Fox hunting poll in todays Irish Times

Bendihorse

Cowzerp, im also putting you on my ignore list for the same reasons as before. Flawed argument and not listening to reiterated valid points.

cowzerp

Oh im so sad!!!! NOT

Bendihorse

helena.ryan wrote: »

I've been reading from the start and wanted to give my opinion.

Firstly, I want to ask about the size of the pack, I think it was togster (I'm too lazy to scroll back) that said it has no bearing. I have seen foxes hunted by a small pack of dogs (4 max) - I have very very rarely seen them caught. From what I noticed the fox does not get away by running in a straight line. With an un-naturally large pack behind him, does he have a choice but to go against his instincts and run in a straight line?

Hi Helen, i hope i can answer some of your questions as you seem to have a genuine interest in finding out the facts of hunting.

The fox is in no way prevented from running in his natural zig zag pattern, this is one of his defence mechanisms and is used to confuse the hounds throw them off his scent.
There is a lead hound in the pack and the others follow on behind, more or less in single line format, so they dont actually form an unbroken chain across a span of land and drive the fox forward straight ahead of them.
When the lead dog stops/looses the scent, (hounds being a bit dim ) all the dogs continue walking and end up in a big messy heap of houds around the lead dog.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am, like peasant, anti cruelty as opposed to anti hunting but some of the things said here by both sides are a bit out of order (comparing a hunter to a paedophile in particular sickened me) but I would like to maybe explain. People see other people getting a kick out of something which kills an animal, ie people getting a kick out of cruelty and suffering - therefore a hunter is a cruel person with no morals. Flawed and uninformed logic perhaps but I'm sure you can understand why people can come to this conclusion, and why anti hunt people can get so passionate.

I can understand why people get so passionate about something like this, but i would think that that would make them want to find out the real facts, as you are trying to do and be open to hearing them when somebody takes the time to inform them in a fair and non confrontational manner, not continuously rebuking them with the same tired old answers every time.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Also the comments on the type of people who hunt - I come from a small town and can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people taking part in the hunts were most definately the snobbish elite. I'm not saying it's like that everywhere but in my experience it is.

Its fair to say that hunters are for the most part, farmers. Back in the day of english rule, land lords were owners of the land and therefore farmers. Farmers were snobbish and gentrified in those times when land was so valuable and was the only contributor to our 'economy' at that time.

Times have since changed, landlords and english rule have long gone and farmers are no longer held in very high esteem as our economy has many other contributers. There may be some elite/gentrified people still taking part in hunting, but let me assure you that these people are dying out and for the most part, 80% of hunters are normal joe soaps with a horse and a bit of land.

helena.ryan wrote: »

A field down from our house, running alongside a river with fencing on the river banks, slightly lower than the field itself. A hunt passed through and the farmer lost a few sheep who were so terrified they jumped the wire and into the river (not as dramatic as it sounds, the river is ony about thigh high but there were broken legs etc)..

All i can say here is that hunting takes place in the winter when land is usually left fallow (no animals grazing on it), every effort should and i think is taken to ensure that animals are not stressed by its presence.

When the hunt passes my fathers farm, he instructs them that there are animals in x,y,z fields and to please avoid them areas so they are not stressed by the passing noise/activity.
Its very unfortunate what happened to your neighbour and i will admit that i have seen it happen where sheep got caught in a fence (thery were released unharmed by hunt followers who are also there to help in incidents like this) but farmers are forewarned the day the hunt will pass and every farmer in that area is visited at his home before the event given an opportunity to say 'please dont enter my lands, or please dont hunt this field or that'.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am a bit confused as to how hunters can claim that they are conservationalists (sp?) yet there seems to be no way of finding out the numbers of foxes killed in Ireland yearly. Surely if this was the case the numbers would be important?)

I am sure this figure is available helen but i dont have time to go looking for it! This is taking up enough of my work time as it is (hope the boss doesn't find out)

helena.ryan wrote: »

I certainly hope that legislation does come in to protect animals, game, sport and farmed. Irelands record of animal welfare is terrible on all fronts and needs to be seriously looked at.

I am infavour of legislation that HELPS and is created by people who understand the delicate balance of ecology and wildlife, hunts are licenced as it is and i would have no issue with some monitors being put in place but a blanket ban is no help or addition to either animal or hunter.

