Why all the fuss?

[Ereiam_jh]

Why all the fuss about a flushed out fox getting shot at Sandringham?

If it hadn't been shot then the dogs might have chased it. Surely that would have been far worse than getting shot, battered with a flag and then having its head stamped on.

That's why the Hunting Act says animals can only be flushed out if they are then shot.

 

[peakpark]

Well, the Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is very anti the Royal family, and so I suppose he saw it as a good opportunity to stir up trouble.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Maybe they are antio the hunting act as well. That could be why they were so against the way the gamekeeper saved that fox from cruelty by shooting it and beating it to death.

 

[k9h]

I doubt very much that it was"beaten" to death. I would imagine the keeper as I would of myself touched the fox with his stick to make sure that it waqsn't going to turn round & bite him. Better it bite the stick rather than a hand. Why it was stood on???? But I wasn't there & haven't seen video footage only still which can be very miss leading.

 

[celt]

I agree that this is a no win situation for the hunters. Some shoots (for safety reasons) have a no ground game rule clearly this is not the case at Sandringham.
The hunters did not break the law in shooting a flushed fox on this game shoot, their only crime could possibly be that they should have ensured that the animal was dead and was no longer suffering at a much earlier stage.
I am somewhat miffed at some of the tabloid articles referring to this incident that also refer to an incident many years ago where the queen herself was ostracised for putting a wounded pheasant out of its misery. Although totally opposed to the shooting of any creature that has been purposefully bred for the purpose I feel that the tabloids have exceeded their remit on this occasion.

 

[milor]

the 'fuss' is surely because the fox was left after the initial shot when it was clearly alive ..it should have been shot again immediately to ensure it did not suffer - stamping on it after several minutes of leaving it in agony not only looks heartless but just confirms the general public;'s perception that all those who take part in 'blood sport's are cruel b****** !.

tranfer the scene to a housing estate and a group of youths doing the same thing to a cat and you too would surely feel repulsed by this action - what's the difference ?


all field sports need to be very careful how they are percieved now - shooting is very likely to be the next 'target' ( sorry ! ) for legislation - this kind of action just accelerates the ban .

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Umm I'm trying to get this straight.

We've banned people who flush out foxes from NOT shooting them.

Now we might ban people from shooting pheasants to stop them shooting the foxes that they flush out.

Have I got that right?

 

[endymion]

It wasnt flushed intentionally. It ran out, was shot - badly- left wounded for a good few minutes, clubbed with a pole for a bit, left lying wounded for a while again and then stamped on.

In a field full of guns why didnt they shoot it again intead of beating it to death?

If a poor kid on a council estate did that he'd be done for it. Being rich or royal does not give you the right to inflict suffering on animals.

The perpetrators showed a complete lack of professionalism through their actions and I have no sympathy for the bad press they have recieved.

....and anyway, you're the first person to claim that shooting foxes is cruel because of this sort of incidence! Stop contradicting yourself man!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"It wasnt flushed intentionally."

But he was certainly obeying the spirit of the law. The government are quite clear that flushed out foxes should be shot in order to prevent them being accidently chased.

I'm not contradicting myself. I think it would have caused the fox considerably less suffering if they hadn't shot it at all. I'd have let it take it's chances with the gun dog. I'd also have called the gun dog off to stop it chasing the fox. Just flushing out a fox is not cruel in any bodies opinion.

Thnat's what i should be allowed to do. Flush out animals with my dogs and then call them off to stop them chasing the animals.

Calling a dog off is a better way to prevent an animal being chased that shooting the animal.

I really think it's better for me to just go on breaking the hunting act. I'm sure you agree don't you endy?

I really don't think what i am saying is unreasonable at all.

 

[endymion]

Your changing the subject - again!

They didnt flush the fox. They decided to shoot it (they probably all wet themselves with excitment when it popped out, hehe). When it was wounded they decided to beat it to death instead of shooting it and putting it out of it's misery. That is cruel and that is what this post is about.

My neighbour shoots rabbits and has a couple gun dogs. They come to the park with me and my two JTR's and Ive never seen tham attempt to chase and kill anything so your insinuation that had it not been shot it would have been killed by dogs is dubious.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Stop contradicting yourself man!! "
Jeez Endy don't tell me you didn't realise that the original post was sarcastic.

Being flushed out simply means forcing a fox out of cover. Why do you think it was there out in the open. Just taking a stroll.

My insinuation is that the dogs WOULDN'T have chased and killed it. That's why I don't see the need to shoot it to releive it's suffering. It's the Government who say that intentionally flushed out wild mammals must be shot. I think that if the dogs aren't going to chase and kill the fox/deer/rabbit/hare than there's no good reason to require that animal to be shot. That's why I think it is fine for me to illegally flush out and refuse to shoot animals. What I'm doing is not cruel.

