Question re. shock in a fox.

[severnmiles]

I was watching a late night animal program on Sky the other night (I'll watch anything with wolves in ) and they then went to S.Africa to a lion pride, they caught a baby buffallo which three lions spent nearly 10 mins eating...whilst it was still alive...cue Ewwwww's and *sick smilies*. The mother came back and the lions ran away, up the buffallo gets (minus its ears) and trots off with mum, the ranger on the show said it survived despite its injuries and the trauma.

So in comparison how can we be expected to believe that foxes die from shock after a chase? Hardly a 'trauma' by comparison is it?

 

[oakash]

Yep, funny ain't it! The same people who watch 'wildlife' films on TV where animals are killed by other animals in terribly cruel ways, will (sometimes) then go out and sign an anti-foxhunting petition! Strange old world isn't it?

Antis duplicity and hypocricy knows no bounds.

 

[Fairynuff]

Ive always believed that they died of being caught! Im still anti-ish :grin:. M.

 

[PapaFrita]

I remember a very well publicised case where a fox was rescued during a hunt by a policeman putting his helmet over the entrance to the earth. Fox was later retrieved and taken to the vet who said it had shock. Too bloody right it had shock; it had been shoved in a cage and poked and prodded by humans!
Honestly, some people have got no bl**dy sense!

 

[southgate1975]

Hmmm, I seem to remember it was pros who told me that it was shock that killed foxes.

Depends what type of shock you're talking about, of course, cardiocascular or nervous.

 

[southgate1975]

More importantly, what you've also demonstrated here is that a hunted animal, even having suffered severe injuries, can live for quite a while after that injury is inflicted by a hunting animal.

Which means that the claim that when a fox is killed by hounds the death is always immediate.... well, that claim just isnt reliable.

 

[severnmiles]

What a silly comment RS, hounds are 3 times the size of a fox and a lion is pretty much on par if ever so slightly smaller than a buffallo calf (depending on age) 3 lions eating one calf, a pack of hounds KILLING a fox. I'm yet to ever witness a fox caught by hounds that escapes.

 

[severnmiles]

Hmmm, I seem to remember it was pros who told me that it was shock that killed foxes.

Depends what type of shock you're talking about, of course, cardiocascular or nervous.

Certainly not me...who on earth told you that?

 

[severnmiles]

Ive always believed that they died of being caught! Im still anti-ish :grin:. M.

Anti-*ish*....c'mon sogs/TF and co....we're getting there with this one! :smirk: Only joking Mairi! :grin:

 

[soggy]

Im still anti-ish :grin:. M.

Do I sense a slight movement in that gritty Scottish resolve to always be right. What would all of those ex-clients down at the dole office say?

How can you be "anti-ish? That's a bit like saying you're "gay-ish" or "vegan -ish" or " jew-ish" . Well Ok I suppose you could say that you were "jewish". You're not are you? Jewish I mean?

Come on Mairi you have always know that hunting makes good sense.

 

[oakash]

Surely what was demonstrated by that case of the antis catching a hunted fox by using a policemans helmet and transporting the poor creature some 20 miles to a 'sympathetic' vet (not any old vet would do, you see) only demonstrated just how unreal and hypocritical those people are. Never mind the trauma to the fox, think of the publicity!

 

[severnmiles]

Kindness kills...

 

[southgate1975]

Agreed, it was a stupid and vague statement. I wish I can remember which pro posted it. It was ages ago, admitted.

 

[southgate1975]

Notwithstanding, the point stands.

"I'm yet to ever witness a fox caught by hounds that escapes. "

But did you ever determine the exact point and cause of death ?

 

[Fairynuff]

Sogs, Im ant'ish'. I have come to the conclusion that if and when foxes need to be controlled then yes, its probably kinder to use hounds instead of other means! If 'stopping' and 'digging' were abolished you might find me out again hanging around the back of the field. Ive become very sensitive to death in my old age :crazy: Oh, you can add 'cubbing' to the list of things to abolish. I know, I ask too much hence the 'anti-ish-ness'. By the way Sogs, I got on great with most of my ' unemployed customers' and would often have a pint with them up the Greyhound in North Hendon on a Friday lunchtime :grin:. I have actually been unemployed myself in the past . Kindest regards, Mairi.

 

[severnmiles]

"But did you ever determine the exact point and cause of death ?"

It doesn't interest me aslong as its hellish quick!

 

[severnmiles]

"If 'stopping' and 'digging' were abolished"

Cue Carreg....

Isn't it funny how thats often the bit antis don't like yet the government left it legal...not that I have a problem with it but I would probably prefer to be killed on the run by hounds.

"you can add 'cubbing' to the list of things to abolish"

Cubbing is really more about entering the pups. Cubs are referred to as adults by Sept/Oct and as RS says isn't it better to cull it when young rather than leave them until they're older?

 

[oakash]

Yes, you are right Severn..being killed on the run by hounds seems a much more honourable death to me. I think the same applies to a good stag: being hunted by hounds seems altogether a finer death than being shot like a dog when the animal is least expecting it. and I think the way that we all die IS important...