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

Once the EU recognises and legislates "basic freedoms" for animals

The EU is over 30 years old and it still hasn't happened what makes you think its going to happen now. Also just because we are in the EU does not mean we have to do what they say VRT and the English refusing the euro are two prime examples

peasant

Vegeta wrote: »

The EU is over 30 years old and it still hasn't happened what makes you think its going to happen now. Also just because we are in the EU does not mean we have to do what they say VRT and the English refusing the euro are two prime examples

Well, therein lies the "beauty" of this proposed legislation being food production based.
Ireland still relies to a large extend on the export of animal food products, be that beef or dairy derived food additives.

You don't honestly think that the rest of Europe will keep buying Irish beef or Kerrygold butter once it's been highlighted that Ireland has chosen to opt out of the EU animal welfare legislation?

Throw in few nasty images of a foxhunt or a carted deer hunt into the continental TV report about Irish animal welfare conditions, get the masses angry ...exports grind to a halt and you will have that legislation enacted in a blink of an eye.

Don't underestimate the power of the (pissed off) consumer

Vegeta

helena.ryan wrote: »

I've been reading from the start and wanted to give my opinion.

Firstly, I want to ask about the size of the pack, I think it was togster (I'm too lazy to scroll back) that said it has no bearing. I have seen foxes hunted by a small pack of dogs (4 max) - I have very very rarely seen them caught. From what I noticed the fox does not get away by running in a straight line. With an un-naturally large pack behind him, does he have a choice but to go against his instincts and run in a straight line?

I think generally pack sizes are 20-30 hounds, wolf packs can be as large as 20 also. More hounds does not always guarantee the fox is caught but surely more hounds would help in catching the animal more swiftly are therefore causing less stress and a quicker death

Before I go any further can I ask Vegta about the whole cat thing? It seems to be that you are not interested in arguing your actual point and instead make the same - irrelevant - point over and over (not that you are the only person guilty of this). You have a lot to say about hunting and have made some good points, why not stick to that? I dont see your logic in comparing keeping cats to fox hunting. Maybe if you explained what you mean instead of the odd sarcastic comment?

Apologies in the delay getting back to you, my browser crashed while I was typing a reply so I had to start again.

My point is that people here are trying to take the moral high ground over hunters yet everyday they cause just as much if not more animal cruelty. My point about the cat is this, cats hunt and kill small animals, are these animals lives worth less than that of a fox, no, do domesticated cats need to hunt, no, so therefore using the anti hunt peoples logic cats are unnecessarily cruel and no-one should be allowed to own one. People say fox hunting is unnecessarily cruel well cats hunting could be called the same, cats will hunt in the day and a bell is not 100% effective either and not everyone keeps their cat inside at night or puts a bell on them.

That is just the tip of the iceberg though, most people eat meat, most animals are treated very poorly for their whole lives so anyone who eats intensively farmed animals is supporting animal cruelty. The vegetables or grain you eat, how many pests were killed just so the yield of the crop was high. How many birds nested in grass,wheat etc fields are killed by the machinery

So to sum up everyone here contributes to needless animal cruelty (unless they are vegans and grow their own food or something) So I see no difference between people who go out and kill foxes to control numbers so other animals in the local habitat have a fighting chance. Yes peasant, hunting with hounds is inefficient but that is no reason to ban anything.

I am a bit confused as to how hunters can claim that they are conservationalists (sp?) yet there seems to be no way of finding out the numbers of foxes killed in Ireland yearly. Surely if this was the case the numbers would be important?

Ring the NARGC, gun clubs can send them figures of all the foxes (and other vermin) they have shot througout the year. not every gun club particiaptes in returning the figures but it would give you an idea to the numbers maybe.

Also, to shed some light on the conservation thing. Pheasant and partridge are two birds which will probably die out (due to farming practices and predators like the fox) if gun clubs do not keep raising them and releasing them. Yes some are shot but their is generally a net gain. Hen pheasants are protected and can not be shot. Pheasants especially nest on the ground so are easy pickings for predators. So hunters actively try to keep these birds a part of the Irish ecology (shooting foxes is one way to give them a helping hand). There is a big push to start doing the same with grouse as their numbers are also dropping for different reasons.

I certainly hope that legislation does come in to protect animals, game, sport and farmed. Irelands record of animal welfare is terrible on all fronts and needs to be seriously looked at.

I fully agree but bans are not the answer to anything. ICABS will not stop at fox hunting and coarsing after all.

