The hunting debate.... oppinions please - maybe a bit long

[moocow]

Thats a loaded title but couldn't think of anything else to call this.
I am looking for peoples oppinions. I have hunted since I was tiny and have alway been prohunting. I still am. My view is based on what I have seen foxes do to lambs and other live stock and a healthy fox will totally outsmart a hunt and get away - thats shown I think by the preban kill ratios and certainly shown by my experience in that Although i have hunted for years, i would only do a few hunts a season but in all the years I have hunted, I have never seen a fox get caught!

I believe that if a fox is caught by a hunt, it wasn't in full health and that usually it is foxes that are not in full health that take lambs as they are easy prey. So basically it is a cull of the unhealthy foxes. Alternatives being poisoning - terrible death, snaring - even more painful and drawn out or shooting where that gives the risk of not a clean shot and results in horrible drawn out death or having an excellent shot but that will result in massive kill ratios and health foxes being killed.

I say all this cos I stumbled in to a hunting debate last week and although I think I have a good understanding of fox hunting and the reasons I think it is OK I was asked about stag hunting. I have to say I didn't have a resonse. this is not hunting a wild stag, this is releasing a stag and then hunting it down.

I was lost for words so I was just interested in hearing peoples views on stag hunting. Like I said, I am pro fox hunting and will hopefully be hunting later in the season (as i have posted here before).

I know this is a contentious topic to post, I am looking for genuine oppinions and not abuse! Had enough of that last week when this came up!

thanks

 

[flying_change]

It's always good to have sensible debate. My position is...

it may be necessary to cull foxes - in some areas but not necessarily in all parts of the Uk.

Traditional hunting may or may not be the most effective way to do this cull.... though it has always seemed to me that if a fox escapes from the hunt, it indicates that hunting is not very effective as a means of culling.

But in any case, I believe it is immoral to make a sport out of an activity in which an animal is deliberatly harmed or killed.

RS

 

[Sooty]

But is it immoral to go along for the ride, if your financial contributions allow the continuation of what may be the best way to cull foxes?

 

[flying_change]

'Going along for the ride' is morally the worst part of it.

 

[Hercules]

There is nothing immoral about enjoying hunting. Just because you are badly advised and ignorant about the art of venery and therefore disapprove, does not make the activity/sport immoral.

 

[AlanE]

Well,in typical 'anti' style, you try to imply that there is something cruel about hunting! Look, its about time the antis accepted that in the natural world, hunting is probably the most humane form of fox control: yes, I've said it before - many times - but it is TRUE.

As regards stag-hunting in its pre-ban form. The deer is roused/found by hounds and pursued until it stands at bay. It is then shot at very close range. A wounded animal does not escape.

Stag-hunting conserves deer, because farmers tend to accept the great damage deer can do, because of the benefits of the hunt. It is possible, according to official figures, that deer are already declining in numbers on Exmoor, because of the present, less popular, form of legal hunting.

'Cruelty' is a subjective term, but against the natural way that deer die in the wild, hunting with hounds as it was practiced is certainly much more humane.

 

[flying_change]

You'll notice that some of us come out with well-rehearsed comments, as this is a subject that has been argued many tome before and we've used them here.

Whataver I say, Alan seems to read in to it that I'm protesting on grounds of cruelty. And that isnt what I said.

Hercules takes the easy way out and seeks to ignore the issue by saying that I'm ignorant.

RS

 

[Maesfen]

I say all this cos I stumbled in to a hunting debate last week and although I think I have a good understanding of fox hunting and the reasons I think it is OK I was asked about stag hunting. I have to say I didn't have a resonse. this is not hunting a wild stag, this is releasing a stag and then hunting it down.

I was lost for words so I was just interested in hearing peoples views on stag hunting. Like I said, I am pro fox hunting and will hopefully be hunting later in the season (as i have posted here before).

I know this is a contentious topic to post, I am looking for genuine oppinions and not abuse! Had enough of that last week when this came up!

thanks

Then you aren't actually talking about stag hunting in this country are you but somewhere else?
I believe you are talking about the 'carted stag' which doesn't happen in this country although it does in Ireland and possibly elsewhere. I'm sure Druid can tell you about it far more accurately than me but as I understand it, the stags are kept almost as pets in parkland with the best care in the world and are hunted probably less than once a month. At the end of the hunt/run, the stag loads itself up into its transport and is taken back home, there is no killing involved at all, it is purely the chase that is the thing and it being in Ireland, you can imagine how hairy that could be.
I'm certainly not againgst stag hunting in this country. It is by far the most humane way to cull deer on Exmoor and also the safest too. It's not without a lot of thought that the National Trust has overturned its original ruling and now accepts regulated culling on their land down there as in the best interests of the deer.

 

[Sooty]

Why is going along for the ride so morally objectionable, if doing so enables the hunt to exist? Because it is also fun? Because it is a tradition? New Labour is doing its level best to extinguish all vestiges of tradition, no doubt we will be going back to year zero any time now...

 

[flying_change]

"Why is going along for the ride so morally objectionable, if doing so enables the hunt to exist? Because it is also fun"

Because it has no purpose other than the enjoyment of the individial concerned. If their presence was necessary to the working of the cull then it would be different.

RS

 

[Mid]

Stag hunting - I'm opposed, if only because the trauma the deer must go through during his short time in captivity.

Fox Hunting - I hate the whole idea of running the fox down. I do agree that in some areas a cull is neccessary, but it would be quicker and much more humane to do this with a gun.

So yeah. I'm anti-hunting.

 

[Maesfen]

A hunted stag in this country is never 'captive'.

