Repeal or No Repeal of The Acting Act 2004

[fburton]

Doesn't it come down the nature of the "pleasure" or enjoyment obtained from participating? And whether the activity is considered a necessary evil, or a wholly good thing?

Would making a pastime of attending state executions (in countries where it is done and considered a necessary evil) be immoral? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/who-watches-americas-executions/379044/) My feeling is that it would be immoral, but then I suppose it would depend on the motivation of the person attending (and I also think the death penalty is an unnecessary evil).

Likewise, would going to watch animals being slaughtered be considered immoral? It could be argued by someone proposing to do so that they were taking pleasure in "a job well done" - though personally I would be very suspicious of such an argument.

Of course, people following hounds to hunt foxes used also to be a tradition, so it was already normalized as a socially acceptable activity. But apart from that is it really so different in principle from the previous hypothetical example?

 

[lar]

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.

But if the hunt in parallel were disposing of your foxes - just one or two hunt staff doing the pest control job? In any event there obviously are landowners in sufficient numbers who are willing to allow trail hunting on their land hence the actual increase in numbers following hunts. The point I'm trying to make is that if you remove the element of followers gaining enjoyment from an animal being killed then to my mind the argument for repeal to allow humane destruction of foxes is immeasurably strengthened.

And thank you very much for your excellent explanation of the actual mechanics of the fox's despatch. It is very much as I thought and I don't understand why those who are pro hunt don't make this counter argument more strongly. I see the phrase "ripped to death by a pack of hounds" so often in anti hunt publicity and it is such an emotive phrase that I do feel if this could be proved more often to be a nonsense it would again strengthen the pro-hunt lobby's hand.

 

[fburton]

And thank you very much for your excellent explanation of the actual mechanics of the fox's despatch. It is very much as I thought and I don't understand why those who are pro hunt don't make this counter argument more strongly. I see the phrase "ripped to death by a pack of hounds" so often in anti hunt publicity and it is such an emotive phrase that I do feel if this could be proved more often to be a nonsense it would again strengthen the pro-hunt lobby's hand.

You'd think there would be video clips available - and if they provided conclusive evidence for one or other side's argument, I'd expect them to be shown in short order.

I don't know which is right; I suspect that it isn't totally black and white - or, rather, that the fox is usually killed very quickly by having its neck broken, but that sometimes some "ripping" may occur prior to that event. As I said, I don't know for sure.

 

[Countryman]

Animal welfare law should be based on just that - Animal Welfare. Whether or not the hounds eat ("rip") the carcass of the fox *after* they have humanely killed it is frankly beside the point. Some do, some pack's - I think Fell Hounds - don't. Unfortunately many people seem to feel strongly about this.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Is the chase not supposed to be distressing (and therefore cruel) for a fox also ?

 

[millikins]

Surely all animals are chased frequently without suffering particular stress. How many rabbits does a fox chase before it catches one? Dogs chase cats, cats aren't traumatised by it. I favour the argument that all living things (us included) have an awareness of the nearness of danger and until the danger encroaches closer than the ability to run away or reach safety there is little or no fear. I agree the fox will probably be afraid when hounds catch up with it but so it will be if snared or badly shot and it is accepted that foxes will be controlled by one means or another. And if hunting should remain banned because it's cruel to chase a fox or a deer, why are rabbits and rats not protected by law for the same reason?

 

[abb123]

I doubt that the act will be repealed in this parliament. There isn't the public opinion to back a repeal, I don't think it would go down well to put parliamentary discussion time to it when there are more important things, and it was not a main part of the Tory campaign so they would struggle to say that they have a mandate to push it through.

Also, as the Tories have a very small majority they would need a three line whip. This would be highly unlikely for items such as this as MPs would normally have a free vote where it is a matter of conscience.

 

[millikins]

I think it was in the manifesto to offer a free vote. The SNP have said they will abstain which would make things far more uncertain.

 

[abb123]

The SNP are already saying that they are considering voting due to the large number of people that have contacted them asking them to vote against repeal.

 

[Countryman]

Yes, I'm confident there is no cruelty in the (frankly short) chase. Indeed much of the time the fox may not be aware he is being pursued - he is merely keeping away, just as they do when a dogwalker crosses the neighbouring field. In addition to this, as he has never been caught before, he is not expecting to be caught- he knows he can get away, and he has no premonition or idea of the concept of death.

