Simon Cowell thinks hunting should stay banned!

[thegunman]

Ha ha!

Seriously, though, if anyone wants a troublesome fox dispatching they need to contact BASC or register with a shooting forum and ask there if there's anyone in your area. Unless you live on the moon, there will be!

You can pick someone you like the look/sound of, someone with a responsible attitude and who's got a good background of experience and has decent equipment (check their forum posts). They will come at your convenience and make no fuss or mess at all on your land. They will kill the fox that's causing the bother, not just the first fox the hounds happen to scent.

The cases you hear of foxes being wounded and left to die are not the victims of professional-attitude shooters. More likely some kid mucking about with an air rifle! Not representative of what actually happens in the field.

 

[Xlthlx]

I don;t have any trouble from foxes which is why I let the hunt on my land but don;t let them dig out.

It's much less 'efficient' which is what I prefer.

More fun and less killing, everyone benefits.

 

[thegunman]

The fox still has a damn bad of it though. Only benefits if it gets away by a mile. Not fun in my book, making an animal suffer.

 

[Xlthlx]

I think you are possibly a little naive if you think that shooting foxes does not make them suffer.

Personally in the best of all worlds I'd like to see foxes kept in check by superior predators although I know in practice that is it going to happen here.

Current ecological thinking is rediscovering the importance of apex predators and the damage that is caused by their loss. Top down control is crucial to a well balanced ecosystem.

 

[Xlthlx]

Macdonald is a good guy to read up on foxes. he rated hunting as very unimportant in the overall picture of fox welfare and he's not a pro by any means.

 

[thegunman]

"you are possibly a little naive if you think that shooting foxes does not make them suffer."

- They only suffer if the job's not done well, by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Otherwise the fox just rolls over, goodnight Vienna.

I agree that foxes need controlling sometimes but the thing to do is use the most efficient method possible. That rules out a chase by hounds, as a) it takes a longer time b) it uses more resources c) it might well get the wrong fox. Let's be honest, HWD is not about pest control, is it?

In my experience I also suspect animals feel greater fear than we do. How many of us have actually been on the verge of a violent death? It's not a muscle we exercise at all unless we're in the army or similar. But for an animal it's a central survival mechanism and a very very keen. instinct I have seen animals of a lower order than foxes expire through it. Therefore I would never willingly put a fox through this.

 

[thegunman]

It's about respect for nature and working with the species. Mink respond best to trapping and shooting, deer to stalking, foxes to stalking. Animals have to die, but let's be clean about it.

 

[Xlthlx]

What I find totally hypocritical about you is that you say you feel 'betrayed' by the hunting fraternity because they make out you are cruel. But that is exactly what you are doing regarding them.

I'll continue letting the hunt my land. There are significant benefits that hunting has over shooting in terms of selection. Also they kill far less animals and create more fun for more people. That's a good thing.

I'd rather see more people haveing a great time than more few grim faced camoed killers out with lamps efficiently killing in the middle of the night.

Doesn't mean I am against what you do I just think there is room for both.

However I do think hunting should be regulated just not like it is.

Do you think my non lethal flushing should be illegal unless i shoot the flushed deer?

 

[thegunman]

"you say you feel 'betrayed' by the hunting fraternity because they make out you are cruel. But that is exactly what you are doing regarding them."

- The difference is, I never cosied up to them and asked them for their support!

"There are significant benefits that hunting has over shooting in terms of selection."

- No, shooting kills the specific foxes that are causing the problem. Hunting with dogs just kills the first fox scented, and is therefore hugely inefficient in that sense as well.

"Also they kill far less animals"

- Shooting kills *exactly* as many foxes as need killing. Name your number. Hunting with dog's completely hit and miss. Are we trying to take out pests or not?

"few grim faced camoed killers out with lamps"

- Tbh the misrepresntation of shoooting on this thread's really peeing a lot of us off.

If you deliberately chase deer for the hell of it, causing them stress, then yes, I think that's wrong - see the link I posted about repeated stress causing heart failure. If the deer need culling, then get on and do it, humanely.

And I don't think "fun" justifies any sort of behaviour in itself, otherwise it would be fine for kids on rough estates to go TWOKing of an evening and torching cars. There are wider considerations here than "I want to do it".

 

[Xlthlx]

You have this stupid argument that maybe some deer my dogs have flushed has had a coronary and yet you stick lumps of lead in animals.

My dogs never chase a deer for more than 50 yards or so. they are border collies for [****]'s sake.

You quite clearly have no clue what you are on about.

and the idea that i should shoot an animal because there is a remote chance it might have a heart attack. Is completely absurd.

Would you gun down a granny in the street because she looked a little flakey?

If you took three border collies into a wood and some deer ran out what is the chance that one of them will drop dead from the exertion?

