Repeal or No Repeal of The Acting Act 2004

[Lizzie66]

So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then?

Only if they were made into sports.
Though these offend me less than fox hunting, because there is less of a chase.

This is where your argument is confused.

On your argument if the huntsman went out on his own with hounds and despatched the fox in the pre-ban method but no-one was with him this is OK as there is no sport it is one man doing his job.

However at the second point you say you find the chase offensive, so is it fox-hunting or fox-hunting as a sport that is the problem ?

The sport aspect is people going watching the hounds do their job. You might find this morally wrong and offensive others don't.

Many go on safari to Africa and watch lions chase and kill their prey, is this offensive ?

Why should your sense of morality override mine ?

If the Burns report had concluded that fox-hunting with hounds was cruel then I would have had to rethink my viewpoint but it didn't. It actually found that it was the better method (second only to a clean shot with high powered rifle).

I find it immoral to pick a method of pest control that is detrimental to species welfare due to an emotive and prejudiced viewpoint of MPs that were openly stating that the ban would be one in the eye for "toffs".

 

[{51248}]

Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.

Low flying (legally defined as being closer than 500ft to any person, animal, vehicle, or structure) is illegal. If you can read the registration of a low-flying aircraft then you should report the incident to the CAA.

As regards my 'wing and a prayer' argument, I note that you disparage them but do not provide counter-arguments.

 

[{51248}]

As probably my last post today, may I add that I do not believe it immoral to enjoy the sport of discussing hunting.

 

[Fellewell]

It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.

Or maybe it's the humans who step in and take over, thereby hastening a humane conclusion to this form of culling. The old picture of the fox 'killed by hounds' was a carcass thrown to hounds having been flushed and shot by a terrierman.

That's a lovely aeroplane. I expect it took part in dogfights over Europe. Should we argue the morality of that? There is no black and white (let me invoke Godwin's Law)

Adolf Hitler banned fox-hunting in Nazi Germany. Like so many AR people he didn't really care for animals he just hated people.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.

What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?

 

[Judgemental]

What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?

I take the view that the cruelty is not to the quarry but to the hounds with the constraints of The Hunting Act 2004.

Hounds are bred to hunt a live quarry (save those for the clean boot) and several hundred years of carefully honed breeding has gone into the current packs.

That breeding cannot be changed and to ask hounds to hunt a smelly rag is absurd and cruel because it confuses their in bred/built sensibilities.

Too many hounds have been soured as a result.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.

Judgemental - it was the above I was referring to

 

[marmalade76]

What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?

Have to agree, and also add that we get low flying Chinooks and those other big army planes and they've never bothered any of my horses at all.

 

[Countryman]

I understand that people may themselves find taking enjoyment in an aspect of a process which may have other aspects involving death as immoral. This is the case with hunting - death of a fox is irrelevant to the day's sport. However I wonder quite how many of these people know that while to live by their own moral code they must be vegan (eating meat is done purely for enjoyment-in this day and age, there are many substitutes and vitamin supplements, and by buying meat you pay for an animal to be killed) but that they also must avoid practically everything in modern life - as somewhere along the line, almost everything humans enjoy, from eating, hunting to gardening, results in some sort of death at one point or another in the process.

 

[Fellewell]

Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment from any part of a process where, at some point, an animal has been killed. This includes the eating of meat, and indeed also grain and cereals, where pest control has been carried out. I hope you do not *enjoy* driving your car, as it is killing many moths as you travel. Such is your right. However, your views are held by a very small minority. Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others.

Excellent points Countryman. Is he killing Cinnabar Moths do you know? Because if he's also pulling ragwort this is complete savagery (whatever happened to Esther Hegt? Those were epic threads). Interestingly another Dutch biologist conducted an experiment which concluded that 2 insects are killed on your number plate for every 6.2 miles travelled. Perhaps we should all ride bicycles, of course you'd swallow quite a few but they might have nutritional value so would not have died in vain.

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental - it was the above I was referring to

I will confess to hitting the wrong posting as the sun was over my shoulder and diffused the screen.

However nothing spices up these debates like a bit of variety and I was aiming at pakkasham.

Clearly I would have been a failure in a dog fight, or should I say hound fight if I could not read the screen with the sun at the wrong angle and my missiles would be wide of the mark.

Don't think we have had a spitfire on the forum hitherto. Must make him feel at home.

 

[{51248}]

That's a lovely aeroplane. I expect it took part in dogfights over Europe. Should we argue the morality of that?

Yes, it saw active service in WW2 (google 'Grace Spitfire'). I'll be happy to discuss the morality of warfare if you want, but this is a hunting forum and the thread title is regarding the repeal of the hunting act, not investigation into the rules of war and war crimes.