Bendihorse

Vegeta wrote: »

That is just the tip of the iceberg though, most people eat meat, most animals are treated very poorly for their whole lives so anyone who eats intensively farmed animals is supporting animal cruelty. The vegetables or grain you eat, how many pests were killed just so the yield of the crop was high. How many birds nested in grass,wheat etc fields are killed by the machinery

So to sum up everyone here contributes to needless animal cruelty (unless they are vegans and grow their own food or something) So I see no difference between people who go out and kill foxes to control numbers so other animals in the local habitat have a fighting chance. Yes peasant, hunting with hounds is inefficient but that is no reason to ban anything..

Here Here - Intensive farming programs to provide cheap meat for end users in supermarkets use some terrible practices.

Vegeta wrote: »

Also, to shed some light on the conservation thing. Pheasant and partridge are two birds which will probably die out (due to farming practices and predators like the fox) if gun clubs do not keep raising them and releasing them. Yes some are shot but their is generally a net gain. Hen pheasants are protected and can not be shot. Pheasants especially nest on the ground so are easy pickings for predators. So hunters actively try to keep these birds a part of the Irish ecology (shooting foxes is one way to give them a helping hand). There is a big push to start doing the same with grouse as their numbers are also dropping for different reasons...

Excellent points there Vegeta, glad to see your back on form.

The point we are trying to make in vain here is that there is a delicate ecologic system in place and a ban on hunting will cause major upset to it, to the detriment of many other types of animals, not alone the fox.

Vegeta wrote: »

I fully agree but bans are not the answer to anything. ICABS will not stop at fox hunting and coarsing after all.

I dont think anyone is opposed to there being some form of regulation on hunting, but in the interests of the countryside, an all out ban is not the answer.

cowzerp

Vegeta wrote: »

My point is that people here are trying to take the moral high ground over hunters yet everyday they cause just as much if not more animal cruelty. My point about the cat is this, cats hunt and kill small animals, are these animals lives worth less than that of a fox, no, do domesticated cats need to hunt, no, so therefore using the anti hunt peoples logic cats are unnecessarily cruel and no-one should be allowed to own one. People say fox hunting is unnecessarily cruel well cats hunting could be called the same, cats will hunt in the day and a bell is not 100% effective either and not everyone keeps their cat inside at night or puts a bell on them.

Cats doing what comes natural to them is not the same as humans who are not instinct led making a conscious decision to chase and terrify and then tear another animal apart for fun. This is a ridiculus argument, going by your argument bleach kills bacteria so we're all like fox hunters for using it..

peasant

Bendihorse wrote: »

I dont think anyone is opposed to there being some form of regulation on hunting, but in the interests of the countryside, an all out ban is not the answer.

You probably can't read this (because you childishly put posters that don't post what you like to hear on ignore) ...but ...


ehhhh....


isn't htat what this thread is all about?

nobodoy here (other than some members of the hunting fraction) ever talked about a total ban on hunting ...nobody here said that all hunting was "evil" or "bad" and wanted it banned.

The topic of this thread is a possible ban on foxhunting (the horse and hound variety) ...and if I interpret your above quote rather generously, then it would seem that you would agree with a ban on foxhunting as "some form of regulation", as you put it.

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

Cats doing what comes natural to them is not the same as humans who are not instinct led making a conscious decision to chase and terrify and then tear another animal apart for fun. This is a ridiculus argument, going by your argument bleach kills bacteria so we're all like fox hunters for using it..

Silly me I thought it was the hounds who hunted the fox, oh wait it is.

bacteria isn't a sentien being, animals are. The hounds do what is natural to them. You cannot breed a dog to do something that a dog cant do. Yes you can enhance its skills but the dogs want to hunt fox. The dog is hunting the fox not the man.

Just because its natural would you favour releasing a pack of 20 wild wolves instead.

So what about my other points, you eat meat and vegetables you crule bastard, you choose to eat meat so you choose to support a cruel industry. Ever kill a mouse or rat with a trap? The day your life makes little to no impact on animal well being then come back to me.

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

nobodoy here (other than some members of the hunting fraction) ever talked about a total ban on hunting ...nobody here said that all hunting was "evil" or "bad" and wanted it banned.