Seriously?

And would you shoot it dead just in case?

I have never heard such a ridiculous foolheaded argument for shooting an animal before in my life.

 

[anne83]

Thank G-d for Simon Cowel and all who speak out against the savage death of a fox. Population control is not relevant to a fox. They are self regulating and extremely territorial and in decline. Huntsmen wiped them out in the 17th century and had to import them from France. There has been no increase only decline in their numbers. Please read the facts. Drag hunting is a fantastic way to hunt. All the fun without the blood. Surely thats the way forward. You do no service to fox hunt just disservice to humanity.

 

[Xlthlx]

hang on if they were wiped out in the 17th century and there numbers haven't increased how come there are approximately 400,000 now?

it's been a while since i studied maths but surely 400,000 is a larger number than zero?

 

[Xlthlx]

also I flush deer and refuse to shoot them. There is no blood. It's the Hunting Act which says that flushing is only legal if they are shot.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

sorry Anne, but foxes are not "extremely" territorial and neither are they in decline! this is 2009, not 17th cenury, as i've said before, no need for history lessons. i dont know where these fcts are that you suggest reading, LACS no doubt, also foxes do need population control and are by no means self regulating-

 

[Daisychain]

I have enjoyed reading your opinions. I agree with much of what you have written.

I also think if foxes need culling then shooting has got to be the best option by far. Often when i am down my field, quietly watching the various wildlife, if you sit quietly foxes will come very close to you, and i have often thought how easy it would be to take one out. I am actually over run with rabbits, and find the foxes quite useful in pest control!

Come on people that hunt, just admit you love the thrill of the chase.... it aint about pest control! BE HONEST!!!!

 

[Xlthlx]

But my deer DON'T NEED CULLING!

shooting them would be completely over the top when all i want to do is flush them out and chase them a bit.

 

[Xlthlx]

It woukd be easy to kill one but that is hardly the point. Just because ot would be easy does't mean i should have to!

 

[Mad_Banana]

I agree with Gunman. I can understand your obvious distaste at killing animals however the kind of methods you use are not efficient because the deer come back and you have to keep clearing them off.

I'm sorry if it upsets you but you really do have to kill them if you want to flush them out with your dogs.

making deer run off is dangerous to them. there is a high probability that they will trip up and hurt themselves or have a heart attack.

You should kill them as soon as possible.

It is also worth remembering that what you do is actually now illegal.

At the end of the day being shot causes no pain whereas with dispersal there is always the possibility that the animal will suffer.

 

[Fantastic_Mr_Fox]

I hated Cowell for years, but now he is at the top of my Christmas card list!

Will you lot be protesting outside the X-Factor studios and using your bully boy tactics like you did with lush?

 

[rosie fronfelen]

what a load of rubbish!

 

[Fantastic_Mr_Fox]

I think the guy talks sense! He has done a lot for Animal charities over the years and I really think he deserves a pat on the back. Its not often you see people with lots of money helping animals. I hope he continues to bring attention to this debate and that people take notice of him.

 

[Eagle_day]

Like they didn't for the Christmas no. 1?

 

[rosie fronfelen]

i really do appreciate the work he does for animals and childrens hopices- brilliant- but interfering in the hunting debate is a step too far.

 

[Fantastic_Mr_Fox]

May I ask why you think it is a step too far?

 

[rosie fronfelen]

cos i dont believe he knows the first thing about hunting! no doubt you'll argue that black is blue but that is my belief!! ( i think you knew my answer before writing your question!)

 

[cptrayes]

I do wish these debates could stay reasonable :-((

It is impossible for black to be blue, but perfectly possible for Simon Cowell to be completely ignorant or well informed about fox hunting. To say "no doubt you'll argue black is blue" is to say "I am absolutely correct and you are wrong". None of us knows what he knows, but what I know is he has an absolute right to "interfere" - i.e. state his point of view - in any debate he chooses to in a democratic country where freedom of speech is still, mostly, allowed.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

that wasn't my point at all,no way was i saying that i am right and you are wrong!! i thought to be honest you were more of a friend towards me than you are, i'm wrong as usual- no point me posting on here any more so i'll take my leave and leave you all to it and keep my old fashioned opinions to myself.

 

[cptrayes]

salimali I don't have a problem with your opinions. It's telling Simon Cowell what opinions he is allowed to have that I have a problem with. I'm sorry my post irritated you but I would still like to hear your opinions if you carry on posting.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

i see that you are a farmer, but i assume that living in Cambridgeshire you farm arable. ok, so what are we sheep farmers to do to keep the fox killing our lambs in spring?perhaps as someone intending to stand as an independent you might have some bright ideas that generations of shepherds might have overlooked? i look foreward to your reply!!