We have been officially 'wolfed'

[Fairynuff]

we have a pack of wolves in the area, albiet a small one. Ecologists and biologists from Piemonte and Liguria have confirmed the presence of a pack of wolves made up of 6 individuals in the mountains between here and Liguria! The old farmers have been proven right! If only I could be lucky enough to see just one Id be happy. My goats, hens and co are well locked up at night now.I expect there will be a 'call to arms' from the idiot factors in the near future . Mairi.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Cool, hopefully they will solve the aforementioned deer problem by the kindest most ecological and welfare freindly means available. Ie chasing them, catching them, killing them tearinf them to pieces (after they kill them) and then gobbling them up. T

 

[Clodagh]

They would be fantastic to see, I love wolves. Are they big grey ones, like the ones you see at the zoo??

 

[endymion]

.....and the ecological/welfare benefits of rabbit control by foxes?

 

[Fairynuff]

We dont have wild rabbits . Lots of hare though . Mairi.

 

[endymion]

I was referring to the U.K problem and trying to get pin-up (ahem) Giles opinion.

No wild rabbits in Italy, eh? Never knew that. Do u know if the hares are native or introduced?

 

[Fairynuff]

i doubt it. Italian wolves arent as spectacular as the grey beasties. These ones seem to have come over from France, no idea what they look like but would love to find out. Over in the north east of Italy they have the Serbian wolves and bear coming over the border.Sadly the bear dont last long thanks to poachers and the local farmers. Mairi.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'd imagine the ecological/welfare benifits of rabbit control by foxes would be on a par with the ecological/welfare benefits of fox control by hounds.

A heathy ecosystem has predation throughout the food chain.

 

[endymion]

hmm, since when were fox hounds a self-sustaining wild mammal?

Predators and prey evolve in conjuction with each other over millions of years, thats a basic Darwinian principle. They reach a state of equilibrium where both populations are inter-twined/co-dependant and both either remain steady or fluctuate about a mean. Both the prey and predator species suffer losses, the prey through sucessful hunts and the predators through through starvation resulting from unsucessful hunts.

As much as you try and make it fit a pack of man-made fox hounds does not resemble this scenario.

An ecosystem does not have predation through-out the food chain. Top tertiary predators have no enemies and are controlled mainly by other natural means.

Kids learn that in primary school biology Giles. Do an image Google search for food chain, it might learn you a couple things, lol!!

 

[smilincow21]

"hmm, since when were fox hounds a self-sustaining wild mammal"
Since dogs were wild, and lived in packs! Look in Africa with the wild dogs that live there!

"An ecosystem does not have predation through-out the food chain. Top tertiary predators have no enemies and are controlled mainly by other natural means."
And humans are the tertiary predators across most food chains, by killing foxes this prevents competition for animals such as pheasants, lambs etc which we would consume ourselves. If you look in the natural world, lions will kill hyenas and vice versa because of the competition for food! Yes predators are not totally found throughout a food chain, there is 1 producer and 1 consumer normally with about 3+ preditors, therefore most are preditors!

"Kids learn that in primary school biology Giles. Do an image Google search for food chain, it might learn you a couple things, lol!!"
But children mainly learn rabbit eats grass, fox eats rabbit, which is the most simple food chain to learn about, which doesn't realy give the all round perspective, does it?

 

[endymion]

It goes....

Primary producer (phytophagous green plant) > Primary comsumer (usually herbivore) > Secondary consumer (usually small carnivore or one which is subject to predation itself) > Tertiary predator (top of food chain i.e lion, fox, large bird of prey - not subject to predation). All of these eventually end up in the saprotrophic level (decaying organisms) - fungi, bacteria ect.

There are variations on this theme but the basic fundamental facts as stated above still apply.

How can you say we are predators of domestic stock? They are domestic, made by us. If we didn't breed them it's not as if they would multiply!

Lions and hyenas may occasionally kill each other but not often enough to exert any kind of population control on either species as it doesn't happen often enough. Numbers of top predators are lower due to energy loss and the laws of thermodynamics, it's the typical biomass pyramid, so they don't have huge populations, generally speaking.

 

[smilincow21]

"Primary producer (phytophagous green plant) > Primary comsumer (usually herbivore) > Secondary consumer (usually small carnivore or one which is subject to predation itself) > Tertiary predator (top of food chain i.e lion, fox, large bird of prey - not subject to predation). All of these eventually end up in the saprotrophic level (decaying organisms) - fungi, bacteria ect."

Yes but the food chain is normally made of more than four species, generally speaking!

"How can you say we are predators of domestic stock? They are domestic, made by us. If we didn't breed them it's not as if they would multiply!"