Stop deliberately twisting what I say.

 

[Hercules]

EndyBell,

The fox was clearly forced from cover (flushed). More than 2 dogs were in the beating line. Once flushed, the gun line clearly intended to shoot the fox and did so.

More than 2 dogs flushing and intent to kill is a breach of the Act.

Tony Wright used only 2 hounds to flush and did not kill the fox. He was found guilty of breaching the Act.

It seems to me therefore that unless you kill the fox, you are guilty. Utter madness.

Anyway, at least this incident illustrates that shooting foxes (which the law supports) does not necessarily result in an instant and humane death.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Hey Hercules, I've just looked at the law and it says I just have to take reasonable steps to shoot the deer I flush out.

I wonder maybe that means I just don't have to obey the law because it isn't reasonable.

The trouble is that the Government have told me I do have to shoot the deer if I intend to flush it out. They say it helps it's welfare to get a bullet in the head.

I just can't see it myself. Do you think maybe they know the law is ridiculous and are just trying to cover up? That might explain why the police won't enforce it.

Maybe we should just ignore such a stupid law.

What do you think Endy? Shoot the fox, or let it go. Which would you prefer?

 

[endymion]

Twisting what YOU say? Thats ironic!

I'm glad you say that their was no need to shoot the fox. However, I'm disappointed at the lack of condemnation from pro's at the manner at which this fox was eventually killed. Their is a distinct lack of action from within the bloodsports community to stamp out animal cruelty. Someone who is pro shooting is loath to say that the death of this fox was cruel because they feel the need to defend all who shoot. I can see why they want to show a united front against anti's but this just insinuates that they don't care for animal welfare. You yourself once said that you think the length of time an animal is chased for with hounds should be limited. Have you ever raised those concerns to people who hunt? What would you do if you were party to a prolonged chase? Would you try and stop the hunt?

In one of your posts you said that instead of focusing on the bad points the animal rights people should try to improve welfare by focusing on the good points of hunting. Well I think the opposite applies to those that hunt. They should start cleaning up their act in order to show that they DO care about animal welfare. I mean look at the C.A, they provide finance for legal defence of people even though they have no idea if they are guilty or innocent.

 

[endymion]

It was not a humane death because they choose to beat it with a pole instead of shooting it one final time. For God's sake man the fox was lying there sedentary, it couldn't have escaped wounded if it tried.

What is wrong with all you pro's? Can't one of you actually just admit this was unnessesary(sp) cruelty and that they should of shot it and not stamped on it?

I take it you are anti lamping then?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"and that they should of shot it and not stamped on it?"

I think the law should be changed so people don't have to shoot the animals they flush out, irrespective of intent. If they didn't shoot them in the first place then there'd be no way they could stamp on it because it would just run away.

Have you ever tried to stamp on a running fox. I haven't but I'd imagine it would be damned difficult.

Actually on another point however I'm not sure about your comparision between shooting and stamping. I'd have thought, done properly stamping on an animals head is probably about as humane as shooting.

I've stamped on a few animals heads in my time and I think they died pretty quickly. I've not got a gun but I think that even if I had there are still circumstances where a good hard stamp on the head would be the best option.

 

[endymion]

They shot it, wounded it, beat it with a pole, left it lying there and then stamped on it's midriff - not its head - when all they needed to do was shoot it one more time. A still animal is a pretty easy target, even if it is still alive.

The points you mention, although worthy of consideration, are not relevant in this case and this is what I'm trying to focus on.

This is whats gets me about pro's. This is an obvious act of cruelty and no-one will admit it. How are people supposed to believe any of you care for animals when you can't even do that?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'd have thought it woiuld have been better from the fox's point of view not to have been shot in the first place. You might not think that 'is relevant in this case' but I'm sure the fox would if he had a voice.

That's what get's me about antis they paint everyone with the same brush and are simply unable of comprehending people who don't agree with them.

ps were pros not pro's

 

[milor]

unfortunately unless those who support traditional field sports begin 'comprehending' the repugnance that the general public feels when confronted with acts like this then the more likely it is that such 'sports' will ALL be banned .... those who wish to see traditions upheld must be seen to oppose animal cruelty when it is shown in such a blatant form - either that or be tarred with the same brush as those who commit such callous acts.....and lose all public support for their pastimes.

 

[CARREG]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...html?in_article_id=430241&in_page_id=1770

Read the story/article, look at the pics, as usual its all bollocks, that keeper isnt beating or stamping on that fox...Endy, I envy you, the things you can deduce from a few still pics, had you even see the pics before you made your comments..........Carreg

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. Maybe you should re read my post.

