is hunting cruel?

lostexpectation

togster wrote:

What is cruelty? I think thats up to the person answering it. Everyone has their own opinions on it.

cruelty is killing for amusement

Zombrex

togster wrote:

I am sorry but i find it hard to accept the reasoning behind this argument. It is the hounds that are hunting the fox.

The hounds are not hunting the fox, they are tracking the fox.

You may think that point is academic, but from the point of view of biology or evolution it is very important.

The hounds are not sustaining themselves on the need to hunt and kill the foxes. They are not hunting for food. They are tracking the fox for us.

The hounds are fed by their owners, they are sustained by their owners. The hounds make little effort to hid the fact that they are tracking the fox from the fox because their purpose is to track the fox for their human masters. They have been bred to track prey for humans.

What this fact creates is an unbalance in the evolutionary set up. The hounds can now act in a manner that no predator has ever been able to act until we came along. They can "hunt" with no concern for the energy they are using because they aren't hunting, catching the fox is of little concern to their survival.

No animal in the wild would ever ever ever on purpose give away their position to prey they are hunting until they absolutely have to. If they did they would simply never see the prey again and they would not eat.

As such prey have not evolved systems to deal with being aware of long duration hunting because put simply they didn't need to. If they were aware they were being hunted they would be gone and the predator would have no way to continue the hunt.

Until humans came along no animal was capable of hunting the way hounds track foxes today. Hounds can only do this in the way they do because they are sustained by humans and are not hunting for food.

I would point out that when I say this is going against the balance of evolution, or upsetting the evolutionary balance I'm not making any kind of moral assessment. I'm not being all wishy washy with anything like we have to keep mother nature happy, or anything like that.

It is simply pointing out that humans have tipped the scales in one direction (as we have with so many other things on Earth) due to our advanced intelligence and evolution on the other side has not yet caught up. We have developed systems of hunting that are unlike anything that evolution has had to deal with, and as such evolution does not have a response yet.

togster wrote:

The hound is a descendant of the wolf and hunts in packs like wolves. In fact hounds are similar to most predatory pack animals like the wolf ie they work of scent.Wolves will hunt for hours even days to secure prey providing scent is strong and conditions provide for sustainable scent.

Yes, but unlike the hounds, wolves will never ever alert the prey to the fact that they are being hunted.

That is the key point, the fact that the fox is aware they are being hunted but the hunt continues regardless. This would not be possible in the wild and as such foxes and other animals have not developed systems to deal with it.

One of the intresting things about fox hunting, unlike other forms of hunting even other forms of human hunting, is that very little care is taken to make sure the prey is not aware of the hunters, and in fact that seems to be part of the point.

This is fundamentally an unnatural way to hunt based on how other animals hunt.

This fact is compensated for by using simple honest to god brute force. We can do this because we have the intelligence to create other ways to sustain ourselves and our hunting animals. As such we can hunt with lots of dogs, who are well sustained and full of energy before the hunt, hunting in large packs that simply run down the fox.

That would never take place in nature as the reward, in terms of food, doesn't come close to matching the energy required to carry out such a hunt.

The only way hounds can do this now with us is because they are sustained by us. If the hounds had to share the fox for food they would simply not hunt this way as they would never get back the energy they spend during the hunt.

togster wrote:

Your argument seems to be based on evolution of the fox regarding its ability to be chased for lengthy periods of time. >However the hound has evolved from the wolf the foxs natural predator.

Yes but we evolved them (bred them) togster, to be used as tracking animals. The foxes natural evolution has not caught up yet.

We also maintain them, they don't hunt for food. They track for us, and we give them food later on.

Getting back to the original point, the unnatural bit is the fact that the fox is aware they are being hunted for a long long time.

This would never happen in nature because in nature if the fox was aware they were being hunted then they would escape with ease. But because they are being chased by well maintained high energy dogs, sustained by other sources of food, this system is unbalanced.

Now the hounds can give chase for as long as they like without fear of using too much energy.

Put simply because this never happens in the wild evolution has not evolved systems for foxes to deal with this. If it never happened before why would they?

Instead nature put all her eggs in one basket by evolving systems for the animal to survive short up close attacks.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Put simply because this never happens in the wild evolution has not evolved systems for foxes to deal with this. If it never happened before why would they?