You see the problem there peasant is that fox hunting is not actually that cruel (hear me out) seriously, in the grand scheme of things it is not. you may think it is but you have little experience (I am not being condescending here I am telling the truth, how can you know how cruel or not cruel other types of hunting are without seeing them) so if fox hunting goes then a lot of other forms of hunting will go

That would not be good as our ecology is already in a sad state and banning certain activities would make it worse.

cowzerp

killing a rat in the trap is a fair comparison to shooting a fox but not the same as hunting it with the dogs, them dogs would not hunt fox if they where not encouraged too, people have them as pets and there not out hunting foxes!

also what naturally goes on with wild animals is not the same as what a human does, thats why we are considered advanced, wolves would only hunt fox if they had nothing else to hunt anyway, deer would be ahead of it as would fowlgoats and pigs etc...

Vegeta wrote: »

how can you know how cruel or not cruel other types of hunting are without seeing them).

So if someone watches the premier league on tele but never went to a game they have not watched football?? all on this board have seen video's and dont need to be in the kill to say they have seen it, i have and its sick.

Dog fighters will say the same about the dogs, there bred for fighting and dont feel pain and enjoy it etc..

peasant

Vegeta wrote: »

You see the problem there peasant is that fox hunting is not actually that cruel (hear me out) seriously, in the grand scheme of things it is not. you may think it is but you have little experience (I am not being condescending here I am telling the truth, how can you know how cruel or not cruel other types of hunting are without seeing them) so if fox hunting goes then a lot of other forms of hunting will go

Well, that's where we will always differ. I do honestly think that foxhunting is cruel. What makes it worse, is that is intentionally cruel. People go out to partake in the "fun" of hounds hunting down the fox. Let's not unroll the whole cruelty debate again ...you think it isn't , i think it is ...

As for other forms of hunting ...yes I do realise how cruel it can be when every Tom, Dick and Harriette without the first clue about guns and shooting starts shooting at everything that moves.

It might be in the interest of the hunting fraternity to impose some self regulation in that regard before the anti bloodsports fanatics sink their teeth into that particular issue.

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

killing a rat in the trap is a fair comparison to shooting a fox but not the same as hunting it with the dogs, them dogs would not hunt fox if they where not encouraged too, people have them as pets and there not out hunting foxes!

That is such an ignorant statement it hurts me. So according to wildlife by cowzerp, domesticated cats will hunt because its natural but domesticated dogs wont. I am sorry for my tone in this post but come one surely you can see thats not true.

have you ever seen a springer spaniel pup or (English or Irish)setter pup or even a labrador pup, they all have different skills which they perform naturally without ever having been thought. It is in their nature so I would call it natural.

AckwelFoley

it with the dogs, them dogs would not hunt fox if they where not encouraged too, people have them as pets and there not out hunting foxes!

You fail with fact again.

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

So if someone watches the premier league on tele but never went to a game they have not watched football?? all on this board have seen video's and dont need to be in the kill to say they have seen it, i have and its sick.

So you have seen videos of every type of shooting/hunting/field sport and know how each one can go wrong.

I highly doubt it with the distinct lack of knowledge you post in here.

cowzerp

Vegeta wrote: »

So you have seen videos of every type of shooting/hunting/field sport and know how each one can go wrong.

I highly doubt it with the distinct lack of knowledge you post in here.

Cats will turn wild if not looked after by there owner and will also be very adaptive and succesful, dogs die of hunger if not fed by there owners. fact .

This is about fox hunting with dogs not with guns or any other method.

im arguing against this form of hunting and you keep bringing up other types that are nothing to do with the topic, im against cruel unneccessary hunting.

SNYPER, where is your proof other than (your wrong)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Posting in multiple fora for attention is frowned upon, and diverts attention from the issue. The thread getting a debate going is in the Hunting forum, here

Irrespective of one's opinion on the matter, you cannot say this belongs on the Hunting Forum only. That's assuming one could find the Hunting forum, or know one existed. Many animal lovers, and those interested in animals, would never think of looking in a hunting forum. Indeed the most appropriate forum was probably "Nature and Bird Watching"

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

Cats will turn wild if not looked after by there owner and will also be very adaptive and succesful, dogs die of hunger if not fed by there owners. fact .

Does that mean dogs wont hunt, no it does not, so yes you are wrong. it is in dogs nature to hunt otherwise no one would even bother breeding dogs to retain these traits.

This is about fox hunting with dogs not with guns or any other method.

Everything is relative so when talking of cruelty you have to compare it to something. Fox hunting is no more cruel than farming, nature herself or other types of hunting so I believe it is not especially cruel or deserves the attention it receives.

It wasn't me!

People who end a statement with "fact" generally haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about. Fact.