 

[{51248}]

death of a fox is irrelevant to the day's sport..

I don't think so... the intent is to gain enjoyment in an activity in which a fox is deliberately chased and killed.

 

[{51248}]

This is where your argument is confused.

QUOTE]

Maybe not so much confused and badly put. Mea culpa.

 

[Fellewell]

Yes, it saw active service in WW2 (google 'Grace Spitfire'). I'll be happy to discuss the morality of warfare if you want, but this is a hunting forum and the thread title is regarding the repeal of the hunting act, not investigation into the rules of war and war crimes.

There is a comparison to be made; if one is vehemently against the killing of foxes then surely this objection should extend to all living beings across-the-board, ie; hounds,horses,foot followers and children on ponies. There you have the saboteurs Rules of Engagement, everything but the fox is fair game. Bit hypocritical isn't it?

I have no wish to discuss rules of war or whether people sifted through Dresden looking for injured foxes. The first casualty of war is truth, as we all know.

Back 'on message' for you; controlling numbers of foxes ensures health and sufficient habitat for all wildlife. If you think trapping, gassing or poisoning is more humane as control then I fear you've been misled.

 

[fburton]

Back 'on message' for you; controlling numbers of foxes ensures health and sufficient habitat for all wildlife. If you think trapping, gassing or poisoning is more humane as control then I fear you've been misled.

How much do fox populations go up if they are not 'controlled' by human hand? Isn't it the case that hunting makes very little difference to overall fox numbers, with many more being killed e.g. on the road? (Obviously, this varies a bit depending on geography.)

There is a separate argument for killing particular 'rogue' foxes that have become a problem with livestock - but that is different from 'controlling numbers'.

 

[Fellewell]

How much do fox populations go up if they are not 'controlled' by human hand? Isn't it the case that hunting makes very little difference to overall fox numbers, with many more being killed e.g. on the road? (Obviously, this varies a bit depending on geography.)

There is a separate argument for killing particular 'rogue' foxes that have become a problem with livestock - but that is different from 'controlling numbers'.

But they are being controlled by human hand, that's the point. It is legal to snare, trap and shoot foxes even in urban areas and when outside agencies get involved there's no telling how many foxes are unnecessarily suffering.

 

[lar]

So the argument for repeal is purely for reasons of control?

And the argument against is that chasing a mammal for enjoyment is barbaric?

So
Repeal the Act and allow the hunt staff and them only to hunt as they used to. Everyone else who just wants a nice time galloping around the countryside can carry on drag/trail hunting.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad!

I confess I'm a little bemused by the whole hunting/shooting thing. It's ok to go shooting, which results in food for the table, although in this day and age, very few, if any, need this to feed themselves. It's not ok to fox hunt, the only result is a dead fox (how often is a hunt 'successful'?) It's encouraged to shoot rabbits, I think, because they're pests. Pigeons too? A bloke used to shoot pigeons at the yard, I'd take some for the dogs, but some were left on the muck heap.

 

[{51248}]

if one is vehemently against the killing of foxes then surely this objection should extend to all living beings across-the-board,.

I am not vehemently against the killing of foxes. I *am* vehemently against a sport being made out of it.

 

[{51248}]

Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad!

I confess I'm a little bemused by the whole hunting/shooting thing. It's ok to go shooting, which results in food for the table, although in this day and age, very few, if any, need this to feed themselves. It's not ok to fox hunt, the only result is a dead fox (how often is a hunt 'successful'?) It's encouraged to shoot rabbits, I think, because they're pests. Pigeons too? A bloke used to shoot pigeons at the yard, I'd take some for the dogs, but some were left on the muck heap.

I fully accept that it is necessary to cull, kill, or otherwise control animals that are pests / kill or harm livestock / harm crops. My point is that it is immoral to make a sport out of it. So, here in full is my thesis....

It may or may not be necessary to kill foxes. There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most effective means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary). There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most humane means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary). There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

However, if it is necessary to kill foxes, then I believe it is immoral to make that a sport out of that process.

 

[fburton]

Couldn't be clearer.

(Quite separate from this - I would still be interested to know how many more foxes there would be if they weren't deliberately killed.)

 

[Tea Drinker]

I fully accept that it is necessary to cull, kill, or otherwise control animals that are pests / kill or harm livestock / harm crops. My point is that it is immoral to make a sport out of it. So, here in full is my thesis....

It may or may not be necessary to kill foxes. There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most effective means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary). There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most humane means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary). There are arguments on both sides. I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

However, if it is necessary to kill foxes, then I believe it is immoral to make that a sport out of that process.

