............Carreg

 

[Nigel]

Hi Endy,

Most of those papers you highlighted have been funded by an anti hunting organization the I.F.A.W and the research has been carried out by the well known anti hunting Professor Stephen Harris. He has been known to use twisted data before, he also has been accused in the book Rural Rites of misleading the Government and a high court over hunting an accussation he has thus far failed to deny.

The point of me asking you to ask Harris when his study into wounded foxes from shooting is going to be peer reviewed is because he used his Study to pour cold water onto the Middleways peer reviewed study showing high wounding rates from shooting at a Labour conference. He also told MP`S his study would be peer reviewed shortly. To date it has not because simply its complete crap. Thus proving once again Harris will use any flawed or twisted data to support his own stance on hunting.

I personally think you need to ignore Harris`s crap conclusions at the bottom of his papers as they have been paid for by the i.F.A.W and think of your own. Also think what is he trying to hide and what he does not cover.

Cheers

Nigel

 

[AlanE]

Endy, for goodness sake stop making a fool of yourself! Staghounds very very rarely would bring a deer down, and it would never be intended: the animal is brought to bay and immediately shot. Your case, and all the biased 'science' you quote bears no relation to the situation on the ground. As for the video footage of hunted stags, the League have a very limited footage which they drag out at every opportunity; if you can't see these people are conning you then you deserve sympathy.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Endy,

This is just for you mate,

You said,

“Just because he is anti-hunt on the grounds that he has accumulated years of scientific data that prove it be unnecessary does not mean he is biased. It means he has formed an opinion moulded from cold, hard, facts.

Read on, TRUTH HURTS NOBODY,


Anyone who read has bothered to read these two papers will realise that it is impossible to confuse them, other than mischievously. However, it seems that Harris and Baker, when writing “How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox Population? Failed to consult either. Instead they relied – and this is the only reference they cite – an animal rights website.
The website had transferred the pathological findings of the 1990 study on trapped foxes to the 1989 study on chased foxes. By accepting at face value statements made on an overtly propagandist website, Stephen Harris and Baker perpetuated the errors made by the website.


So are these the cold, hard, facts Harris and his sidekicks have formed an opinion on?


Out of interest Recognize “How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox Population? Even you now will accept its crap and yet it was regurgitated by the R.S.P.C.A. And I.F.A.W in propaganda pamphlets and had a major influence on those half witted, window licking morons that in the main occur the Labour Backbenches.

Cheers

Nigel

 

[soggy]

Nice one Nigel.

 

[wurzel]

"....and how is racial integration related to the hunt debate???"

It is not. I was demonstrating extreme bias.

Heydrich was biased when it came to race relations.

Harris is the same when it comes to hunting.

I have the same amount of time for both of them.

They are both responsible for increased cruelty.



"Tom are you trying to make yourself sound intelligent?"

No. Are you? I have no need to. I know what I know and am aware there are billion things I have no clue about.

You on the other hand, are an expert on things you have no clue about.



"Seriously, I can't imagine you sitting on a stonewall watching the sheep somewhere in Exmoor while contemplating the cultural and contextual significance of Durkheim or the likes!"

You mean Durkheim in the context of Exmoor? Don't waste your time, I won't be doing this.

And there are not that many stone walls on Exmoor.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"...The question i asked giles was whether he thought huting with hounds was cruel in general, not just specifically to stags...."


Asking if hunting with hounds is cruel in general is like asking if whether is hot in general. IMO Hunting can be cruel but isn't necesarily. It's very simple.

It's a moderate rational position on the subject.

 

[endymion]

ok, not that it matters a rats ass but I will clarify, "Giles, do you think hunting with hounds is cruel? ". We are being pedantic today aren't we?

Anyway I think giles has already attempted to answer the question so this is all meaningless dribble

 

[endymion]

Most are funded by the organisation/university that wants the study carried out. These are many and varied. IFAW may have funded him (I'm not sure on this, some proof from you would be good) and they certainly do host some his reports on their site but, looking at the larger picture he has been independantly funded by many conservation/university bodies to carry out studies both concerning fox ecology and other mammal ecology projects. To state that all these people are anti-hunt is absurd.

I'm sure the paper i have on wounding rates is not of Harris, but give me time to find it, Im up to my eyes in uni reports ect

Finally, I know you have problems with Harris but I never read any studies connected with lobbyists such as the middleway group, the CA or LACS as they are all biased. Harris on the other hand is a freelance scientist for the most part.

In the meantime, I'll dig out non-harris related papers on hunting if you're interested and perhaps you can find me some papers supporting your stance that does not come from a lobby group?

 

[endymion]

As I have said, I've never been to a stag hunt and therefore only know what my limited experience talls me. The footage LACS have is harrowing and brutal.

Again, if the stag is to be shot at the end of the hunt why not shoot it at the start and save it the trauma of the chase, which in this case, seems to be soley for the entertainment of humans?