As to shooting foxes just what is humane about that when an awful lot are just maimed and left to die a lingering death? There is no humanity in that; that is sheer cruelty. Anyone saying that is talking through their hat and has not the sense to look at the bigger picture - or admit they're wrong.

 

[Sooty]

It is necessary - their money allows the hunt to continue. Hunts cannot run on thin air.

 

[moocow]

Thank you for your responses. I have to say I am a little disappointed to see the tangent that some people went on with this and appreciate those of you who gave your oppinions on the topic I raised i.e. stag hunted rather than going on about the moral issue of fox hunting which as you will see if you read my initial post, I am pro. maybe my subject title was misleading.

thanks to the person that noticed that i was not based in the UK. Yes I am based in ireland and it is a captive stag. Would I be fair to say then that stag hunting in Ireland is really down to the thrill of the chase? I have been told that it is really not for the faint hearted and that was by experienced riders. Where I am based it is mostly ditches and hedgerows but i don't think any time or consideration is given to height or with of these - you just jump blind.

Anyway, thank you to those of you that stuck to the subject. It was good to hear more about it.

thanks,

 

[moocow]

It's always good to have sensible debate. My position is...

it may be necessary to cull foxes - in some areas but not necessarily in all parts of the Uk.

Traditional hunting may or may not be the most effective way to do this cull.... though it has always seemed to me that if a fox escapes from the hunt, it indicates that hunting is not very effective as a means of culling.

.

RS

Just to point out the object of a cull is to weed out the weak and ill. If a fox escapes it is not weak or ill and therefore it has been a successful cull. As I said above, its the weak or ill foxes that are more likey to attack livestock as they are looking for an easy meal and will take the risk rather than hunt themselves. Traditional fox hunting allows the healthy fox to get away and the weak fox to be culled.

 

[flying_change]

Not in their present form, no. But I cant imagine that the minimum organisation required to cull foxes would be very expensive.

 

[flying_change]

A method of culling that involves chasing an animal for a while and then saying 'we didnt need to cull it after all' is pretty inefficient. Most culling methods that I'm aware of involve singling out the specific animal to cull.

 

[Sooty]

Hunts perform numerous services in the countryside other than culling foxes. Surprisingly, they do cost a fair bit to maintain.

 

[AlanE]

OK, Flying Change. I'd merely given you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that your objection was on supposed grounds of cruelty. You must know that the business of you saying it is 'morally wrong' to chase animals for 'sport' is balderdash and tosh.

You have never managed to explain what is/is not wrong with pigeon-shooting as a sport . Or angling. Or steak-eating for pleasure. Or rat catching for fun. Or ferreting for fun.

You seem to have some silly eccentric idea of the natural world and then expect us all to take some notice of your pompous moralising!

 

[jayvee]

I am pro fox hunting, yet i am unsure if I can see a place for stag hunting.
ok, in africa antelope and any deer-like species have no choice in survival and have to run from their predator.
The Red Stag, and hunting only involves the Red Stag, (no fallow, roe or sika etc) causes not enough damage IMO as they are only in the very few isolated pockets as a wild species. But I do appriciate they need managing in numbers and quality.
Roe for example are near enough nation spread and are the worst as deer vermin.
So I don't quite understand the hunting ethics of it.
The stag is a much better target for clean rifle shooting as a grazing animal whereas a fox is too difficult to do the same.
Also the stag is hunted to shear exhaustion hence the animal standing still come the end. The fox is still in hot running when had by the hounds if unlucky so has not left this world as a 'given-up' beast.
I am a taxidermist and deal with many deer trophies to mount, so not opposed to dead deer!. I have also seen stags run in distress in the park on cull days despite being done by a highly skilled marksman. And seeing them run in that manner does slightly upset me.
The fox is witty and cunning, the deer are not the same thinking animals.

 

[wurzel]

"The Red Stag, and hunting only involves the Red Stag, (no fallow, roe or sika etc) causes not enough damage IMO as they are only in the very few isolated pockets as a wild species. "



Which west country are you from?

 

[jayvee]

West Dorset

 

[flying_change]

Apart from fallen stock, what else ?

 

[flying_change]

"You must know that the business of you saying it is 'morally wrong' to chase animals for 'sport' is balderdash and tosh"

Why dont you deal with it rather than try to avoid it.

 

[flying_change]

Or maybe I just have to conclude that you dont have any understanding of morality.

 

[Hercules]

Or that your understanding of morality is different to that of hunt supporters?

 

[flying_change]

Certainly it's different. If hunt supporters had the same concept of morality as myself, they wouldnt be hunt supporters.

 

[Hercules]

It depends on your idea of morality. I find it abhorrent and immoral that bigotry and ignorance shown by the animal rights movement has imposed a temporary ban on a sport enjoyed by a minority.

 

[moocow]

I fail to see how any of this relates to my initial question. Again, I admit i should have thought more about the title.

I have had very little experience of this hunting forum but I am wondering does either side actually read the post from the other? It just seems like a blind rant that results in name calling. What is that about?

As I am pro hunting, if someone is anti hunting for whatever the reason, I agree to differ. Equally I think that anti hunt people should just accept other people have different views. i don't understand why it results in no discussion but just name calling

Really guys there are more important things in life to worry about than swapping insults on a hunting forum.

i am sorry i posted it innocently looking for oppinions.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"A method of culling that involves chasing an animal for a while and then saying 'we didnt need to cull it after all' is pretty inefficient. Most culling methods that I'm aware of involve singling out the specific animal to cull. "

Apart from Hunting are you aware of any practical and practiced methods of killing foxes that tend to select weak foxes more than strong ones.

I'm not.