Instead nature put all her eggs in one basket by evolving systems for the animal to survive short up close attacks.

This is an interesting argument Wicknight and obviously you've thought long and hard about it... but the fact remains that the foxes do deal with it, and the vast majority of them escape, so it all just rings a little hollow with me.

To simplify things Wicknight, are you saying you object to foxhunting because it puts unnecessary stress on the animal, and that is unacceptable to you?

Zombrex

fits wrote:

... but its not the horses that are doing the hunting.. its the hounds... this is a point that is missed repeatedly. The followers on horseback are merely following the hounds.

The point is the same.

Neither the humans, nor the horses, nor the hounds need to catch the fox to regain the energy they have spend while on the hunt. They are all maintained by food from other sources.

As such little care is taken to make sure the fox is unaware that they are being hunted. In fact if the hounds went into the rough and instantly grabbed a fox I would imagine most on the hunt would be disappointed. The whole point is to chase the fox, often over long distances.

During the entire length of the hunt the fox is in a highened state of stress, a state that they have not evolved to deal with for sustained periods of time because they never would have been expected to deal with it for a sustained period of time.

From a biological point of view fox hunting is fundamentally an unnatural way to hunt, as it wastes a large amount of energy for little reward. That is not in anyway a moral judgement on fox hunting, it simply is the way it is. No animal would hunt like this in the wild because no animal could survive by hunting like this in the wild.

The horses and hounds and ourselves can do that because the actual energy is regained not from the fox itself but from other sources (both the horses and the hounds are maintained by the hunters).

Zombrex

fits wrote:

This is an interesting argument Wicknight and obviously you've thought long and hard about it... but the fact remains that the foxes do deal with it, and the vast majority of them escape, so it all just rings a little hollow with me.

I'm not quite sure how you are defining "deal with it" ... animals, including ourselves, can physically survive quite horrendous physical and mental harm, but whether or not we "deal" with that is a completely different issue.

The fact that the fox doesn't physically die from a stress related cardiac arrest doesn't really suggest to me that it is dealing with the hunt.

fits wrote:

To simplify things Wicknight, are you saying you object to foxhunting because it puts unnecessary stress on the animal, and that is unacceptable to you?

No, not exactly.

The main objection I have to fox hunting is that I feel that killing animals as a game for humans is morally objectionable and slightly disturbing.

But the reason I replied on this point was that the idea that a hunt is simply an extention of the natural predator/prey scenario that the fox would find itself in in nature anyway didn't seem to make much sense to me. It is not a key point for me on the morality of fox hunting, but I still thought it was something that I would comment on.

The argument seems to be that a hunt is the most humane way to hunt and kill foxes because they are used to this type of hunting and as such are not stressed out as they would be with being shot or trapped.

As I said above that argument doesn't seem to hold because it is not comparing like with like. Human fox hunting is very different to the types of natural hunting a fox would find itself in the wild.

There is also that fact that the fox population is largely controlled by the availability of food, not predators.

Vegeta

The hounds do the actual work of "hunting" not the riders on horseback. So when you talk about the length of the hunt, well that's how pack animals hunt especially dogs and wolves.

I would compare fox hunting with hounds to hunting with a bird of prey, while yes the human is hunting its the animal that is doing what comes naturally to it.

On the whole cruelty thing, you have to ask why is it cruel? Is it cruel because animals die, well how many cows/chickens/pigs/sheep die everyday for human consumption.

Is it cruel because they suffer a little more pain. Yes sometimes when hunting animals it isn't one shot one kill but don't fool yourself and think that farm animals live a lovely life style. That's if they are lucky enough to live on a farm. What about the animals kept in factories with the lights on 24/7 at the optimum heat to make them grow, kept in cages all their natural life and never see the light of day.

To the vegetarians are saying "well i don't eat meat" I have to ask you how mnay spiders/mice/house flies have you killed in your life. How many insects or birds were killed as a result of the harvesting of your cornflakes. How about the stone used for your house i bet a lot of animals suffered when a quarry was opend up on their homes.

My point is animals suffer as a result of humans.....FACT. Should a hunter feel morally guilty because they enjoy the hunt, NO, maybe he should feel the same as a farmer who enjoys his job i.e. raising animals for slaughter or a person enjoying their steak or someone who's house was built at the expense of the suffering of maybe hundreds of animals.

