Thoughts on ITV report - foxes being fed by hunt caught on video

[cptrayes]

Some people are going to disagree with field sports no matter what, so it is a waste of time arguing.

Many people disagree with fox hunting, thinking that every time a fox is hunted it is killed. Actually, we know that it is MUCH harder than that. I have come across people who used to be anti - toffs on horses, going hunting to see animals killed - have got involved and discovered that it isn't like that at all.

Then there are the shooting thousands of birds and injuring them. Well shooting thousands of birds happened in the Edwardian era. Modern game shooting is very mindful of its public image. Any injured birds are retrived as quickly as possible - that is why people have Retriever dogs, and it is important that the birds are carried softly and not daresTmaged by the dog. If it is alive it is killed immediately, but most game birds fall dead from the sky. This is my experience anyway, but then maybe the little shooting I am involved with is done by skilled shooters.

I have no problem with killing foxes and neither do most people who are against breaking the law and hunting them with a pack of dogs.

I have every problem with shooting even one bird out of the sky for fun, doubly so when you cannot guarantee that the bird will die instantly from the shot. If a schoolboy did it with his catapult, he'd be punished, but somehow it's ok for a group of grown adults to do it with guns? As a game?

 

[L&M]

Agreed Cptrayes - especially as the majority of game is reared purely to be shot a few mnths later….

 

[marianne1981]

I also totally agree CP Trayes. That is a very good point re the schoolboy. Isnt it bizarre how some things are "acceptable" and the same thing, done by someone else isnt. It makes me wonder - have most pro hunters on here grown up with hunting, as a way of life - if so it must be so engrained into them that they cannot/will not change or consider it from another point of view. On the subject again of the video, doesnt it say it all how not one pro condemned it - all just excused it! It's pathetic how their own can do no wrong and are rarely held accountable, no "sport" should be run like this.

 

[RunToEarth]

You don't think it's cruel to deliberately cause a bird to fall out of the sky hurt but not dead, and be picked up by a dog? For fun?

I am open to the persuasion that it is the most humane way of culling bird poulations which must be culled, but around here they are breeding birds simply so that people can have the fun of shooting them.

Well yes, shooting is an industry - if it were reliant on the wild bird population of this country it would not only diminish numbers but not be sustainable going forwards.

It isn't a small industry either - shooting contributes £2billion a year to the UK economy and those figures are inclusive of businesses specialising in rearing birds for the season.

I hate a chicken shoot, it isn't sporting and bringing down half dead birds is not cricket, but there are bad shots in shooting just as there are bad riders in the field - it doesn't make us all awful - I fail to see how you can base your opinion of an entire sport on that, it simply isn't accurate.

Yes, birds are shot out shooting, most shoots will be working between 40-60% ratio which isn't bad, and considering they are a commodity born and bred for a sporting purpose I think they are raised a hell of a lot better than many commodities in this country.

 

[cptrayes]

Well yes, shooting is an industry - if it were reliant on the wild bird population of this country it would not only diminish numbers but not be sustainable going forwards.

It isn't a small industry either - shooting contributes £2billion a year to the UK economy and those figures are inclusive of businesses specialising in rearing birds for the season.

I hate a chicken shoot, it isn't sporting and bringing down half dead birds is not cricket, but there are bad shots in shooting just as there are bad riders in the field - it doesn't make us all awful - I fail to see how you can base your opinion of an entire sport on that, it simply isn't accurate.

Yes, birds are shot out shooting, most shoots will be working between 40-60% ratio which isn't bad, and considering they are a commodity born and bred for a sporting purpose I think they are raised a hell of a lot better than many commodities in this country.

You kill an animal, for fun, when you cannot guarantee a clean death for anywhere near 100% of them.

It makes jobs and money so we must keep it? Major amounts of that are made from corporate hospitality and the kind of bankers and business consultants who do it are there to be seen in the right place. I've met a ton of them in the course of my work, telling me proudly that they pay eight hundred a day to shoot birds and expecting me to think that's clever. Trust me, they'll still spend that money on corporate hospitality, just somewhere else.

I'm sure goldfish breeders found another way to earn a living when we decided that the millions of goldfish being bred to be given away at fairs in plastic bags was not acceptable.

 

[VoR]

Interesting video. It is a pity the North Cots have not replied, however, we don't know why that is, maybe they have been told not to by lawyers, who knows? If this is such damning evidence then HSA would have taken it to the Police to procure a prosecution rather than the TV for publicity wouldn't they? Maybe even the HSA aren't 100% convinced? Could it be a ploy to deflect publicity from some recent prosecutions of anti hunt protestors?
As with any propoganda, be it pro or anti anything not just hunting, the spin doctors will do their work and make things appear to support their view, don't believe everything you see or read folks.

 

[RunToEarth]

You kill an animal, for fun, when you cannot guarantee a clean death for anywhere near 100% of them.