OK - I get that but if, like me, you believe that hunting foxes with foxhounds IS the most effective and humane way to kill them (and that is it necessary to kill them - just ask the sows on our farm who lose their piglets to Mr Fox on a regular basis!) then to ensure we get the foxhounds to come on our farm and do the job we believe is necessary - then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job!

The only way this happens is if the huntsman charges interested parties (ie the people on horses who want to come for a variety of reasons) a wodge of cash to have the privilege of riding on land that is private and otherwise inaccessible to them. It costs many tens of thousands of pounds to run a pack of foxhounds. Farmers cannot on their own pay for this.

So as farmers, we have a service done at no cost to us. Keeps British-produced pork prices down
Foxes are dispatched using hounds. As a farmer, we believe that hounds provide the most effective method because they can only really catch the older/weaker fox who is typically the one hanging around our outdoor (free range if you like) pig unit. These are the problem foxes. The younger, spritely foxes tend to hunt far and wide over a large territory. As farmers and countrymen, we are deeply uncomfortable with hiring in rifle shooters who pretty much kill any fox passing through hence why we prefer foxhounds not man to do the killing. Rifle-operators do not discriminate on the age/health of a fox (plus we've witnessed too many bodged shots on foxes so we just won't have that kind of animal cruelty happen on our land).

The horse riders have each paid their daily fee to come and ride on land they otherwise cannot access. They may be there for the riding pleasure or to see hounds work. It does not matter to us as farmers why they are there. We suffer a small amount of land damage (from 80 horses riding across) but in return get a service we deem worthy of the 'cost'.

The countryside is a delicate equilibrium. The pressures of commerical farming and land development are ever present. As farmers, we constantly face pressure to produce food as cheaply as possible yet wanting to protect our lands (often inherited over generations) for our future children, both our own and for society, in general. One would hope that driving around our country that people generally like what they see; a mix of wildlife able to co-exist with modern farming/food production for the masses.

Take pheasant shooting. That too is a sport that people partake in for fun. Many pheasants are eaten but during the 2014/15 season, we were having to dump pheasants because game dealers had an oversupply and the public won't eat them. (Selling price dropped below 10p a bird in our area.) However 10% of our farm is put down to pheasant habitat now. Take away pheasant shooting and you'll see a wildlife haven ripped up and replaced with crops sprayed with insecticide. But having these wildlife havens also brings in more foxes.....!
I would put it to you that you have to park up your moral sensibilities and in this day and age, you have to accept what you see as "cruelty" or "immoral sport" in order to protect the greater good of the countryside and our wildlife in general.

It's a really sensitive issue that on the face of it is morally repugnant. No sane person from any walk of life takes pleasure in the killing of a random animal! You have to look beyond the surface and see it from the point of view from people who really know the countryside and how it works. I don't want to come across as preachy but just like I would not presume to tell you the machinations of how spitfires work and function, it is hard to accept proclamations of cruelty based on people who have no working knowledge of the countryside's equilibrium.

 

[Tea Drinker]

Sorry for the essary. Urgh!

 

[lar]

OK - I get that but if, like me, you believe that hunting foxes with foxhounds IS the most effective and humane way to kill them (and that is it necessary to kill them - just ask the sows on our farm who lose their piglets to Mr Fox on a regular basis!) then to ensure we get the foxhounds to come on our farm and do the job we believe is necessary - then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job!

The only way this happens is if the huntsman charges interested parties (ie the people on horses who want to come for a variety of reasons) a wodge of cash to have the privilege of riding on land that is private and otherwise inaccessible to them. It costs many tens of thousands of pounds to run a pack of foxhounds. Farmers cannot on their own pay for this.

So as farmers, we have a service done at no cost to us. Keeps British-produced pork prices down
Foxes are dispatched using hounds. As a farmer, we believe that hounds provide the most effective method because they can only really catch the older/weaker fox who is typically the one hanging around our outdoor (free range if you like) pig unit. These are the problem foxes. The younger, spritely foxes tend to hunt far and wide over a large territory. As farmers and countrymen, we are deeply uncomfortable with hiring in rifle shooters who pretty much kill any fox passing through hence why we prefer foxhounds not man to do the killing. Rifle-operators do not discriminate on the age/health of a fox (plus we've witnessed too many bodged shots on foxes so we just won't have that kind of animal cruelty happen on our land).

The horse riders have each paid their daily fee to come and ride on land they otherwise cannot access. They may be there for the riding pleasure or to see hounds work. It does not matter to us as farmers why they are there. We suffer a small amount of land damage (from 80 horses riding across) but in return get a service we deem worthy of the 'cost'.