Here's one for ya, how many bugs do you kill every year with your car?

Yes i hunt, I am not saying no animal i hunt suffers but no one here can say animals don't suffer as a result of thier lifestyles. At least i eat what I kill and try to keep predators down so other species have a fighting chance. All my meat doesn't come in a shiny plastic package

fits

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not quite sure how you are defining "deal with it" ... animals, including ourselves, can physically survive quite horrendous physical and mental harm, but whether or not we "deal" with that is a completely different issue.

The fact that the fox doesn't physically die from a stress related cardiac arrest doesn't really suggest to me that it is dealing with the hunt.

Yes but your suggestion that foxes haven't evolved to cope with this sort of sustained hunting 'mentally' is something that is hard to quantify.

Wicknight wrote:

I

No, not exactly.

The main objection I have to fox hunting is that I feel that killing animals as a game for humans is morally objectionable and slightly disturbing.

As has been stated, the entertainment does not come from the kill (it wouldnt be much entertainment if it did). I know you understand this.

Wicknight wrote:

The argument seems to be that a hunt is the most humane way to hunt and kill foxes because they are used to this type of hunting and as such are not stressed out as they would be with being shot or trapped.

As I said above that argument doesn't seem to hold because it is not comparing like with like. Human fox hunting is very different to the types of natural hunting a fox would find itself in the wild.

There is also that fact that the fox population is largely controlled by the availability of food, not predators.

Hunting isnt really an effective means of fox control at all. Where it does come in useful is in the culling of sick or weak foxes and knowledge of local fox populations. I dont think anyone would deny that a well-aimed shot would be more pleasant for the fox, but its not the easiest thing in the world to achieve.

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, but unlike the hounds, wolves will never ever alert the prey to the fact that they are being hunted.
.

am not true, wolves use their amazing stamina and pack mentality to hunt. They are not stalkers like cats.

In fact they induce chases to highlight weak members of herds

wolves will chase prey about a kilometre before giving up. The only reason they stop is to conserve energy.

Tar.Aldarion

Vegeta wrote:

To the vegetarians are saying "well i don't eat meat" I have to ask you how mnay spiders/mice/house flies have you killed in your life.

Absolutely none that I know of. Nor would I ever.

How many insects or birds were killed as a result of the harvesting of your cornflakes. How about the stone used for your house i bet a lot of animals suffered when a quarry was opend up on their homes.

The point for most people is how to kill the least amount of life possible.
Not to be morally absolute, saying they are the bees knees, and are better than anybody else.

My point is animals suffer as a result of humans.....FACT. Should a hunter feel morally guilty because they enjoy the hunt, NO, maybe he should feel the same as a farmer who enjoys his job i.e. raising animals for slaughter or a person enjoying their steak or someone who's house was built at the expense of the suffering of maybe hundreds of animals.

Feeling guilty is up to the individual, I would feel guilty for any of those things. Some people may not, obviously a lot do not.



I don't have time for debate, or to make full points because I have so much work but I just came on to this thread to mention:

the ecology society are hosting a talk by Tom Hardiman this evening (Monday) at 7pm in AM108. Tom is an ex-hunter who, having seen the horrific cruelty perpetrated by the Galway Blazers, cut all ties with them and has campaigned tirelessly ever since to have this barbaric so-called "sport" outlawed in Ireland. He pickets the Dail on a weekly basis, actively sabotages local hunts and revealt the atrocities committed against our native fauna at every opportunity.

His talk is sure to be an interesting eye-opener for those who are still unsure about what exactly happens on a hunt or during the cubbing season, and I encourage you all to come along if you can!

In nuig, if anybody wants to attend. Good eve.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Absolutely none that I know of. Nor would I ever.

.

that's wonderful, but every time you type on your keyboard, or move in the slightest way you thoughtlessly murder thousands of bacteria and teeny tiny little living creatures.

have you ever used dettol? or taken an anti-biotic?

you genocidal bastard.

Tar.Aldarion

I have never used dettol or taken an anti-biotic(lucky me I guess).
That doesn't mean I would or wouldn't though.
I don't use antibiotics in a non-life threatening situation because, I don't feel it necessary, and I use natural methods. If the situation was life threatening I would take the medicine.
The body kills foreign Bactria with or without an antibiotic. Any issue with taking medication is because it was tested on animals, not because it will kill a microbe.
/Watches plants die.

