Taking stock

[rosie fronfelen]

Paul T, you need to set aside all this research and get out more to the countryside and you just might learn something worthwhile.

 

[JenHunt]

I’m fully aware of the difference between domestic and wild animals, but you still haven’t said whether you feel humans owe a duty of care to wild animals when we interact with them. I’ve stated my views because you asked for them, and I’ve provided evidence in other posts which counter the assumptions implicit in your posts. Like a number of other contributors to this forum, you expect me to unquestionably accept your assertions despite the fact that evidence suggests the opposite.

You spend much of your time questioning the notion of animal welfare and the concept of cruelty without actually explaining whether you think any animal deserves protection from the excesses of human behaviour. The nearest I can see you’ve got to acknowledgement that animal welfare legislation of domestic animals has its uses is when you appear to suggest it benefits humans.

I think PaulT - you have missed the point. As far as I am concerned we should not be trying to "Interact" with wild animals. We should be ensuring that they can survive as a healthy population without needing to prey upon species that a) are not their natural prey and b) not what we want them to be eating (whether that's because we want to eat it, or because we want them to control the population for us is irrelevant).

I also do not think that any of the evidence suggests "the opposite" - I think that there is insufficient evidence to prove anything absolutely conclusively in the way that Newton proved gravity, or medicine has proved a link between smoking and cancer. What it has shown is that there may be cause for some further investigation. For example - OH found 'evidence' that foxes did not show the changed stress hormone levels in the blood that indicate "fear" and yet you seem to have found evidence that they do (I haven't the time to scroll through all the essays to find it now!)

Also, nature is cruel. If not, why would animals and people be able to starve to death, or be poisonous to one another, or why aren't we and all animals all vegetarian?

Paul T, you need to set aside all this research and get out more to the countryside and you just might learn something worthwhile.

I agree that there is no substitute for getting out there and seeing it, and talking face to face (and rationally, sensibly) with those that are dealing with this complex subject all the time.

 

[PaulT]

I have plainy explained that in my opinion such legilsation is for the benefit of humans. Such legislation does not infer any rights on to an animal. What are your "excesses of human behaviour" - Growing cities? Human overpopulation? Eating meat? Please try and make your arguments clear and avoid the use of such useless and vague notions. As I said previously it really does make a mockery of all rational discussion.

And I have ‘plainy’ explained that I do not support the concept of animal rights. Why do you insist on labelling me as such; could it be that it suits your argument to do so? I have made it abundantly clear that I support the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering, a concept which has formed the basis of animal welfare legislation for well over one hundred years. You ask me to explain what I mean by excesses of human behaviour: when humans interact with animals I believe they owe them a duty of care, and should avoid causing any unnecessary suffering. Clearly it isn’t possible to produce an exhaustive list, and some human activities cause more suffering than others, but examples include putting cats in microwave ovens, playing football with hedgehogs, fox baiting etc. I’m sure you get the drift even if you refuse to admit so publicly.

Do you believe hunting causes suffering; do you even believe animals are capable of experiencing fear and pain? It concerns me that you think only humans benefit from animal welfare legislation. Do you not think any legislation which protects cats from being microwaved alive has the potential to benefit cats?

No PaulT that is what is called reality. Humans have interefered with the natural ecosystem to the extent that we are obliged to adopt a stewardship role if we are to maintain a healthy balance between predator and prey. Hunting is part of nature and not alien to it. Ignore predator overpopulation and it becomes an issue with reperscussions for humans and animals both domestic and wild.

It’s heartening to learn that you recognise humans have at least some responsibilities towards animals and their environment, but in doing so you introduce the woolly concept of ‘stewardship’. As you’ve described it, in the context of fox hunting this assumes hunting maintains a ‘healthy balance’ (whatever that is). It also assumes that the ‘stewards’ know: a) how many foxes exist on the land under their ‘stewardship’; b) what the correct population should be in order to maintain the ‘healthy balance’. As you will appreciate, both a) and b) are needed in order to assess whether the ‘healthy balance’ is being achieved.

As the scientific research demonstrates, farmers (who presumably you would regard as ‘stewards’) consistently over exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, levels of fox predation and the effectiveness of hunts in terms of killing foxes. Not sure where that leaves your notion of effective stewardship.