 

[merlinsquest]

Electric 'shock' is usually fatal!!! Only kiddin... runs off to hide!!!

 

[southgate1975]

Funny how 'noble' is in the mind of the doer, not the done to.

Mind you, it does engender an interesting train of tought. How fast can you run ?

 

[oakash]

Southgate: you beg the question: do you believe that the MANNER of that inevitable end, our death, is important or not?

 

[southgate1975]

You asking about mine and yours, or an animal that we're killing ?

 

[oakash]

Both.

 

[southgate1975]

You have the freedom to choose your own mode of and attitide towards your own death.

My attitude to my own is.... well, sometimes pragmatic and sometimes romantic.

But my attitude towards the death of an animal.... well, I hope it's humane, and as free from pain and distress as possible. Nobility is something that you feel, not the animal.

And the idea of nobility varies from culture to culture. In the samurai culture of japan, a noble death would have been one where one used a sword to cut out one's intestines, and then forebore the pain for as long as possible before asking a second to behead you. You might think such nobility is fitting for an animal. I dont.

 

[Grumpy Herbert]

Yep, funny ain't it! The same people who watch 'wildlife' films on TV where animals are killed by other animals in terribly cruel ways, will (sometimes) then go out and sign an anti-foxhunting petition! Strange old world isn't it?

Antis duplicity and hypocricy knows no bounds.

Are you seriously equating an animal being killed by other (non reasoning) animals, with foxes being killed by (reasoning) humans? Animals don't have the ability to rationalise things, they act on their in-built instincts - despite whether we think those instincts are reasonable or not. They don't kill "for fun" - they have no concept of fun. If you are equating the two, then you are, by implication, saying that huntspeople are animals.

Also, it's been said on here that an "honourable" death is a quick and humane one. (do animals have a sense of honour?) Well, I don't think chasing an animal for hours before killing it is very humane, although I concede the point of death by hounds is very quick and probably a humane way of doing it.
Before you all shout at me, I don't have a problem with killing foxes but I do have a problem with terrifying them for hours beforehand. And yes, I am anti, but I'm not unemployed, a tree hugger, a leftie, a townie........

 

[kirstyhen]

Animals do kill for fun. Foxes will kill a coop full of chickens and only take one.
Also I think stating that the fox is terrified for hours before hand a little on the excessive side.
I am pro, however I dont have a problem with antis, just wish they would leave us alone to do what we please. There are far more pressing matters in this world than a few pests being controlled.
Hunting to me seems far more humane than the other legal options.
I also dont go hunting for the fun of killing an animal.

 

[Grumpy Herbert]

Foxes kill by instinct - we say it's fun when they kill the lot, but take one because that's how we rationalise it. Animals can't rationalise what they do, they have no control over instinct. And how can a living creature being chased not be terrified? If it wasn't scared, it wouldn't run!

I don't mean to be provocative and haven't come on this site for a fight- I am genuinely interested in others points of view. I totally agree that there are far more pressing matters than fox hunting and that the point of death is possibly the most humane way of killing, but my problem is with the chasing! I know we'll never agree on the subject of hunting, but I personally think it's good to see things from the other side occasionally.

 

[severnmiles]

The fox is killed by hounds my dear....not people, actually thats a lie, that was how it worked pre-ban...now we flush them from their earths using a terrier (far less stressful than killing them in the earth wouldn't you say? Well done Labour) and then blast them with a gun.

The fox oesn't care about what is honourable or what is morally correct, it cares about a quick and humane death which is exactly what it got pre-ban.

We don't shout..we debate.

"I don't have a problem with killing foxes but I do have a problem with terrifying them for hours beforehand."

That one takes the biscuit...another who has never witnessed hunting but feels they're opinion is valid. *yawn*

 

[severnmiles]

Tell that to my bitch, let her loose with chickens she'd kill the lot, not for food but for fun. Let her loose on rats she'd slaughter them - certainly not to eat! They enjoy it, it gets the adrenalin up therefore must give them a buzz...afterall they can't go out and get pi55ed on a Saturday night can they :smirk:

A wild animal doesn't necessarily run because its scared, being a predator and not prey it fears little, it runs because it is a *wild* animal, not used to alot of noise/people e.t.c. You try trapping an urban fox and its pretty easy, try trapping a rural fox and it takes longer, they're much more aware and cautious.

 

[kirstyhen]

I agree that its good to see both arguments and i can definately see why people would think its cruel, but I believe that its far less cruel than other methods, which is why hunting will alwasy get my vote. I believe that since the ban foxes have been delt with in a far more inhumane way.
In the same way that the animal is programmed to kill, it is also programmed to run , the amount of fear they feel is unknown.
I would say that there is a vast difference between terrified and scared. To me terrified is an animal that cannot function due to fear, a scared animal is an animal acting to protect its self. Not saying that it is alright to scare an animal, just think that saying the fox is terrified is an exaggeration.
My understanding of what goes on at the front is limited to say the least (so feel free to correct me if you know better) but the fox is often fields in front of the pack, only knowing they are upon it when it stands little chance of escape and the rest would happen pretty quickly.