Pro/Anti arguements?

S

Skhosu

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 May 2006
Messages
8,193
Visit site
so, was having a discussion w/ friends in school I've never been sure if I was anti or non, but all, excpet one horsey one were completely anti.
Was wondering what the arguments are for and against as want to decide whether or not to go hunting again (been once..)...
Thanks guys
 
You're very brave. Why not talk about your own experience. Did you enjoy it when you went out? Why did you only go the once? I'm "anti" I'm suppose, but promise not to bite!
 
I went hunting once with a 'proper' hunt and twice with childrens meets ( although they ended up chasing a killing a fox with terriers)
The 1st childrens meet was too much standing around. Second one was amazing, round an event course so was jumpng 2* event fences on my lad.
The real hunt was good, over big open fields, a bit of road work and saw the fox but didn't catch it.
I onlywent once as don't want to knacker his legs (he's delicate!) and had other things to do.
Just not sure where I stand as not keen on the idea of chasing anything until its exhausted, or ripping it apart ( no matter how quick it is) but think that ill/mangy ones should be caught.
Not sure with the arguement that only unhealthy ones are caught... not sure it happens like that!
I am purely interested in a welfare/human grounds, not livlihood etc. of the huntsman.
 
Thre's no doubt that healthy foxes are caught. However given that so many foxes escape the hunt, it's hard to argue that statistically healthy foxes are as likely to escape than unhealthy foxes. Healthy foxes can run faster and have more wits to enable them to escape the hounds.

Gettting rid of old, wounded and diseased foxes is highly beneficial. From a welfare point of view a diseased fox will have a horrible death often lasting for waeaks through starvation or gangrene.

Also weaker foxes tend to go for easier, high risk prey. Eg. catching mice and rabbits is low risk but hard and requires agility. Taking a young lamb may be easier but higher risk as you risk the farmers gun.

There's quite a strong argument to suggest that overall the fox population doesn't need controlling. However there's also a good argument to say that locally troublesome foxes need taking out and also that its a good thing to target sick, old foxes.

Shooting foxes is entirely random. It does not select sick old foxes. Natural predation is not. Lions tend to only get the weaker gazelles, a heard of gazzelles in the wild will have NO sick animals. In the wild death through starvation or disease is EXTREMELY rare. Almost all animals die through being caught and eaten. To make out that control of a wild mammal population through starvation and disease is natural is completely false.

It may well be that there is an argument to regulate fox hunting, espacially to limit the length of the chase. However often foxes are caught with little or no chase.

Catching and killing a sick old fox with dogs is a more welfare freindly way of getting rid of it than just letting it die. When people say that the population should be controlled 'naturally' they are condemning foxes to a far more painful death through disease, starvation, gangrene etc. Even if foxes were killed by being 'torn apart' this still lasts only seconds. Gangrene and Mange last for weeks and months.

Allowing diseased animals to linger is very unhealthy as they risk spreading the disease.

Fox hunting is by no means perfect, however it is better than nothing.
 
ok. TBH, that has completely thrown me to the anti side.
Has no-one else got anything to say?
I thought this forum was for discussing hunting, maybe it's just for argueing?
 
Why has that trown you to the anti side?

If you have been, don't you know enough to make your own decision? If you want to go, go and if you don't then don't! Its as simple as that!

Only thing i would say is don't listen to your anti friends too much - they probably don't know what they are talking about and anyway, you should make up your own mind instead of following the others.
 
"I thought this forum was for discussing hunting, maybe it's just for argueing? "

Yes, well sometimes there are discussions, sometimes arguments. Mostly they're good natured, but sometimes they get so heated that we find ourselves breaking into Latin and Welsh.
Hunting is a very emotive subject.

Why did Giles's answer throw you to the anti side?
 
IT admitted basically all the bad things i thought about hunting.
I know it is very emotive, I wanted a good picture or the thing from knowledgeable people so I can make an informed decision. Going hunting where you don't see the hounds much doesn't really count..the field stayed far back and no fox caught.
I hate the idea of ripping something to shreds.
I have seen the terriers sent in (on a childrens) and completely disagree with that completely.

'There's quite a strong argument to suggest that overall the fox population doesn't need controlling. However there's also a good argument to say that locally troublesome foxes need taking out and also that its a good thing to target sick, old foxes.'

That also put me off the idea. I was unaware that the population didn't need controlling,as that is how I see most hunts I've seen selling it. If it is just local foxes, I believe a gun might be more efficient
OR
I think the sound of flushing to guns sounds better. Surely a lot less chance of escape?
Not saying I am going to run around in balaclava, but it put me more in an against hunting frame of mind.

And why would these friends not know what they're talking about? Maybe a view without all the arguements, plainly taking into account what happens is what is needed?
If anyone can shed some light on anything I've said, or if I have said something wrong I would welcome (polite!) replies.
Thanks guys!
 