My 40-60% shot ratio relates to birds shot in relation to birds released, not birds killed outright. I'm sure winged birds do happen, but they aren't commonplace.

I just don't see the welfare issue that you see tbh.

 

[cptrayes]

My 40-60% shot ratio relates to birds shot in relation to birds released, not birds killed outright. I'm sure winged birds do happen, but they aren't commonplace.

I just don't see the welfare issue that you see tbh.

Oh pull the other one

 

[sandi_84]

Cptrayes, you keep saying shooting for fun but what of those that hunt and fish for the table? Are you still against it?

 

[cptrayes]

Cptrayes, you keep saying shooting for fun but what of those that hunt and fish for the table? Are you still against it?

I'm not against any animal being legally killed to eat or reduce vermin or cull overpopulation, where it is done cleanly. I can't understand why snares are legal, they seem to me to be the work of devil.

 

[Tern]

Okay.. don't really want to get too far into this debate but i'll share my opinion.

I am a vegetarian, just to clarify. I however have no problem with game being shot to be eaten, after all, what is going to happen to the bird, I highly doubt someone with a gun license is going to go shoot game and then bin it.. They will use it for SOMETHING even if it is feeding their cats for example. I also don't have a problem with fox hunting, foxes do not mean any harm to anyone however they can be a threat to livestock etc. Foxes are very majestic animals. Maybe if fox hunting was still done but the fox was killed more 'humanely' would people be happier?

What I am struggling to understand is why this thread is getting bitchy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion however that doesn't mean act like you're three years of age, have a debate in an adult manner. RESPECT is a brilliant word. You do not know anything however your opinion is yours and it should be respected as you should respect others.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

What I am struggling to understand is why this thread is getting bitchy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion however that doesn't mean act like you're three years of age, have a debate in an adult manner. RESPECT is a brilliant word. You do not know anything however your opinion is yours and it should be respected as you should respect others.

I agree with you, and I once voiced the same opinion. It was pointed out to me that this forum is read by those, who whilst not forming opinions are perhaps open minded and if those who support Hunting sit by and say nothing by way of defending ethical and time honoured rural sports, then those with open minds will only read of one set of opinions.

In my defence, though on occasion I've become a little exahsperated, I don't believe that I've ever stooped to offering aimed insults or to being bitchy. Generally, I've attempted to counter the claims which could mislead those who are even less well informed than the claimants.

Alec.

 

[A1fie]

Okay.. don't really want to get too far into this debate but i'll share my opinion.

I am a vegetarian, just to clarify. I however have no problem with game being shot to be eaten, after all, what is going to happen to the bird, I highly doubt someone with a gun license is going to go shoot game and then bin it.. They will use it for SOMETHING even if it is feeding their cats for example. I also don't have a problem with fox hunting, foxes do not mean any harm to anyone however they can be a threat to livestock etc. Foxes are very majestic animals. Maybe if fox hunting was still done but the fox was killed more 'humanely' would people be happier?

What I am struggling to understand is why this thread is getting bitchy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion however that doesn't mean act like you're three years of age, have a debate in an adult manner. RESPECT is a brilliant word. You do not know anything however your opinion is yours and it should be respected as you should respect others.

What a lovely post. I agree absolutely. I love hunting and racing and I support shooting but I have no problem with those that don't. I can't bear it when debates get unpleasant and personal.

 

[Tern]

In my defence, though on occasion I've become a little exahsperated, I don't believe that I've ever stooped to offering aimed insults or to being bitchy. Generally, I've attempted to counter the claims which could mislead those who are even less well informed than the claimants.

Apologies Alec if you thought my last paragraph was aimed at you - it wasn't!

What a lovely post. I agree absolutely. I love hunting and racing and I support shooting but I have no problem with those that don't. I can't bear it when debates get unpleasant and personal.

I try! I also love racing for the thrill and the relationships the jockeys have however that is a whole different subject that will also get very heated!

 

[Maesfen]

What a lovely post. I agree absolutely. I love hunting and racing and I support shooting but I have no problem with those that don't. I can't bear it when debates get unpleasant and personal.

Totally agree with you. Life's too short to be spent with grouches just because you like something they don't and vice versa.

 

[Herne]

Getting back to the original topic, there is nothing illegal about feeding foxes - so there is no reason for anyone to condemn anyone else for doing it.

There are many gamekeepers who deliberately feed foxes, because a fit, healthy well-fed fox will hold a large territory and keep other foxes out - which, if you live near a large reservoir of foxes, such as a city or a big unkeepered area, is easier than continually having to shoot them, and then shoot the replacements and then shoot the replacements' replacements, etc

However, the anti-hunt outrage that such activities cause is based on a straw-man fallacy. ”The fact that you encourage foxes in some areas proves that you aren’t trying to kill them all, therefore you are lying when you say you are, therefore hunting is wrong. QED!”