 

[wurzel]

"They shot it, wounded it, beat it with a pole, left it lying there and then stamped on it's midriff - not its head - when all they needed to do was shoot it one more time."

Sorry. I am a bit late in to this. Our hounds seem to kill a fox within about 20 seconds. Is that any use?

 

[endymion]

Giles, instead of doing some very nifty side stepped and skirting round the issue can you just answer this:

Do you think that, once shot, the way they killed the fox was cruel?

If you actually read my previous post you would see that I was urging pro's to speak out about any cruelty within their sport to show people that they are NOT all the same. Most people take the view that they will tolerate anything just to support fellows hunters, even if it is cruelty they are not comfortable with. For instance, most people would agree that battery farming game birds for shooting is wrong, even the industry regulators say so. So, is anyone besides AR groups doing anything to stop it? Nope, not that I've heard of.

were pros not pro's

I apologise unreservedly for the inappropriate grammatical error but your grammer aint that great neever gov'ner.
It's we're not were, due to ommision of the A from are.

E x

p.s you never got round to answering the other q. You said you wanted the length of the chase regulated, you said that chasing for too long is cruel. Do you ever make your feelings known to fellow pro's? Would you stop a hunt that was chasing for too long?

p.p.s you also said on this forum that you had spoken the local constabulary regarding illegal hunting and that they said they were not interested in prosecuting you and told you to carry on. I took the liberty of checking this out for myself after some helpful person posted the email address of your local chief constable. Very nice man he was, although didnt exactly substantiate your claims. Gilesy's been tellin porkies again, hehe :grin: :grin:

 

[endymion]

So do you think they way they killed the fox was cruel then?

I'm sure if they shot it a second time it would have died much quicker.

I'm not trying to get anyone to say shooting is cruel and I'm not debating hunting with hounds. I'm simply asking if people who are pro shooting think that beating a fox to death, in this case, was acceptable. I'm surprised that no-one who is pro will comment much on it.

 

[CARREG]

".....As it made a dash for safety, it appeared to be shot at least twice ......"

"......A cry of "fox, fox" went up and, almost instantly, three or four shots rang out......"

"......"The fox was twitching on the ground, indicating that it was still alive....."

So, it was shot between2 + 4 times and was twitching on the ground "indicating" it was still alive... nonesense... the pics do not show the keeper beating it to death with a stick or stamping on it, and the fact it was twitching is no indication that it was still alive...........Carreg

 

[Ereiam_jh]

were pros not pro's

If you dont get joke about people going on about missing apostrafies, bad grammar, speling and, punctuation then that aint not my fault.

I have handed myself in to the police for breaking the law, I have also been told bty Maria Wallis then Cheif Constable's legal advisor Robert Glass that I would not be prosecuted. After she got sacked Nigel Arnold backed up her claim.

If you don't believe me PM your email and I will copy you a detailed email admitting my offenses sent to the Devon and cornwall police.

nigel.arnold@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk
robert.glass@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk


I'm also PMing you to asking for a copy of the email you received from the chief constable I'd like to check out if he is lying to you or giving you information he isn't authorised to.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Oh and ps they haven't 'told me to carry on' they've just said I won't be prosecuted.

Of course I won't be prosecuted. Do you honestlly think they would prosecute me. All I do is deliberatly pursue deer with four dogs.

You yourself have previously stated that I shouldn't be prosecuted for that. POWA accept the law is anomalous and I shouldn't be prosecuted. There's nothing wrong with breaking a law which is clearly unjustified.

Hunt monitors are welcome to my farm any time to watch me breaking the law. I have no problem with that at all. As long as they behave themselves.

 

[endymion]

If you don't hurt any animals I personally have no problem with anything you do. If the hunting act says what you do is illegal then it's needs to be looked at and revised, not repealed. You are attempting to discredit the entire bill because you have a problem with one small part of it. That is the actions of a stauch pro hunt campaigner, not an innocent man trying to protect his coppice.

I will PM you a copy of the reply he sent me.

I did get your grammer joke, my reply was tongue in cheek!

 

[endymion]

then why did they start beating and stamping on a dead body??!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm not an innocent man trying to protect my coppice. I'm a guilty man trying to protect my coppice. There's not argujment that i am entirely guilty under the Hunting Act I am perfectly prepared to openly admit my guilt.

Thank you for your email. It says nothing contrary to my claims. Do you have any grounds at all for claiming I am a liar? If not in the interests of common courtesy would you be kind enough to retract my claim.

My objection to the hunting act is simple. It does not contain any test of cruelty. Entirely non cruel actions are banned. It woukld have been perfectly simple to make a law against cruelty. The Hunting Act is not such a law.

In the light of that simple fact people are entirely justified in breaking it.

The fact is that the police will not prosecute me because as you admit the law is completely unjustified in making what I do illegal.