What I'm trying to say is that shooting is more efficient in terms of numbers killed per participant, however hunting tends to target more sick foxes who otherwise would have a more painful death.

Another thing to consider is that Hunting does not wound, it either kills the fox outright or it escapes.

A fox wounded by a shot gun may well have a very slow and lingering death.

Foxes are not killed by being torn apart. They will be as dead before they are torn apart as the meat is on your plate.

Peoiplem getting pleasure from animals suffering is clearly wrong.

The following site is a good place to start for pro arguments. The put it much better than I could:

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/hunting-with-hounds/hunting-with-hounds.html
 
Any idea how long an average chase is?
Is it true the fox is chased to exhaustion?
Is it true it is killed with a nip to the neck by a hound?
hmm...anything else?
What about flushing to guns, how does that work? Not sure how you get the horses after it galloping in this case?
 
There are lots of different types of hunting.

Speaking only for what I do with my own dogs.

I'd say the average chase lasts for about three minutes.

I don't kill animals I just flush them out and chase them with dogs.

I don't flush to guns, I just flush. I do it with myself on foot.

I've bought a horse recently, 15.2, but you can't have him, I love him too much already!
 
Mainly I chase Deer. To get them out of my woodland where they do a lot of damage. I am convinced its a better solution for me and the deer than shooting them.

I'll chase pretty much anything as long as I don't feel it is cruel.

Generally only things that i think will escape.

However if I came across a sickly hare I'd definately let the dogs chase and catch it so I could put it out of its misery.

It's all totally illegal of course but laws are there to be broken.
 
don't agree with deer hunting. sorry.
ok
well, since no-one else seems to want to put their views forward (surprising I think but anyway...) I think I'll meander off this forum.
Thanks guys.
 
Cheers TripleSandH you're pefectly entitled to your views and good luck to me.

I still say that in my case not killing the deer is kinder than killing them. However that's just my view.

You're entitled to yours.
 
"And why would these friends not know what they're talking about? Maybe a view without all the arguements, plainly taking into account what happens is what is needed?
If anyone can shed some light on anything I've said, or if I have said something wrong I would welcome (polite!) replies."

Because they are "friends from school" and to be fair, can you say that they know a lot about hunting? I can't be bothered to argue any more, which is why i said you should make up your own mind. What's wrong with that? You seem to want people on here to beg you to be a pro, why?
 
Arguments can be great when people are willing to engage in them. Too often they become slanging matches between 'pros' and 'antis'.

Am I a pro or an anti? I'm not sure, I'm pro some things and anti others.

I'm definitely anti hiding behind labels as an excuse to think. That's called prejudice and there are some fine examples of that on this site.

Which is buckybee here?

I don't know.

I could review his/her previous posts to see which side he/she is on. Alternatively I could just treat him/her like a human being.
 
buckybee is pro i guess, but like you i disagree with some aspects of it which is why i can respect anyones opinon, if it is an educated one.

What get on my nerves is when people either -

1. Can't make up thier mind weather they "should" go hunting or not.

2. If i here "ripped to pieces" one more time, GRRRRRR!!! :mad:
 
Be reiight!! I'm from Yorkshire so I'm tough!

Fridge has run out unfortunately. :(

Guess I'll just f**k up my lungs with another role up instead!
 
Ah a tyke.

Strong in liver and thick in spleen.

I spent some of my best drinking years up there.

Timothy Taylors used to be one of my favourite tipples if I remember rightly.
 
Dunno mate, I tend to go for pinot grigio myself but I'm sure tim nice but dim is good too!!

Not sure if I'm a tyke or an owl - I'm a bit in between, which do you think is best/worst?? :p
 
As someone who grew up hunting with the Eridge from a very early age, initially working with the terrier men then mounted I have a good knowledge of what really goes on during a hunt.
Niether Pro nor Anti will give you an unbiased opinion or fact. I can see the argument from both sides and take which ever stand I feel like.

For me the question of wether to hunt or not came down to one simple question.
"Do I think it is acceptable for an animal to die for my sporting pleasure?"
If I went hunting now it would be for the same reason as 90% of folks.....the chance to have a bloody good gallop across land not normally open to me. Not for the kill
Sadly though my answer to the simple question is "No", hence I no longer hunt. I wouldn't thnk any the worse for people who do or attempt to stop them. I believe it is up to the individual alone to come to terms with that question and act accordingly.
Perhaps you would be better askinging yourself that question rather than try and tie yourself up in knots over what goes on.
 
I broadly agree with you. That's why, for myself I refuse to kill the animals my dogs chase.

I do however feel very stroingly that using dogs to disperse deer can be a better solution than shooting them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top