InFront

Washing your face kills hundreds of microbes, showering kills hundreds of thousands over the course of a week. I presume you kill them?

I'm not in favour of hunting by the way. I just found the above figure interesting, and was wondering how animal rights activists respond to it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

probably the same way buddhist do, by pretending it isn't there.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

Yes but your suggestion that foxes haven't evolved to cope with this sort of sustained hunting 'mentally' is something that is hard to quantify.

Well how could they?

How long have humans been hunting foxes on horse back with hounds? Since the middle ages. That is only a few hundred years.

fits wrote:

As has been stated, the entertainment does not come from the kill (it wouldnt be much entertainment if it did). I know you understand this.

Well to be honest I do wonder where the entertainment actually does come from at all.

As has already been mentioned the hounds do most of the actual "hunting", the people on horse back just keep up with the hounds. So it seems to be a sport involving keeping up with hounds and watching them try and kill a fox.

There seems to be no skill involved on the part of the "hunters" so I don't see the attraction from the point of view of actual hunting. Hunting prey with a rifle would seem far more skill full.

Fox hunting seems to be really just an excuse for a good day out with the horses. I would debate whether or not it is therefore necessary to involve the killing of a fox at all.

fits wrote:

Hunting isnt really an effective means of fox control at all. Where it does come in useful is in the culling of sick or weak foxes and knowledge of local fox populations. I dont think anyone would deny that a well-aimed shot would be more pleasant for the fox, but its not the easiest thing in the world to achieve.

Well there is a lot of talk about what purpose the hunt serves in relation to farming, but to be honest as far as I can see the reason people hunt in this fashion is because they like to hunt in this fashion. Which is fine, at least that is being honest.

But it makes the arguments that this is necessary or serves some kind of purpose a little weak.

skink

i will get links to those reports, when i am in work tomorrow

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

am not true, wolves use their amazing stamina and pack mentality to hunt. They are not stalkers like cats.

They aren't stalkers, they are trackers. They can track prey for miles. During this time the prey is not aware they are being tracked.

Vegeta wrote:

In fact they induce chases to highlight weak members of herds

I know, that is what I said. The prey will not be aware of the wolves until they attack.

Vegeta wrote:

wolves will chase prey about a kilometre before giving up. The only reason they stop is to conserve energy.

Again, I know. Well it is actually up to a kilometre. That isn't very far in relation to how far a fox hunt will actually travel.

Wolves do not hunt in the way hounds in a fox hunt do. They simply do not have the energy to waste.

tj-music.com

Fox hunting is plain wrong, cruel and should not be tolerated at all!

Rabies

Wicknight wrote:

There seems to be no skill involved on the part of the "hunters" so I don't see the attraction from the point of view of actual hunting. Hunting prey with a rifle would seem far more skill full.

Have you ever been on a horse?

Zombrex

Rabies wrote:

Have you ever been on a horse?

And fishing with dynamite requires skill to operate the boat

Yes I've been on a horse, yes I realise that riding a horse through fields and jumping hedges requires horse riding skill. That wasn't my point, which I'm sure you knew already.

There is almost no skill involved with relation to the actual "hunting".

When it comes down to it you are just chasing dogs. This in stark contrast to something like deer hunting where the human is at a huge disadvantage and a lot of hunting skill is required to track and kill the animal.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Well to be honest I do wonder where the entertainment actually does come from at all.

As has already been mentioned the hounds do most of the actual "hunting", the people on horse back just keep up with the hounds. So it seems to be a sport involving keeping up with hounds and watching them try and kill a fox.

Well you try getting up on an excited half ton of animal with a mind of its own and try and stay aboard for 4 hours at various speeds from standing still to flat out over stone walls, ditches, fences... sometimes not knowing whats on the other side and then you can tell me if there is any skill involved... Why do people think riding a horse is 'easy' cos it isnt. And keeping a horse and getting them up to the level of training and fitness where they can do this competently isnt easy either. People think girls with horses are spoiled brats, but I used to look after my mare myself, noone else. It involved getting up early every morning before school and feeding and mucking out, and turning her out... and the same in the evening.. Show me many teenagers who will take this sort of responsibility. I have done a lot of things in my life, but nothing has matched up to this, the feeling of absolute unity with your horse as you entrust your life to them.