Well as far as pointless posts - I can see where Alec is coming from! You are coming across as typical of the anti ilk. I will liken it to the self appointed "expert" telling those who have undertaken a task sucessfully for many years how this task should be done "properly". This Hunting forum has many individuals who have many years of practical experience of wildlife and its management. The fact that there is a healthy fox population today is testimony to the generations of fox hunters that have gone before us. I I fear even to begin to imagine
what the state of the fox population will be in the future if those with such twisted notions of rural matters continue to dominate lobby groups.

It’s a pity you feel the need to resort to petty insults when confronted with the results of scientific research which don’t happen to fit with your world view - a heady mix of prejudice, gut feeling and homespun mythology passed down through the generations. Anyone who doesn’t share this world view, and questions some of the many assumptions which make it up, is immediately regarded with suspicion and disdain; someone not fit to debate with. They must belong to the ‘anti ilk’, and make ‘pointless’, ‘twisted’ and ‘inflamatory’ posts simply because they do not accept unquestionably what you deem to be the way of the world.

It’s such a shame as the issues I’ve raised are very real and very relevant to the hunting debate. Your attempts to close down legitimate debate and marginalise the results of scientific research should appal everyone interested in rational discussion of the issues.

No the use of such analogies is simply inflamatory. I have seen this approach before and you are childlike in your attempts to rile genuine posters.

The words pot and kettle immediately come to mind – do you remember posting the following, not so very long ago?

As you appear to be talking nonsense and I will add the give the following nonsense rhyme for your answer...

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Now go away - no one really wants to play your silly little games.....

Of course, another classic case of ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’.

Your logic appears to be based around your preceptions of "uneccesary suffering". For clarification therefore I have asked and as yet have not been answered by you as to whether a hare chased by the fox should be protected by us because we know it to be cruel and causes unecessary suffering?

Fiagai, I rather charitably thought you were deliberately side-stepping my references to empathy, but now I suspect you just don’t get it at all. Do you really believe a fox can be cruel to a hare? BTW, for your information, I don’t. Do you not think that the concept of cruelty includes intent and the ability to recognise the consequences of one’s actions? If not, do you think objects have the capacity to be cruel?

 

[PaulT]

I think PaulT - you have missed the point. As far as I am concerned we should not be trying to "Interact" with wild animals. We should be ensuring that they can survive as a healthy population without needing to prey upon species that a) are not their natural prey and b) not what we want them to be eating (whether that's because we want to eat it, or because we want them to control the population for us is irrelevant).

I also do not think that any of the evidence suggests "the opposite" - I think that there is insufficient evidence to prove anything absolutely conclusively in the way that Newton proved gravity, or medicine has proved a link between smoking and cancer. What it has shown is that there may be cause for some further investigation. For example - OH found 'evidence' that foxes did not show the changed stress hormone levels in the blood that indicate "fear" and yet you seem to have found evidence that they do (I haven't the time to scroll through all the essays to find it now!)

Also, nature is cruel. If not, why would animals and people be able to starve to death, or be poisonous to one another, or why aren't we and all animals all vegetarian?



I agree that there is no substitute for getting out there and seeing it, and talking face to face (and rationally, sensibly) with those that are dealing with this complex subject all the time.

Hi JenHunt. Isn't digging a fox out of its earth or shooting a deer when it stands at bay interacting with them?

I can understand that, when confronted with quite damning evidence which undermines the assumptions you've held, there is a tendency to claim the 'jury is out' and there is insufficient evidence to reach absolute certainty. Fine, but let's just say in the absence of any counter evidence from a credible independent source, at the very least the balance of probability is weighed heavily against hunting. It isn't enough simply to say hunting is fine because we say it is, and if you don't agree that's just tough.

It's often said that nature is cruel but I don't think any being incapable of empathy can possibly be cruel. Plenty of pain and suffering happens in nature, but only humans appear to be able to fully understand the consequences of our actions and be cruel to other animals.

 

[Paddydou]

It's a difficult message for many of you to accept but the research suggests that farmers hopelessly exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, the effectiveness of hunting at killing them and the levels of predation caused by foxes. This isn't to say they are ignorant of the countryside but it is very relevant if you are trying to base an argument on the assumption that farmers know best and everyone else should butt out.