The countryside is a delicate equilibrium. The pressures of commerical farming and land development are ever present. As farmers, we constantly face pressure to produce food as cheaply as possible yet wanting to protect our lands (often inherited over generations) for our future children, both our own and for society, in general. One would hope that driving around our country that people generally like what they see; a mix of wildlife able to co-exist with modern farming/food production for the masses.

Take pheasant shooting. That too is a sport that people partake in for fun. Many pheasants are eaten but during the 2014/15 season, we were having to dump pheasants because game dealers had an oversupply and the public won't eat them. (Selling price dropped below 10p a bird in our area.) However 10% of our farm is put down to pheasant habitat now. Take away pheasant shooting and you'll see a wildlife haven ripped up and replaced with crops sprayed with insecticide. But having these wildlife havens also brings in more foxes.....!
I would put it to you that you have to park up your moral sensibilities and in this day and age, you have to accept what you see as "cruelty" or "immoral sport" in order to protect the greater good of the countryside and our wildlife in general.

It's a really sensitive issue that on the face of it is morally repugnant. No sane person from any walk of life takes pleasure in the killing of a random animal! You have to look beyond the surface and see it from the point of view from people who really know the countryside and how it works. I don't want to come across as preachy but just like I would not presume to tell you the machinations of how spitfires work and function, it is hard to accept proclamations of cruelty based on people who have no working knowledge of the countryside's equilibrium.

So - back to my suggestion for a compromise. Hunts start to operate in parallel. Hunt staff are the only ones allowed to hunt live quarry. Everyone else carries on trail/drag hunting.

Just out of interest - how is a hunted fox ACTUALLY despatched? A lot of the emotive anti hunt sentiment seems to revolve around a fox being "ripped to death" by hounds. Is this factually accurate - or is the fox already dead by this point? I only ask because I don't think I've ever seen a counter argument from a hunt supporter and it does seem to be what causes most bile from the antis.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad!

Bit Rude !! The forum is for everyone not just those whose views you agree with.

 

[Tea Drinker]

I'm afraid as landowners, we do not allow the hunt to come over our land if purely trail hunting. Other landowners feel the same, I know. Horses in those numbers cause damage to the farmland so that just isn't going to happen. Where is the benefit to us farmers?!
As it stands, we use guns to despatch any foxes that are found by the Hunt at the moment in the course of their trail hunting. It's not our preferred way of controlling fox numbers because we no longer know if this fox is a young or healthy one or whether it's one of the problem ones we tend to get honing in our pigs!
Foxes are still getting killed just as they were pre ban - it's just now it's indiscriminate whereas pre-ban we feel that we were at least managing to be selective! It's quite rare for a pack of foxhounds to catch a young healthy fox. They outstrip the hounds easy peasy.

How is a fox kiilled by hounds?
- Quickly!

The lead hound will go for the back of a foxes neck and break it. Just like terriers do with rats. Centuries of breeding mean a foxhound knows how to do one thing : kill a fox as efficiently as it can. The kill is instant. Mother Nature is good at ensuring things like that. You don't send a cat in to kill a fox. Cats kill birds. Foxhounds kill foxes. And so on...
For sure the second, third and fourth hounds also like to "kill" the fox too so they too will go for its neck but by then the poor thing is dead. That's where this idea of being "ripped to death" comes in. The first one kills it outright though. Foxes don't outlive foxhound jaws. It's just not possible! It's not a grey area here. A fox gets away without a scratch. Or it's stone dead in an instant. (Which is why we dislike rifle shooters. They cannot be sure of this black and white outcome. They are usually shooting at night and from 100's of yards away.)
The fox is not "ripped to death". It has its neck broken.
As soon as possible, the Huntsman will be off his horse and remove the fox for it to be disposed of. There is no meat on it so it's not like the hounds are all feasting on it. Once the fox is dead, all but a couple of hounds lose interest in it. Like a terrier does with a rat. It's in their nature. They are already looking for their next prey.
Like every other carnivorous animal in the world.

 

[{51248}]

OK - I get that but if......... then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job!
.

OK, we're all intelligent people, lets sit down together and devise a way to do that.

 

[millikins]

I don't really get the "immoral" argument. If we assume (for the sake of this post) that controlling fox numbers and maintaining a healthy population is effectively done by hunting them with hounds and is a popular choice amongst farmers, then why is a hunt follower immoral for participating in the activity?

 

[{51248}]

I don't really get the "immoral" argument.

I guess that's why you support hunting and I don't.