Thank you Karl...

[severnmiles]

For so rightly pointing out exactly what us pros have always claimed. That hounds go for the neck or the back...

And I quote...

"One had its jaws into her back and the other had her throat."

Ta for clearing that one up.

 

[LACS]

How on earth do they manage that, severnmiles, if they're hunting by scent?

Learn something about hunting then come back.

 

[Hercules]

As clearly pointed out previously, they kill by sight.

 

[severnmiles]

As clearly pointed out BY ME aswell, the kill by sight.

Don't change the subject of my post LACS.

 

[Paul T]

When a fox is running away it's likely hounds will grab the first part they come across. It doesn't seem that this 14 year old terrier was moving in the same way.

 

[severnmiles]

Always an excuse...

 

[LACS]

Perhaps a fox has special glands on its neck which basically represent a big smelly "bite here!" for the hounds.

 

[Hercules]

It's simple really. It's about nature. Just as you see a lion taking down a gazelle (agreed, lions hunt by sight), it kills by sight, just like hound or dog. They go for the neck. Just like a terrier and a rat, a cat and a mouse.

 

[Paul T]

No, there's always the truth, which you're completely blind to.

 

[severnmiles]

Hercules is right, I'm not sure if LACS and his/her side kick have dogs but I have a few British Inuit dogs which I breed from and when they play fight or even argue over a bone for real the first place they go for is the neck. When the oldest, Skye chases the JRT's at full pelt, she runs past his back and grabs his neck and brings him to the ground like that. Ok, that is just play fighting but the natural instinct is to go for the throat.

 

[severnmiles]

And the 'so called' truth is....?

I mean really, what would you know Karl? What on earth would you know abouts dogs or hounds? C'mon surprise me...

 

[Paul T]

Burns-commissioned post mortems into two foxes caught by hounds:

“…little tissue damage in the head, neck and shoulder region, pronounced damage to the ribcage and thoracic organs, and profound damage to the abdomen. The skin a muscular tissues of the body wall of the lower abdomen have been destroyed revealing the viscera, which are fragmented.
It is probable that trauma to the abdomen, hindquarters or chest were the cause of death”

 

[Paul T]

That hounds don't always go for the throat or back of the fox.

Show us you've got at least half a brain sm, c'mon surprise us...

 

[severnmiles]

'Probable' key word there. They are presuming else it would read "The trauma to the abdomen, hindquarters or chest were the cause of death".

How can they say what damage was caused before death? It takes less than a minute to kill a fox with hounds and then its ragged around for 5mins or so by about 16 couple of hounds, can they really tell the order of injury when the whole thing happens in less than about 8mins?

I didn't think so.

 

[LACS]

But when I said yesterday that hounds kill by sight you disputed this. I'm glad I've taught you something, young lady!

 

[severnmiles]

No I didn't, you said hunted by sight towards the end of the chase, I've seen foxes lost because of poor scent right at the end when they were barely a few ft away, why did they lose the fox? I have never disputed that hounds actually kill by sight... How on earth would you kill by scent? C'mon, give me some credit.

 

[Paul T]

SM, you really are completely thick, aren't you? Given the fact that the corpses were examined by vets who know a thing or two about animal injuries and they found 'little tissue damage in the head, neck and shoulder region', do you think it likely these foxes died from bites to the throat or back?

 

[severnmiles]

Karl, you really are such a pleasant fellow aren't you. Not. I'm not sure I believe that. You ever seen 30 odd hounds rag a fox? You think they say to each other don't touch the head and neck... C'mon, wake up!

Can you provide me with the link and the names of the vets who performed this PM please.

 

[combat_claire]

Having eventually tracked down a summary of the Harris post-mortems, seem to have misplaced the CD-Rom from my copy of the Burns report it would appear that this was based on just 2 post-mortems, I admit after the dead fox was broken up by hounds it would probably be quite tricky to get one's hands on the carcass for study. However this is hardly statistically reliable. A further veterinary surgeon reported that post-mortems of 3 foxes also agreed that there was massive damage to other organs and not the head.
HOWEVER don't start a victory dance just yet...further works on a larger sample of foxes showed that cause of death was a dislocation of the neck, whilst breaking up of an already dead fox accounted for other injuries on the carcass.(Dampney, Allen, Baskerville & Thomas) http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm47/4763/4763-06.htm#_ftn50

Vets for Wildlife Management support these findings adding that no animal has the ability to anticipate death and thus cannot feel the sense of fear that a human might expect to feel in a similar situation. Of a total of 18 post-mortems performed on hunted foxes in a range of studies, 13 were found to have died as a result of cervical dislocation and fracture. Death was thought to be instantaneous http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/print_html/VetOpinion_html.htm

Three other post-mortems were ditched from the over-arching study due to the fact that saboteur activity had interfered with the work of the hounds and was thus deemed to be too unreliable for inclusion.

 

[combat_claire]

See my post above!

 

[flying_change]

"no animal has the ability to anticipate death"

this is a speculation, not a proven fact.

 

[combat_claire]

Hadn't we agreed that speculation was human nature...

 

[severnmiles]

Thank you Claire!

 

[Paul T]

Doesn't surprise me you're ignorant of the research commissioned by the Burns Inquiry team, and refuse to believe the evidence when it's presented to you.

Go to http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/huntingframe.htm and look under research; further research. The post-mortems conducted on coursed hares make even more unpleasant reading.

 

[severnmiles]

Its a well known fact that half of that inquiry was bent by the government.

"The post-mortems conducted on coursed hares make even more unpleasant reading."

Link, link, link! I've regularly seen lurchers kill rabbits (though not so much hares, its unsportingly to run a hare my way) and its a very quick death, apart from one bitch called Jess, she brings them back live and un-harmed, soft mouth or what.

 

[severnmiles]

C'mon Karl, comment on CC's post...

 

[Paul T]

But you quote from a bunch of pro-hunting vets whereas I've taken the research commissioned by the independent Burns Inquiry. The fact that all two of the foxes killed above ground and post-mortemed by Burns were not killed by bites to the throat or back suggests it's a lot more common than any pro would care to admit.

In a post-mortem a vet usually distinguishes between injuries sustained before and after death - hence their ability to identify the likely causes of death.

 

[Paul T]

See above you dunce.

 

[flying_change]

But you cant include it in evidence.

 

[flying_change]

Actually, I'm relieved that you've not told me that it *is* proven fact.....