I didnt mention that we are predators of domestic stock, I pointed out that foxes are killed bacause of the competition for lambs, pheasants etc. But to some people, you could say we are preditiors to them, after all we do eat them, exchanging energy and we are also on different trophic levels! After all the food chain is all about the exchanging of energy through out the food chain!
I do understand the pyramid of biomass, I did ecology for Alevel!
I probably will get my head ripped off by the other anti's, but it makes a nice change argueing with someone with a well structured point of view from "the other side!" Lol!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

That's a massively oversimplified view of ecology, teh reality is almost infineitely more complex.

Do you not realise that what you learnt about science in primary school does not actually reflect the real world? What the hell do you do higher education for?

 

[endymion]

erm, I'll take that as compliment I think!

The various levels of organisation were there to illustrate the trophic levels in which may be many organisms, and not as indicators of species numbers.

Top tertiary level predators are not subject to population control by predation. In addition domestic dogs have never been a part of our natural ecosystem and as such do not exist in equilibrium with wild species, however natural you may percieve their hunting instincts to be.

E

 

[endymion]

You are merely repeated what I said in my post Giles - that it is a stripped down food chain. However I went on to say that, simplistic as it is, the basic rules still apply. I am not about to waste my time launching into a dissertation on applied ecology!! Please feel free to take up the opportunity yoursefl........

For someone with an (alleged) degree in philosophy you don't clock the facts very well do ya?!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"For someone with an (alleged) degree in philosophy you don't clock the facts very well do ya?!!"

You're not accusing me of lying are you? For someone who writes to my cheif constable with unsubstantiated untruths about me you come across as a tad hypocritical.

Do you often write to the police with false statements about people?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

It's an incorrect and incomplete view of ecology allegedly taught at primary schools.

Probably about as far as your understanding goes.

BTW 2:1 at York and then an MSc with distinction.

 

[endymion]

From Number 10:

I have been continually and openly breaking this piece of legislative incompetance since it came into force by deliberately setting dogs after wild deer with the full knowledge of the police.

They disagree dear boy!

Are the fuzz lying?

If u say you have a degree in philosophy I'll take ure word for it. Personally I don't see much philosophy in your debate.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No, what you said to the police was that I have handed in video tape evidence of myself hunting to them andf that I have made a statement to that effect. Unlike you who makes poisionous little insinuations about my truthfullness you lie about me to the police and I can prove it.

That was a lie wasn't it Endymion? You lied to the police about me didn't you?

Are you seriously claiming that I DON'T flush out deer with my four dogs?

How on earth could I take my four dogs through woods with deer present WITHOUT flushing them out. Anyone who thinks that is possible is completely and utterly ignorant.

You insult my arguments because time and time again you are completely unable to counter them. Like with that bullshit you spouted about foxes never having had natural predators. When face with scientific studies showing that lynx predate foxes you are still unable to admit that you were wrong.

Pathetic.

 

[endymion]

I have a first in Bsc(Hons) Animal Biology and Conservation, previous to that 2 yrs as a part-time researcher/field worker for an Essex based ecological research team. Will soon be studying for my Msc in Applied Ecology (although Ive recenctly had a change of heart and may do taxonomy and genetics instead). If my final grade is above 85% I will apply to skip the masters and go straight to PHD, however, that remains to be seen.

In all honesty I haven't done a great deal on foxes on in the field, concentrating of late on badgers. I have read around and talked to many people and am yet to find anyone of position who thinks fox hunting controls the fox population. there are those which are pro for social/economic reasons and those that think it helps conservation at a local level (at national level its neglible) but, as yet, have not found one conservationist/ecologist who thinks we need hunting to control fox pops. I will continue to look though.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I don't think I've ever said that fox hunting exerts numerical control over the fox population. I certainly don't beleive it does. What I like about fox hunting is that it kills LESS foxes than other activities and it's also MORE fun.

Maybe you could not be so condescending when you discuss ecology with us by limiting it to what was taught in primary school.

Why did you lie to the police about me?

 

[endymion]

Temper temper temper, You're in danger of showing you're true colours (remember you only let psycho Giles out on the NELS site, on H & H you are upstanding member of the rural community). Now wipe the sweat of your brow, straighten your tie and take a deep breath. Better?


The police told me they have NO knowledge of you breaking the hunting act, vid evidence or otherwise and if they did they would take action against you. Now who's lying Giles.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No temper at all just having fun.

That wasn't what the copy of the police's email said that you PMed to me.

Why are there newspaper reports about when I handed myself in to the police? Why have they appeared on a news program about myself handing myself in to the police?

You claimed to the polce that I said I had handed in a video to them. That was a lie. You are also lying about the content of the email that you received from the police a copy of which you sent to me.

You are lying.