BTW, I have already said that I do not believe all hunters are bloodthirsty sadists - it is extremely simplistic and naive to claim they are. However, I do believe that hunting primarily existed/still exists for entertainment, whether it is the equestrian aspects of enjoyment or foot followers watching the hound work.

Paul T - the research that has been quoted has been conducted by people who were unwilling to listen and learn. Not all farmers allow fox hunting on their land and yes they do know! To the point of this is an abandoned badger set, this has x adults living in it. My poor father has spent years and years tending to the hedgerows on his farm to build up the small bird stocks and he also has a particular fondness for barn owls, until DEFRA interfered the numbers of both were growing (and the sparrow hawks etc started to climb as a result of more food being available). DEFRA measured his hedges demanded that he cut them at a particular time of year to particular heights and widths and blow me down it desicrated the small bird population that he had spent years building and looking after. The man was so sad for many months. This is just one example of "experts" interferance! If the expert truly understands and listens then that is not an issue but when they run rough shod to popular demand and "facts" are twisted its really makes a mockery of these reports.

Hunting does exist in part for entertainment. I can think of nothing more fun than riding out across fields with a pack of well looked after hounds. As for the "kill" that comes into a different catagory altogether. As I have said before and will bleat on until my dying breath... HUNTING IS MANY THINGS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CATAGORISE IT.

Well done everyone on your comments (JenHunt wild should be wild and you are so right!).

 

[Fiagai]

And I have ‘plainy’ explained that I do not support the concept of animal rights. Why do you insist on labelling me as such; could it be that it suits your argument to do so? I have made it abundantly clear that I support the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering, a concept which has formed the basis of animal welfare legislation for well over one hundred years. You ask me to explain what I mean by excesses of human behaviour: when humans interact with animals I believe they owe them a duty of care, and should avoid causing any unnecessary suffering. Clearly it isn’t possible to produce an exhaustive list, and some human activities cause more suffering than others, but examples include putting cats in microwave ovens, playing football with hedgehogs, fox baiting etc. I’m sure you get the drift even if you refuse to admit so publicly.

You still have not given (and have been asked for in innumerable posts) what is your definition of "unecessary suffering?" You continue again and again to dance around this issue. Untill you answer this no meaningful debate can be carried out. Making up spurious terms such as "fox baiting" and then inserting them in another post this hardly a clever ploy now is it?

Do you believe hunting causes suffering; do you even believe animals are capable of experiencing fear and pain? It concerns me that you think only humans benefit from animal welfare legislation. Do you not think any legislation which protects cats from being microwaved alive has the potential to benefit cats?

This has already been discussed. Numerous posters have replied to your absurd assertions. I have not changed my view since the last post and I am not wasting other posters time going over your silly attempts to start an argument again. I suggest you go back and read what has been written previously. You clearly havn't read what was written.

It’s heartening to learn that you recognise humans have at least some responsibilities towards animals and their environment, but in doing so you introduce the woolly concept of ‘stewardship’. As you’ve described it, in the context of fox hunting this assumes hunting maintains a ‘healthy balance’ (whatever that is). It also assumes that the ‘stewards’ know: a) how many foxes exist on the land under their ‘stewardship’; b) what the correct population should be in order to maintain the ‘healthy balance’. As you will appreciate, both a) and b) are needed in order to assess whether the ‘healthy balance’ is being achieved.

What would a city boy like you really know about the countryside and its management ? Hunts and landowners have worked hand in hand over many generations to maintain a healthy fox population. Local people know where foxes are and they know how much stock is predated. The fact that a healthy fox population has survived to the eve of the "Hunting Act" God love the fox population with the fluffy bunny brigade looking after their interest now....

As the scientific research demonstrates, farmers (who presumably you would regard as ‘stewards&#8217 consistently over exaggerate the number of foxes on their land, levels of fox predation and the effectiveness of hunts in terms of killing foxes. Not sure where that leaves your notion of effective stewardship.

"Scientific research" - one study I'm afraid whose methodology has been severly criticised btw. Why to the eve of the Hunt Act was there such a healthy fox population if the hunts and farmers were out there over killing foxes? How did so many who you claim got it so wrong actually get it so right?