Abb123, if the SNP pledge to vote on it, then repeal will just have to wait a few months until English Votes for English Laws legislation locks them out from voting on any such matter entirely.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

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.

Please don't be ridiculous. In what way am I trying to keep the forum only for me? Looking at your join date, I doubt you were here for that poster who seriously believed that ragwort didn't really harm horses and should be allowed to grow freely to encourage the cinnabar moths, sod the horses. She was, in many people's opinions, quite odd. I think you are being overly dramatic.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

For those interested in the mechanics of how the hounds may despatch the fox: (text too long for pasting) http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32

 

[Judgemental]

Any comments relevant to Deer as a pest are conspicuous by their absence and the issues of not being able to safely shoot them, on Dartmoor and Exmoor or in many other areas.

For those who have only recently joined the thread it is entitled The Acting Act 2004 because the act is a farce.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Please don't be ridiculous. In what way am I trying to keep the forum only for me? Looking at your join date, I doubt you were here for that poster who seriously believed that ragwort didn't really harm horses and should be allowed to grow freely to encourage the cinnabar moths, sod the horses. She was, in many people's opinions, quite odd. I think you are being overly dramatic.

Cinnamon Toast, I really dislike it when heated debates reduce into slanging matches where some people on here cannot cope with someone who has a different point of view and this is challenged. At times responses range from personally insulting, condescending, to assuming that people are stupid as they have a different point of view, it makes the forum an unpleasant place and prevents proper debate, plus its not an adult way to behave, but these types of comments are abundant in some of the more "lively" threads.

In my reference to the forum being for everyone I suppose I was alluding to people being able to express their views without others assuming they must be mad, or insulting them. (I am ridiculous / overly dramatic!! though I admit this is mild compared with some of the stuff)

Plus your reference to this person was very unclear, it was not possible to tell as to whom you were referring and if it was someone active on threads now, and in particular, active on this one !!

 

[fburton]

Animal welfare law should be based on just that - Animal Welfare. Whether or not the hounds eat ("rip") the carcass of the fox *after* they have humanely killed it is frankly beside the point.

Quite!

Yes, I'm confident there is no cruelty in the (frankly short) chase. Indeed much of the time the fox may not be aware he is being pursued - he is merely keeping away, just as they do when a dogwalker crosses the neighbouring field. In addition to this, as he has never been caught before, he is not expecting to be caught- he knows he can get away, and he has no premonition or idea of the concept of death.

Would this argument also apply to dispatching sheep using suitably large 'hounds'? Or do prey species have a concept of death, know they might not get away, and are thus capable of suffering stress? I find it hard to accept Millikin's assertion that "all animals are chased frequently without suffering particular stress".

... it is accepted that foxes will be controlled by one means or another.

I accept that specific foxes may need to be 'taken out' because of the destructive habits they have acquired (or at least there are strong economic arguments to do so). I am not yet convinced overall numbers need to be controlled.

And if hunting should remain banned because it's cruel to chase a fox or a deer, why are rabbits and rats not protected by law for the same reason?

This does appear to be a glaring inconsistency, I agree.

 

[Fellewell]

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.

Don't worry, I think we're safe. On the 2015 National Moth Recording Scheme there has been a range expansion of Cinnabar Moth in Scotland. She's probably north of the border as we speak.

I'm always bemused as to how the general public can sit down and be entertained by dozens of zebra being picked off by crocodiles and bison having to rely on death by hypovolemic shock when brought down by wolves. All followed and filmed by award winning camera crews.

However, the humane culling of our own wildlife is completely beyond them. That's one heck of a disconnect!

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Don't worry, I think we're safe. On the 2015 National Moth Recording Scheme there has been a range expansion of Cinnabar Moth in Scotland. She's probably north of the border as we speak.

I'm always bemused as to how the general public can sit down and be entertained by dozens of zebra being picked off by crocodiles and bison having to rely on death by hypovolemic shock when brought down by wolves. All followed and filmed by award winning camera crews.

However, the humane culling of our own wildlife is completely beyond them. That's one heck of a disconnect!

I think one of the differences is, is that animals are expressing natural behaviour in a mainly natural environment, whereas hunting with hounds is engineered by people for the purpose of sport.

In terms of the programmes you refer to, I suppose many (myself included) would not blame the animal for following its nature in a natural environment where it is expressing instinctive behaviour. I would however, expect people to behave differently and demonstrate more compassion etc.