How on earth copuld I take my dogs through a wood with deer in it WITHOUT flushing them out? How could I have shot those deer? I have no gun.

 

[endymion]

You said it mimics natural predation by extinct animals which is rubbish.

Please refrain from the use of the word 'us'. I have perfectly grown up conversations with Silversong, as i do with most people on this forum with the exception of you and Tom.

If I patronise you it's only because you give the impression you can be patronised.

 

[endymion]

I told you I only sent you a fraction. It was personal correspondance and will remain as such. I have no interest in stitching you up but I have concerns that the authorities do not do their job which was the nature of my enquiry to them.

Why did you put in your petition

'I have been continually and openly breaking this piece of legislative incompetance since it came into force by deliberately setting dogs after wild deer with the full knowledge of the police.'

The above is what concerns me, police knowing of illegal hunting and not taking action. But they have since told me this is nonsense, and I believe them.

If you don't like people calling your bluff, don't bluff.

Actually, dont answer that, this thread going no-where and descending into silly arguments, it's time to bail out - unless you have anything relevent to hunting you want to discuss. I feel I have fully explained my position and views on this. Also the rain has stopped and I have to get home and pack, I have a train to Scotland to catch later , any replies will have to wait till end of the week......see ya ....

 

[wurzel]

"In all honesty I haven't done a great deal on foxes on in the field, concentrating of late on badgers. I have read around and talked to many people and am yet to find anyone of position who thinks fox hunting controls the fox population."

You are in luck !!

I am of position and I know fox hunting controls the fox population.

I have seen them in my fields and the next day I have seen them killed by the hounds.

I am sure they are dead because they are several pieces and far from complete.

surely minus a fox means one less?

It seems I have to control the Badger population as well.

You seem very highly educated.

Have you ever actually done any work?

Run and owned a farm for example?

 

[endymion]

You're a farmer and you know about farming. I know many farmers that would disagree with you.

I watch a sett in Essex with a very very experienced badger man, who shall remain nameless out of respect for his privacy (but Im sure you would of heard of him if u know about badgers) and they certainly dont need any controlling there, just the opposite in fact.

Can't speak for your neck of the woods.

If u'd bothered to read this post from the start you'd have seen what my point was:

Giles was for using wolves to control deer, I pointed out that foxes also control a pest species - the rabbit. Foxes are accused of being a farm pest, wolves have been accused of being a serious threat to livestock in other areas. How can he seriously be pro wolf and anti-fox when they both stand accused of the same crimes and both fufil similair pest control niches?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If there were loads of wolves wandering round predating on deer etc. (inc. foxes). Then I'd be all for packs of wolfhounds being used to hunt the wolves. Much more fun would be had all round. The main problem with wolves would probably involve sheep (and possibly little pigs and small girls on their way to see aging relatives).

To say that I am anti-fox reveals that you really don't understand what I've been trying to say even at the most basic level.

Which is really rather amusing.

Have you written to the police recently?

 

[endymion]

Don't tempt me darling! I can imagine the groans in the office already, ' Not bloody Bradshaw again......' Anyway since they informed me that you're talking balls about them having any knowledge of your illegal activities I don't really see the point. I used to think that you were loony tunes but at least practised what you preached but now I know you're a coward like the rest. Sneaking around and breaking the law behind the backs of the authorities so you don't get nicked but mouthing off in public about how you do what you want, when you want and no-one's ever gonna stop you blah blah blah. All bravado and no backbone. Just like the rest.

By anti-fox I mean pro-hunt, which to me are synonymous with each other despite what any of you say.

To have wolves to control deer and foxes to control rabbits and people hunting both wolves AND foxes is crazy.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But they didn't write that to you about me did they endy. You're lying. And I never said I'd handed in a video to them. That was a lie that you told the police.

You've copied me the email you received and it doesn't say what you say. The content that you pretend is there when it isn't is allegedly about me, not personal; information about you.

There are numerous newspaper articles about the fact I reported myself to the poolice for flushing ouyt deer without shooting them. Also it was on the news with an interview with the police. So what? Who really gives a damn about the law? Do you think I do. I regard the whole thing as a complete joke, don't you realise that.

You say you were concerned that the police weren't prosecuting me. Why? Do you honestly think anyone would ever prosecute me for refusing to shoot deer I flush out rather than shooting them and instead chasing the deer. That WOULD be crazy.

The police will ignore absurd laws.

Endymion you moralise about other people all the time but at the end of the day you are just a little liar.

Publish the part of the email you got from the police that shows me wrong. It does not exist.

Publish a link to where I claim that I handed in a video to the police. That is what you claimed that I have said. And you wrote to the CHEIF CONSTABLE with such a lie about me. You are worse than a lowly grass. You fabricate things about people to the police. How low can you go.