But theres another aspect to the enjoyment. Waiting around on the top of a hill somewhere on a misty Sunday's morning with steam rising gently off the horses back and their odours mixing gently with the smell of leather and the wonderful countryside, and the absolute quietness.

So there you go Wicknight. Maybe you should try following a hunt on foot some day, there're normally a lot of foot followers too. You'd probably get to see a fox or two.

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

I know, that is what I said. The prey will not be aware of the wolves until they attack.

Again that's not true, often wolves will be in full sight of a herd. They don't care if the they can be seen. They are not trying to catch them by surprise, they try and wear them down and tire their prey out, which are usually elderly or sick.

Again, I know. Well it is actually up to a kilometre. That isn't very far in relation to how far a fox hunt will actually travel.

Oooh they chase the animals for a Km after the have tracked them for what 40 miles.

Also what would you call tracking while remaining unseen..........stalking maybe!

Wolves do not hunt in the way hounds in a fox hunt do. They simply do not have the energy to waste.

and wolves do not hunt in the way you imply.

Wicknight are you of the opinion that if we had some other wild dog species in Ireland that the fox would always get away and the only reason the hounds catch the fox is the human involvement.

Vegeta

On a completely seperate point why is fox hunting so high profile?

It hardly leads to the most deaths of foxes a year. Just look at the photos thread in the shooting forum and you'll see guys can shoot up to 4 a night. So the reason cant be numbers of animals killed.

So again why is fox hunting with hounds so frowned upon?

Is it purely the method of death, death by a pack of hounds.

fits

Vegeta wrote:

On a completely seperate point why is fox hunting so high profile?

Because it is visible, it appears unequal to the uninformed (all those big horses against one little fox), and the SUV effect... people dont like others to be higher up than them (such as on horseback) and appear wealthy (as associated with aristocracy) although the truth is far from this.

Rabies

fits wrote:

Because it is visible, it appears unequal to the uninformed (all those big horses against one little fox), and the SUV effect... people dont like others to be higher up than them (such as on horseback) and appear wealthy (as associated with aristocracy) although the truth is far from this.

Exactly. That is often an issue in the UK, not as much here. People think that it is an upper class sport and everthing else that follows that. If the people in a hunt were ever asked their profession, there would house wives, doctors, gardeners, vets, publicans and joe soap.

The guys that shoot rabbits, pigeons, rats, deer and what ever else. I'm sure that not every shot they take hits the head for an instant death. Like fox hunting, sometimes there is a very quick death, other times it is prolonged.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

Well you try getting up on an excited half ton of animal with a mind of its own and try and stay aboard for 4 hours at various speeds from standing still to flat out over stone walls, ditches, fences... sometimes not knowing whats on the other side and then you can tell me if there is any skill involved...

Well as I explained to Rabies that wasn't my point. You aren't hunting anything, to there is no hunting skill involved.

Is it necessary or worth killing a fox so you can enjoy a more interesting ride through the country side?

fits wrote:

I have done a lot of things in my life, but nothing has matched up to this, the feeling of absolute unity with your horse as you entrust your life to them.

Again, is it necessary or worth killing a fox to have this?

fits wrote:

But theres another aspect to the enjoyment. Waiting around on the top of a hill somewhere on a misty Sunday's morning with steam rising gently off the horses back and their odours mixing gently with the smell of leather and the wonderful countryside, and the absolute quietness.

Again, is it necessary or worth killing a fox to do this?

fits wrote:

So there you go Wicknight. Maybe you should try following a hunt on foot some day, there're normally a lot of foot followers too. You'd probably get to see a fox or two.

I've been on a few hunts, my uncle's family own and train horses. While I very much enjoy being out in the country any time I can, I didn't enjoy the fox hunting one bit. I found the whole thing ridiculous (it isn't really a "hunt" is it) as I kept thinking about the fox that was about to be killed.

But, strangely given the name, the fox seems that that is the last thing on most of the peoples minds.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Well as I explained to Rabies that wasn't my point. You aren't hunting anything, to there is no hunting skill involved.

Is it necessary or worth killing a fox so you can enjoy a more interesting ride through the country side?



Again, is it necessary or worth killing a fox to have this?