While many would argue that hounds are only expressing their natural behaviour in chasing foxes etc - foxhounds have been bred specifically for hunting, by people for the purposes of sport and enjoyment of people. Nature has not brought them together to chase and kill a fox - people have, and I think it is the killing for sport that many people find objectionable and outdated.

Also I'm not sure that hunting is a "humane" form of culling either.

 

[Fellewell]

I think one of the differences is, is that animals are expressing natural behaviour in a mainly natural environment, whereas hunting with hounds is engineered by people for the purpose of sport.

In terms of the programmes you refer to, I suppose many (myself included) would not blame the animal for following its nature in a natural environment where it is expressing instinctive behaviour. I would however, expect people to behave differently and demonstrate more compassion etc.

While many would argue that hounds are only expressing their natural behaviour in chasing foxes etc - foxhounds have been bred specifically for hunting, by people for the purposes of sport and enjoyment of people. Nature has not brought them together to chase and kill a fox - people have, and I think it is the killing for sport that many people find objectionable and outdated.

Also I'm not sure that hunting is a "humane" form of culling either.

Mesolithic man first used dogs for hunting 20,000 years ago, his survival depended on their partnership. Using hounds has always been the most efficient/humane means of hunting/culling.

Your pet dog/cat will hunt and kill prey, especially if the prey is weak/sick.He will do this whether you are present or not, this is known as natural selection.

Assuming that animals do what they are bred for is nonsense. My family kept Sandringham gundogs, they were the best ratters ever (arguably not what they were bred for). You may argue that a Lab can be trained to hold an egg in his mouth without cracking it. I have seen a fox do the same thing, their instincts are the same.

You enjoy watching hunting on television, it's natural, of course it is. However man has a 20,000 year history of stepping in and hastening an end to this natural act. This is both natural and humane.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Mesolithic man first used dogs for hunting 20,000 years ago, his survival depended on their partnership. Using hounds has always been the most efficient/humane means of hunting/culling.

Your pet dog/cat will hunt and kill prey, especially if the prey is weak/sick.He will do this whether you are present or not, this is known as natural selection.


Assuming that animals do what they are bred for is nonsense. My family kept Sandringham gundogs, they were the best ratters ever (arguably not what they were bred for). You may argue that a Lab can be trained to hold an egg in his mouth without cracking it. I have seen a fox do the same thing, their instincts are the same.


You enjoy watching hunting on television, it's natural, of course it is. However man has a 20,000 year history of stepping in and hastening an end to this natural act. This is both natural and humane.

I don't enjoy watching hunting on television actually, and for Fox hunting, man is not stepping in and hastening a natural act, man is setting the whole thing up for sport.

Also re Mesolithic man - they may have depended on a relationship with dogs then, but man's survival does not depend on partnership with hounds now. Hunting foxes is not necessary to survival these days.

Re dogs and cats hunting and killing prey, Im unsure how this is relevant, but yes they may well hunt and kill things, but I would not deliberately set my dog / cat onto anything for the fun of it, and therein lies the difference.

Not sure you understood my points tbh, as for saying that fox hunting is humane this is your opinion and that does not necessarily make it fact.

 

[Tea Drinker]

I believe hunting with hounds is the most humane form of culling.

From studies quoted in that "vet.." website someone posted above, "shooting is intrinsically unsafe and inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. Shooting can only be as certain and quick as death by hounds when a close or point blank shot is applied directly to the cranium, as happens in the slaughterhouse or when the hunted deer is brought to bay. Clearly, this is not possible for foxes, stalked deer and hares. Even the most experienced marksmen,whether “lamping” for foxes at night, or stalking deer by day do not aim at the head; it is too small a target. "

Studies have shown the wounding rates by gun to be between 15 and 40% (also from that website above). That is not humane.
There is a 0% wounding rate when hunting with hounds.

And let's not even go down the old gassing or trapping route!

However, what I will concede is that shooting kills far more than foxhunting with hounds ever has done. Marksmen shoot and kill hundreds if not thousands of foxes in our area. Which certainly makes it the most "effevtive" method of culling if we are too measure based on cold, hard numbers! Some will have been killed outright, some a week or two after being wounded. Either way, the fox dies.
When hunting with hounds, you'll typically only catch and kill the sub-prime foxes or pockets where there are "too many". And there are not masses of those. Take the 80/20 rule. 20% of the foxes probably do 80% of the damage. Foxhunting would seek to take out those 20%. Estates employing marksmen will be looking for a blanket 100%. And as a true country person, this is not a method of wildlfe management I could ever condone.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Thanks for the information Tea Drinker - very useful.