All very well and good – except for the fact that fox control has NEVER been about trying to kill all the foxes. Foxes have a useful place in our countryside ecosystems. The majority of what foxes eat – slugs, snails, small mammals – are pests to farmers and therefore having some foxes about is of benefit.

However, if there are too many foxes in an area, then there won’t be enough small prey to go around and the fox population will therefore be forced to eat too many of the things that farmers don’t want them to eat – such as gamebirds and livestock.

So, too few foxes = bad thing (not enough slugs and voles eaten); too many foxes = bad thing (too many pheasants and hens eaten). Right number = good thing (lots of slugs and rats eaten, not too many pheasants). It’s perfectly logical.

It’s all about managing a viable population. And yes, managing a viable population does mean helping it to increase when it is too small as much as it does reducing it when it is too big.

But, even a small population which you are trying to increase still needs an amount of culling (to kill injured or diseased specimens and to take older adults out of the breeding cycles so that they are not interbreeding with their own progeny – this is why they even have to do some culling of endangered species in game parks in places like Africa.

And, before someone trots out the old cliché, no, fox populations will NOT be self-controlled “by the natural availability of food”. That is pseudo-scientific claptrap when applied to an unnatural, man-managed environments like the British Countryside. It only applies in true wilderness – of which there is none in the UK.

The massive leap of complete illogic taken by the proponents of this theory is that control by the availability of food will somehow magically cut in at exactly the same population level that farmers consider to be optimum, thus negating the need for culling.

The reality, of course, is that this suggestion is preposterous. Control by the natural availability of food – which occurs when hunger forces vixens to reabsorb foetuses before they are born – only cuts in when ALL available foodstuffs run short, which includes the things farmers don’t want the foxes to have eaten as well as the things that they do.

To think that this might work would require the vixen, having eaten the last slug or vole, to think “Oh, no, I mustn’t eat that nice, juicy chicken, because the farmer wants to keep that. I’d better go hungry and reabsorb my foetuses.” It is an absurd proposition.

So, the population level at which “natural control” would cut in is MUCH higher than the population that is viable for the purposes of agricultural and environmental management.

Which is why landowners will always be wanting to increase fox numbers when they are too low and decrease them when they are too high. It is by definition a permanently ongoing process.

 

[Orangehorse]

What a sensible answer. I also said that there is nothing illegal about feeding foxes.

 

[Maesfen]

Very sensible, well put answer Herne which is totally logical to those who know about and are involved with the management of the fox population.

 

[FairyLights]

What exactly is the law on fox hunting? As I see it the terrier men on the quads rush to where hounds find a fox and shoot it. So its actually shooting rather than hunting. There are mounted and foot followers and our local hunt , most seem to spend the day either chatting to each other or cantering around jumping fences after the hounds who dont seem to be particularly after a fox but just looking for a scent. As stated earlier the quads and terrier men arrive with guns when a fox is found. Is this hunting within the law? is digging out of earths allowed? are hounds allowed to chase foxes at all? I dont know it would help if someone clarified the matter .

 

[Herne]

A dog may be used to flush a mammal from underground in order for it to be shot - but only for the protection of game birds.

So, if hounds that are trail hunting mark an occupied earth, terriermen may go and dispatch the fox if the landowner has asked the hunt to help protect their game birds in that way.

This particular exemption highlights the absurdity of this law. If a fox comes out of a hole and eats a pheasant, the land owner may use a terrier to flush it and shoot it. However, if the same fox comes out of the same hole and eats a chicken or a lamb, then to do so would be illegal. Crazy.

 

[wench]

I often find that the people that clamour and complain the most have no idea of what they are talking about

 

[Alec Swan]

A dog may be used to flush a mammal from underground in order for it to be shot - but only for the protection of game birds.

So, if hounds that are trail hunting mark an occupied earth, terriermen may go and dispatch the fox if the landowner has asked the hunt to help protect their game birds in that way.

This particular exemption highlights the absurdity of this law. If a fox comes out of a hole and eats a pheasant, the land owner may use a terrier to flush it and shoot it. However, if the same fox comes out of the same hole and eats a chicken or a lamb, then to do so would be illegal. Crazy.

The problem, of course, is that the new Laws were crafted and formed by those with not the faintest idea of what they were either, trying to achieve, or how their wonderful (sic) deliberations could be monitored or enforced.

We now live in a world where we are being governed and directed by idiots. We have Ministers who direct Agriculture who wouldn't know a sheep from a cow, we have a Minister of Education who it seems to me, is barely literate, we have a Ministry of Defence and there's not a soldier amongst them and a Minister of Transport who can't drive, but who's managed to get his head around his expenses claims. As you say Herne, it's a Crazy world!

Alec.