Dogs chase animals without training, it is natural to them. My dogs have chased rabbits, foxes and deer, because dogs hunt. They're lazy house dogs though, so never stood much of a chance, but in reality, dogs are natural predators.

cowzerp

Vegeta wrote: »

Does that mean dogs wont hunt, no it does not, so yes you are wrong. it is in dogs nature to hunt otherwise no one would even bother breeding dogs to retain these traits.
.

Dogs will hunt if you get them to, if a greyhound is loose it will not chase everything that moves, neither will beagles or bloodhounds, the instincts they have are man made and where put into the dogs just like fighting dogs had the aggression bred into them, this is not due to mother nature.

and domestic dogs do starve when left to there own devices, cats turn ferrell when left to there own devices and can hunt like they did before they where domesticated. if you dont agree with this then your just disagreeing because you dont like my point of view.

Whispered

Damn I wish I didn't have to work so I could take the time to say what I want! Can anyone tell me how to quote multiple people in one post so that I am not leaving a few posts in a row please?

Vegeta wrote: »

I think generally pack sizes are 20-30 hounds, wolf packs can be as large as 20 also. More hounds does not always guarantee the fox is caught but surely more hounds would help in catching the animal more swiftly are therefore causing less stress and a quicker death



Apologies in the delay getting back to you, my browser crashed while I was typing a reply so I had to start again.

My point is that people here are trying to take the moral high ground over hunters yet everyday they cause just as much if not more animal cruelty. My point about the cat is this, cats hunt and kill small animals, are these animals lives worth less than that of a fox, no, do domesticated cats need to hunt, no, so therefore using the anti hunt peoples logic cats are unnecessarily cruel and no-one should be allowed to own one. People say fox hunting is unnecessarily cruel well cats hunting could be called the same, cats will hunt in the day and a bell is not 100% effective either and not everyone keeps their cat inside at night or puts a bell on them.

That is just the tip of the iceberg though, most people eat meat, most animals are treated very poorly for their whole lives so anyone who eats intensively farmed animals is supporting animal cruelty. The vegetables or grain you eat, how many pests were killed just so the yield of the crop was high. How many birds nested in grass,wheat etc fields are killed by the machinery

So to sum up everyone here contributes to needless animal cruelty (unless they are vegans and grow their own food or something) So I see no difference between people who go out and kill foxes to control numbers so other animals in the local habitat have a fighting chance. Yes peasant, hunting with hounds is inefficient but that is no reason to ban anything.



Ring the NARGC, gun clubs can send them figures of all the foxes (and other vermin) they have shot througout the year. not every gun club particiaptes in returning the figures but it would give you an idea to the numbers maybe.

Also, to shed some light on the conservation thing. Pheasant and partridge are two birds which will probably die out (due to farming practices and predators like the fox) if gun clubs do not keep raising them and releasing them. Yes some are shot but their is generally a net gain. Hen pheasants are protected and can not be shot. Pheasants especially nest on the ground so are easy pickings for predators. So hunters actively try to keep these birds a part of the Irish ecology (shooting foxes is one way to give them a helping hand). There is a big push to start doing the same with grouse as their numbers are also dropping for different reasons.




I fully agree but bans are not the answer to anything. ICABS will not stop at fox hunting and coarsing after all.

Right, try stay with me here, I'm supposed to be working so this may turn out to be a jumbeled mess of thought

You say more dogs = quicker death, how? There are only so many dogs who can be in contact with a fox at any one time, they are pretty small animals, chances are in a hunt of 20 dogs only 5 dogs or 25% might touch the one fox? I could be wrong but I can't imagine it being much more. Bendihorse, thank you for your explaination, vegta - I fail to see your logic tbh, unless you are talking about the fact it might help catch the fox more quickly to have more dogs in which case you are contradicting bendihorse when he said they generally run in a line behind the lead dog.

I see what you are saying about cats but I still dont see how you can compare a cat hunting to a fox hunt, 1 cat v's 1 mouse/bird/rat is different to 1 fox vs 20 dogs. It is natural and not organised. But I can see your point, I just dont really agree with it.

Animal farming - yes I agree there too, some of what happens needs to be looked at, it is outdated and cruel. I personally only eat free range chicken, eggs and dont eat chicken when I am out. I am careful about where my beef etc comes from and I'm not sure what else I can do. But just because one thing is cruel does not take away from the cruelty of something else. This is true for everything. For example a man beating his dog is cruel, a man beating his dog to death is worse - this does not mean the first man is no longer cruel. (I am NOT insinuating hunters beat their digs, I am just looking for an example)
Nesting birds dying is of course a bad thing - but it is not an organised hunt for these birds - people do not get pleasure from it.