I suppose for me I just cannot get away from the fact that a fox is killed for man's sport.

This just does seem very wrong to me whatever the reason.

 

[Tea Drinker]

Trying hard not to be patronising but.... (and it's been said anything said before the word "but" should be disregarded!!)
....
It would seem to me that you (Smurf's Gran) are letting *your* issues cloud your judgement on what is best for the *fox*.

To be humane, you need to minimse the amount of suffering imposed. As a previous poster discussed above, animals have no conception of death, per se, but an inbuilt desire to keep themselves safe from 'trouble'. Hunting with hounds never results in an inhumane final position. Either the fox gets away with only temporary loss of breath (!) or he is killed in an instant. No other method of fox population control can give the same result. There are always compromises with every other method employed when imposing a manmade cull on a species that causes damage to manmade problems (eg food production/pigs/ wildlife habitat etc).
We humans have shaped the world we live in and we humans have to create manmade solutions. We cannot modfiy the planet we live on and then expect nature to adjust their own behaviour to suit man. Fox presents a problem for Rural Man.

And if some people take pleasure in seeing a necessary procedure done well (ie the skilled hunting of a fox by hounds), then there is no shame in that.

A job they believe to be necessary and performed in the most professional way as possible. Without a healthy population of foxes, there would be no hunting. No continution of a countryman's skill honed over hundreds of years. Yes, it's a tradition but it's one based on integrity, respect and an overriding love for all these rural. They are not bloody thirsty sociopaths seeking meaningless killing of an animal. They are just like you only they live in tune with rural wildlife management. Those following the huntsman may do so out of interest in the hunting process 'done well' (and there is such skill involved in doing this job well) or perhaps they have no regard for the hunting per se and just wish to enjoy a day out over the countryside not usually accessible to them. They do not deserve the vitriol that some seek to attribute to them. Foxhunting is not a grotesque and spiteful process that some would initially claim it to be. It is so much more than that and interwoven through the fabric of rural Britain.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Trying hard not to be patronising but.... (and it's been said anything said before the word "but" should be disregarded!!)
....
It would seem to me that you (Smurf's Gran) are letting *your* issues cloud your judgement on what is best for the *fox*.

To be humane, you need to minimse the amount of suffering imposed. As a previous poster discussed above, animals have no conception of death, per se, but an inbuilt desire to keep themselves safe from 'trouble'. Hunting with hounds never results in an inhumane final position. Either the fox gets away with only temporary loss of breath (!) or he is killed in an instant. No other method of fox population control can give the same result. There are always compromises with every other method employed when imposing a manmade cull on a species that causes damage to manmade problems (eg food production/pigs/ wildlife habitat etc).
We humans have shaped the world we live in and we humans have to create manmade solutions. We cannot modfiy the planet we live on and then expect nature to adjust their own behaviour to suit man. Fox presents a problem for Rural Man.

And if some people take pleasure in seeing a necessary procedure done well (ie the skilled hunting of a fox by hounds), then there is no shame in that.

A job they believe to be necessary and performed in the most professional way as possible. Without a healthy population of foxes, there would be no hunting. No continution of a countryman's skill honed over hundreds of years. Yes, it's a tradition but it's one based on integrity, respect and an overriding love for all these rural. They are not bloody thirsty sociopaths seeking meaningless killing of an animal. They are just like you only they live in tune with rural wildlife management. Those following the huntsman may do so out of interest in the hunting process 'done well' (and there is such skill involved in doing this job well) or perhaps they have no regard for the hunting per se and just wish to enjoy a day out over the countryside not usually accessible to them. They do not deserve the vitriol that some seek to attribute to them. Foxhunting is not a grotesque and spiteful process that some would initially claim it to be. It is so much more than that and interwoven through the fabric of rural Britain.

TD I do feel rather patronised actually. Because I am in disagreement with you I have issues ? (I don't think you meant to offend in this though)

I have never said that those who hunt are blood thirsty sociopaths, and I have friends also who hunt, but my " moral code" if you like, baulks at the fact that an animal is killed for sport. To me this is wrong. You may regard my philosophy as being simplistic - but its quite straightforward to me.

I am not getting into the detail of your post - I have been in that place many times before and feel it can be a waste of time, I can see your point of view and why you hold your beliefs, I just don't agree.

I don't know what is best for the fox, but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself.