Again, is it necessary or worth killing a fox to do this?



I've been on a few hunts, my uncle's family own and train horses. While I very much enjoy being out in the country any time I can, I didn't enjoy the fox hunting one bit. I found the whole thing ridiculous (it isn't really a "hunt" is it) as I kept thinking about the fox that was about to be killed.

But, strangely given the name, the fox seems that that is the last thing on most of the peoples minds.

No it isnt necessary to kill a fox for any of these things.. This was explained at depth earlier in this thread. It is necessary to chase it however... for the unpredictability and stop/go factors... I wouldnt care if a fox were never killed, but drag-hunting is just a completely different experience.

Look at the end of the day, its about what is acceptable to you and what isnt. It is acceptable to me because I believe the foxes dont suffer. I like to think I treat animals with respect right across the board and I dont believe death is the worst thing that can happen to an animal. I try to buy ethically and locally. I think foxes have a pretty good life tbh when you compare it with dogs tied up all their lives, or horses that are never let out of their stable and strapped into unnatural contraptions. I actually have no problem with Tar Aldarions stance as it is consistent with respect to all animals. People who complain about foxhunting whilst chewing away on their Argentinian steak or their battery farmed chicken are just kidding themselves.

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

Again that's not true, often wolves will be in full sight of a herd. They don't care if the they can be seen.

Groan .. not until they are ready. Wolves are famous (infamous) for what is known as "silent walking". They can move through under growth by making very little noise, often in single file, down wind to the prey they are tracking.

The prey is not aware of the wolves until the wolves want them to be, at which point the chase beings. The chase will last only a few minutes.

This is in stark contrast to a fox hunt, where the hounds are so excited they take no care to how they are move or if the prey is alerted or not.

Vegeta wrote:

They are not trying to catch them by surprise, they try and wear them down and tire their prey out, which are usually elderly or sick.

No they don't, because that uses too much energy.

The way wolves catch prey is by chasing them into the pack and bringing the animal down. They don't run after them for an hour and hope the animal just falls over from exhaustion. A wolf will give up chasing a animal after only a few minutes because the animal is not worth the usage of energy. Most of the animals that wild wolves prey on have more energy reserves than the average wolf, and most animals escape the chase. Using large amounts of energy trying to chase an animal until the animal itself is out of energy would make very little biological sense.

Vegeta wrote:

Oooh they chase the animals for a Km after the have tracked them for what 40 miles.

Also what would you call tracking while remaining unseen..........stalking maybe!

Right .... is there a point in there somewhere?

A wolf pack's territory can be up to 800km squared, depending on the type of prey they hunt in that territory.

Once a wolf pack as identified a scent they will track prey for sometimes for hours. Once they are close to the prey they approach quietly, down wind and in single file. The entire point of this is to position themselves around the animal, or herd without being detected to get the best position to attack.

Once they are in position they start the chase. The prey certainly knows about the wolves at this point, but the chase itself only lasts for a few minutes.

Vegeta wrote:

and wolves do not hunt in the way you imply.

If you think I'm wrong then clear up this question -

When hunting individual animals how long is it from the point of awareness of the wolves to the point where a wolf with either bring down the animal or gives up chase?

Vegeta wrote:

Wicknight are you of the opinion that if we had some other wild dog species in Ireland that the fox would always get away and the only reason the hounds catch the fox is the human involvement.

The only reason the hounds chase the fox in the first place is because of human involvement.

The meat off the fox would never provide anything close to the amount of energy the hounds actually spend while on the hunt itself.

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

On a completely seperate point why is fox hunting so high profile?

It is "high profile" because it is one of the very few blood sports that is still actually allowed. Most of them where banned 150 years ago (there isn't anywhere in Ireland you can legally view two cocks or two badgers or two dogs ripping the sh1t out of each other, and there hasn't been for a long time).

Fox hunting was not banned when all these other sports that involve the death of an animal because it was associated with the wealthy and powerful, who decided things after all.

This has always seen as a little unfair to the poorer classes (its ok for rich people to kill animals for fun but not poor people..), and I guess in 21st century people kinda wondered why this class separation was still going on.

Vegeta wrote:

So again why is fox hunting with hounds so frowned upon?