It’s a pity you feel the need to resort to petty insults when confronted with the results of scientific research which don’t happen to fit with your world view - a heady mix of prejudice, gut feeling and homespun mythology passed down through the generations. Anyone who doesn’t share this world view, and questions some of the many assumptions which make it up, is immediately regarded with suspicion and disdain; someone not fit to debate with. They must belong to the ‘anti ilk’, and make ‘pointless’, ‘twisted’ and ‘inflamatory’ posts simply because they do not accept unquestionably what you deem to be the way of the world.

PaulT - you are the one that has consistantly introduced insults and asides - if posters reply in kind you can hardly be surprised...

It’s such a shame as the issues I’ve raised are very real and very relevant to the hunting debate. Your attempts to close down legitimate debate and marginalise the results of scientific research should appal everyone interested in rational discussion of the issues.

According to who? - You! Please dont make us laugh anymore - my sides are splitting already..

The words pot and kettle immediately come to mind – do you remember posting the following, not so very long ago? Of course, another classic case of ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’.

I think you are mixing your threads PaulT- A nonsense rhyme was I believe a valid response to an obviously nonsensical post.

And yes if you post nonsense, you will get nonsense back.

Fiagai, I rather charitably thought you were deliberately side-stepping my references to empathy, but now I suspect you just don’t get it at all. Do you really believe a fox can be cruel to a hare? BTW, for your information, I don’t. Do you not think that the concept of cruelty includes intent and the ability to recognise the consequences of one’s actions? If not, do you think objects have the capacity to be cruel?

So you believe that we should not cause "unecessary suffering" whatever that is an insist that because we know that chasing a fox is cruel we should not do so, then surely it in incumbrent on us to stop the fox being cruel to the hare as well if we know it causes "unecessary suffering". This is the logical progression of your absurd argument. In this imaginary world do hares not feel pain? Do hares not feel fear?

 

[PaulT]

Fiagai, I have discovered during the course of the last few days that the lucidity of your posts has diminished considerably as the debate has progressed, although I've always detected a strong undercurrent of bitterness in your posts. It won't do you any good in the long run.

Look, you clearly have an aversion to the whole concept of
animal welfare, and are quite obviously prepared to argue night is day in order to defend the indefensible. You aren't even prepared to agree that an evidence-based approach is the way forward for a mature debate. Your posts are up for all to see; any sensible and honest reader who is prepared to adopt such an approach will draw their own conclusions.

I'm tempted to conclude they broke the mould when they made you but sadly, judging some of the contributions from others, unfortunately this may not be the case.

 

[Fiagai]

Fiagai, I have discovered during the course of the last few days that the lucidity of your posts has diminished considerably as the debate has progressed, although I've always detected a strong undercurrent of bitterness in your posts. It won't do you any good in the long run.

Absolute Tripe my dear PaulT...

(lucidity!) Oh no "It wont do me any good in the long run". Are you for serious? What age you? Six, seven maybe I'm guessing. PaulT you remain in your position of hiding behind personal swipes, hyperbole and misinformation from third hand sources and references.

Look, you clearly have an aversion to the whole concept of animal welfare, and are quite obviously prepared to argue night is day in order to defend the indefensible. You aren't even prepared to agree that an evidence-based approach is the way forward for a mature debate. Your posts are up for all to see; any sensible and honest reader who is prepared to adopt such an approach will draw their own conclusions.

Absolute tosh....

Your posts continue to contain rather nasty little allegations with reference to other posters you are attempting to denigrate. Todate despite repeated requests you still have not provided any explanation of your favourite catch phrases. Any sensible and honest reader would run a mile from your rabid postings

I'm tempted to conclude they broke the mould when they made you but sadly, judging some of the contributions from others, unfortunately this may not be the case.

Erhhhhh PaulT - just in case you havn't noticed you are the odd one out here. You have also failed to acknowledge the wealth of experience of wealth and knowledge amongst the contributors of this forum, sticking to Anti propaganda with inevitable results...

 

[Ahunter]

Hi PaulT

“...farmers appear to over-estimate the density of foxes by 5-18 times"

And with the above information to hand when discussing it at the Burns inquiry Prof Harris still said "its up to landowners and farmers to decide how many foxes they want on their land". Simply because as noted by Prof Macdonald, its impossible to know exactly how many foxes are on any individuals land at any given time as populations and territory sizes will change throught the year.

They usually forget to tell you that bit at the anti hunt brigades school of propaganda.