I also think that the vitriol expressed on both sides of the argument has prevented a proper discussion of what may be a workable solution ( I don't know what solution might be btw)

However, I do think that my beliefs ( or issues !!) are shared by a great many other people also, backed up by a number of opinion polls (which the validity of, are often disputed endlessly on here)

 

[millikins]

Hunting was set up not as a sport but the most effective way to disperse the young adults before they can establish territories and breed and to kill those adults that were causing damage to livestock. The sporting aspect is secondary, not the main purpose but a necessary adjunct to fund it.

 

[Tea Drinker]

"I don't know what is best for the fox, but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself."

This pretty much sums up the fox hunting debate!
Parliament didn't need to spend 700 hours+ debating the issue. It's all said and done in that one sentence :-D

 

[Fellewell]

I don't enjoy watching hunting on television actually, and for Fox hunting, man is not stepping in and hastening a natural act, man is setting the whole thing up for sport.

Also re Mesolithic man - they may have depended on a relationship with dogs then, but man's survival does not depend on partnership with hounds now. Hunting foxes is not necessary to survival these days.

Re dogs and cats hunting and killing prey, Im unsure how this is relevant, but yes they may well hunt and kill things, but I would not deliberately set my dog / cat onto anything for the fun of it, and therein lies the difference.

Not sure you understood my points tbh, as for saying that fox hunting is humane this is your opinion and that does not necessarily make it fact.

I may not understand your points but at least I read them.

The point is relevant because when you give a puppy or kitten a toy he will 'kill' it so you have unwittingly encouraged his hunting behaviour whether you like it or not. Any other interpretation of this behaviour is pure anthropomorphism. Predators hunt. They're either good at it or they perish.

Man may have to 'direct' a hound towards the correct quarry, hounds would just as happily kill a cat as a fox if left to their own devices. But there is nothing artificial about it, whatever you believe.

 

[Lizzie66]

I have never said that those who hunt are blood thirsty sociopaths, and I have friends also who hunt, but my " moral code" if you like, baulks at the fact that an animal is killed for sport. To me this is wrong. You may regard my philosophy as being simplistic - but its quite straightforward to me.

It isn't a sport. It is a job, a method of controlling pests. The huntsman is there to ensure that, as far as he can tell, they are on the trail of the pest they are trying to control.

It is funded by people who are prepared to pay to follow hounds on horse, foot or car. Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. The landowners that support hunting do so because the hunt provides a service and they weigh up the damage caused by the hunt compared to the damage caused by the fox. Many also consider the welfare of the fox and decide on balance that hunting with hounds is the most humane & selective method.

Conservation and preservation are two words that get muddled along with animal welfare and animal rights. I believe in conservation and animal welfare. A sick or diseased animal is more likely to prey on farmed animals and is also more likely to suffer a prolonged and painful demise. The only way to successfully maintain a healthy population is to "test" its health, hunting with hounds does this other methods don't. A healthy fox will (9/10) get away probably without even knowing that it was at risk.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

"I don't know what is best for the fox, but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself."

This pretty much sums up the fox hunting debate!

Parliament didn't need to spend 700 hours+ debating the issue. It's all said and done in that one sentence :-D

Indeed lets just put it to the vote and have done !!

 

[respectedpony driver]

It is wrong to set one lot of animals onto another for fun.There will never be a repeal in fact it should be tightened up.There are millions of us anti hunting country people who will lobby our MPs.Dont forget, if there is a vote it will be a free vote and not guided by the Party Whips.Also Manifesto's are not compulsory, only ideas.

 

[lar]

It isn't a sport. It is a job, a method of controlling pests. The huntsman is there to ensure that, as far as he can tell, they are on the trail of the pest they are trying to control.

It is funded by people who are prepared to pay to follow hounds on horse, foot or car. Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. The landowners that support hunting do so because the hunt provides a service and they weigh up the damage caused by the hunt compared to the damage caused by the fox. Many also consider the welfare of the fox and decide on balance that hunting with hounds is the most humane & selective method.

.

But surely 10 years on from the ban with more people than ever crashing about the countryside having a lovely time but NOT killing anything the idea that landowners would only allow "hunts" on their land to control foxes is null and void?

And as I KEEP saying - if you argue it is a service/most humane way to control the fox population then campaign for an amendment which will allow properly licenced professionals to provide this service but remove the hunt followers and you then remove the anti argument that hunting is about gaining pleasure from killing.