Because it is entertainment that involves the killing of an animal for the amusement of humans

The vast majority of these forms of entertainment were outlawed nearly 150 years ago.

Dog fighting, bull baiting, bear baiting and badger baiting (blood sports traditionally associated with the working classes) were all banned in the UK in 1835 Cruelty to Animals act. Despite this dog fighting is still popular in the illegal underground blood sports scene in England.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Fox hunting was not banned when all these other sports that involve the death of an animal because it was associated with the wealthy and powerful, who decided things after all.

This has always seen as a little unfair to the poorer classes (its ok for rich people to kill animals for fun but not poor people..), and I guess in 21st century people kinda wondered why this class separation was still going on.

Thats all very well but doesnt account for beagling.. or coursing.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

....I kept thinking about the fox that was about to be killed.

And were there any killed?

Zombrex

fits wrote:

No it isnt necessary to kill a fox for any of these things. It is necessary to chase it however... for the unpredictability and stop/go factors... I wouldnt care if a fox were never killed, but drag-hunting is just a completely different experience.

But that doesn't make much sense.

If the fox is chased there is a chance he will be killed. You cannot separate the two and say we don't want to or mean to actually kill the fox. If you didn't mean to kill the fox then don't have the hunt.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

And was there any killed?

Yes.

But to be honest I was almost more disturbed by the hunt where the fox got a way. It kinda takes away any justification for the hunt, if you don't even catch and kill the fox, beyond simply something to amuse humans.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Yes.

I dont believe you...

Wicknight wrote:

But to be honest I was almost more disturbed by the hunt where the fox got a way. It kinda takes away any justification for the hunt, if you don't even catch and kill the fox, beyond simply something to amuse humans.

How many hunts did you go on? Not that its really relevant but I'm curious. And do you mind telling me which pack? Dont worry about it if you dont want to say.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

Thats all very well but doesnt account for beagling.. or coursing.

True, but then those are also blood sports traditionally associated with the wealthier upper classes. Are you seeing the pattern here..?

fits

Wicknight wrote:

True, but then those are also blood sports traditionally associated with the wealthier upper classes. Are you seeing the pattern here..?

I would disagree with that. I just couldnt imagine the landed gentry out beagling:D

Zombrex

fits wrote:

I dont believe you...

Fair enough I guess. I wasn't using my experience of fox hunting as evidence to back up anything beyond my own feelings on the matter so it doesn't really matter if you believe me or not.

fits wrote:

How many hunts did you go on? Not that its really relevant but I'm curious. And do you mind telling me which pack? Dont worry about it if you dont want to say.

3 hunts if I remember correctly, all in Wicklow near the Kildare boarder. This would have been about 10-15 years ago. No idea what the name of the organiser was, I was along with my uncle and cousins. To "experience it" My cousin was riding in the hunts. The first time she did this it was a big deal to my aunt and uncle.

amp

cardtrick wrote:

in my country hunting is legal and so it shud in zimbabwe once a year we hunt the **** filthy ***** and kill them

Permanently banned for racism.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

I would disagree with that. I just couldnt imagine the landed gentry out beagling:D

Who else would? Coal miners? Steal workers? Factory men?

fits

Well its fair enough Wicknight, you've been there and you didnt like it.
At least you know what you're talking about when debating it.
Twas probably the Shillelaghs I reckon.

zenith

amp wrote:

Permanently banned for racism.

Beat me to it. Don't you take a lunch break?

fits

Wicknight wrote:

Who else would? Coal miners? Steal workers? Factory men?

Eh it is Ireland I'm talking about, and we seem to have missed out on the Industrial Revolution thing.. so... Farmers and farm labourers.. They'd each keep one or two hounds and then meet once or twice a week. It was like a competition to see who had the best hound..

Zombrex

fits wrote:

Eh it is Ireland I'm talking about, and we seem to have missed out on the Industrial Revolution thing.. so... Farmers and farm labourers.. They'd each keep one or two hounds and then meet once or twice a week. It was like a competition to see who had the best hound..

I know this might come as a bit of a surprise but farm owners back then were considered the wealthy people

These are the people who organised events such as fox and hare hunts and it was in their interest that these were not included in things like the 19th century animal cruelty acts.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

I know this might come as a bit of a surprise but farm owners back then were considered the wealthy people

Certainly, but I did include labourers as well.. And the farmers I'm talking about wouldnt have fitted into the landed gentry category.

Vegeta

Read what you have posted, you are contradicting yourself saying wolves will not waste energy chasing prey. Yet in the same post you admit how they will track prey for hours and miles upon miles. I suppose tracking is energy free is it.

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfHunting.html

Vegeta

"A blood sport is a sport involving bloodshed or the killing of animals for food, pest control, or entertainment"

Not just animal versus animal

But surely using birds of prey for hunting is even more upper class. It is also more successful in terms of hunt to kill ratio. Why does fox hunting get the brunt of the publicity.

If the comeback is because its more common then why don't they go after huge commercial farming which is even more common again and cruelty on a much vaster scale.

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

Read what you have posted, you are contradicting yourself saying wolves will not waste energy chasing prey. Yet in the same post you admit how they will track prey for hours and miles upon miles. I suppose tracking is energy free is it.

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfHunting.html

Well the web page you linked to answers the question, and simply restates what I've been saying all along -

"When hunting in winter the wolf will conserve energy when ever possible, by following the same trail as the prey animal, staying upwind, and staying out of sight of the prey as long as possible.When it is time to strike the wolf will start wagging their tails with excitement. Some times when young pups are with the hunt they may dash after the prey in the excitement and spoil the hunt.
...
Wolves detect prey by three primary means, sent (most common), tracking, and chance encounters. After prey is detected, wolves may split up to search through brush, travel on ridge tops searching for the prey below, or test herds looking for signs of weakness.
...
Just before the chase wolves prefer to make there final approach downwind so there body sent is not carried to the prey species, alerting it to their presence"


In fact this is pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along, so I'm not quite sure why you linked to this page ...

It is in the wolves interest to limit the effort and energy required to catch prey. It is not in their intrest to prolong the chase or to alert the prey to the fact that they are being hunted until the very end.

Wolves will track prey for long periods because they, like all animals, have to to eat. They have to find prey eventually or they would starve (which happens a lot and regulates naturally the number of wolves).

The less prey available to the wolves the larger the wolves hunting territory is and the father the wolves will have to track prey for. But compared to the speed of the chase they do this slowly, often at nothing more than a brisk walking pace. They only give chase and attack, which is where the largest amount of energy is used up, once they have found their prey, got close to them and positioned themselves strategically to make the kill easier.

Vegeta

nice selective quoting, will i go and do some of that

Usually the chases are short, but L. David Mech has stated that "One wolf I know of chased a deer for 13 miles."

Wolves can keep up this pace for hours on end and have been known to cover 60 miles (96 kilometers) in a single night. They have been clocked at speeds of over 40 miles (64 kilometers) per hour for a distance of several miles.

Can chase a deer for 13 miles and can travel 60 miles in a night. They trot at 10 miles an hour and can keep that pace for several hours. Not exactly slow now is it.

Look the reason we are discussin how wolves hunt is because we need to determine if a fox would be subjected to similar treatment in the wild. Maybe not as severe but if you think a fox would not be killed by a pack of wild dogs then you are living in a fantasy land

fits

I really dont see the advantage or relevance of comparing hounds to wolves. (Or comparing dogs to wolves elsewhere, in analysis of their behaviour for that matter).
I'm bowing out of this one now.

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

But surely using birds of prey for hunting is even more upper class. It is also more successful in terms of hunt to kill ratio.

Isn't hunting with birds of prey still legal in Britian?

Vegeta wrote:

Why does fox hunting get the brunt of the publicity.

Well I imagine because pro-fox hunt supporters put up the biggest protest. The 2004 Hunting Act in Britian outlaws a number of hunting, not just fox hunting.

Vegeta wrote:

If the comeback is because its more common then why don't they go after huge commercial farming which is even more common again and cruelty on a much vaster scale.

I think "they" do. Unethical treatment of animals in farms is an issue that is often in the media.

Vegeta

fits wrote:

I really dont see the advantage or relevance of comparing hounds to wolves. (Or comparing dogs to wolves elsewhere, in analysis of their behaviour for that matter).
I'm bowing out of this one now.

The goal of the arguement is to determine if a larger wild dog(wolf etc) existed would the fox be hunted down in a similar fashion. I think they would.

I think Hyena use simialr tactis as the wolf but are not as stealthy.