I am well aware of the conservation efforts of gun clubs vegta and how important they are, I remember the efforts to try stop the spread of mixo too so I am aware of the need to control species for their own good - but thank you anyway. However I didn't question the gun clubs, I questioned the numbers killed by fox hunting, horses, hounds bugles etc, not guns.

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

Dogs will hunt if you get them to, if a greyhound is loose it will not chase everything that moves, neither will beagles or bloodhounds, the instincts they have are man made and where put into the dogs just like fighting dogs had the aggression bred into them, this is not due to mother nature.

You are wrong, accept it an move on. Your point of view is wrong, even people on your side of the debate know you are wrong. Dogs hunt due to natural instinct, all you have to do is look to close relatives like the wolf. Did man teach them to hunt too? Humans took an animal who could hunt and domesticated them while keeping their desireable traits like hunting, fetching and setting. Cowzerp you are wrong.

and domestic dogs do starve when left to there own devices, cats turn ferrell when left to there own devices and can hunt like they did before they where domesticated.

This does not mean dogs will not hunt on their own. Dogs are a pack animal so release one to the wild and of course he dies as he is useless on his own, he does not have the stealth or agility of a cat, release a pack of dogs though and see how they get on. Come on, stop flogging a dead horse, you are simply wrong regardless of point of view

Vegeta

helena.ryan wrote: »

Damn I wish I didn't have to work so I could take the time to say what I want! Can anyone tell me how to quote multiple people in one post so that I am not leaving a few posts in a row please?



Right, try stay with me here, I'm supposed to be working so this may turn out to be a jumbeled mess of thought

You say more dogs = quicker death, how? There are only so many dogs who can be in contact with a fox at any one time, they are pretty small animals, chances are in a hunt of 20 dogs only 5 dogs or 25% might touch the one fox? I could be wrong but I can't imagine it being much more. Bendihorse, thank you for your explaination, vegta - I fail to see your logic tbh, unless you are talking about the fact it might help catch the fox more quickly to have more dogs in which case you are contradicting bendihorse when he said they generally run in a line behind the lead dog.

I specifically said does not guarantee a quick death I said increases the chance of it as if the lead dogs pass off the scent then maybe a dog on the flank will pick it up. Hopefully cutting the length of the chase. But dog like animals hunt in packs anyway so why do you object on the basis of numbers?

I see what you are saying about cats but I still dont see how you can compare a cat hunting to a fox hunt, 1 cat v's 1 mouse/bird/rat is different to 1 fox vs 20 dogs. It is natural and not organised. But I can see your point, I just dont really agree with it.

But wild dogs hunt in packs, they are a pack animal. That's how dogs can catch prey, they do not have the stealth or agility to get close to prey so they run them down. Again I have to ask why does numbers bother you.

Animal farming - yes I agree there too, some of what happens needs to be looked at, it is outdated and cruel. I personally only eat free range chicken, eggs and dont eat chicken when I am out. I am careful about where my beef etc comes from and I'm not sure what else I can do. But just because one thing is cruel does not take away from the cruelty of something else. This is true for everything. For example a man beating his dog is cruel, a man beating his dog to death is worse - this does not mean the first man is no longer cruel. (I am NOT insinuating hunters beat their digs, I am just looking for an example)
Nesting birds dying is of course a bad thing - but it is not an organised hunt for these birds - people do not get pleasure from it.

I agree completely about relative cruelty and I think fox hunting is way down the list compared to a lot of other practices which is why I find it hard to understand the attention it receives.

I am well aware of the conservation efforts of gun clubs vegta and how important they are, I remember the efforts to try stop the spread of mixo too so I am aware of the need to control species for their own good - but thank you anyway. However I didn't question the gun clubs, I questioned the numbers killed by fox hunting, horses, hounds bugles etc, not guns.

That I cannot help I'm afraid with as I am not involved with the running of one of the clubs

cowzerp

Vegeta wrote: »

You are wrong, accept it an move on. Your point of view is wrong, even people on your side of the debate know you are wrong. Dogs hunt due to natural instinct, all you have to do is look to close relatives like the wolf. Did man teach them to hunt too? Humans took an animal who could hunt and domesticated them while keeping their desireable traits like hunting, fetching and setting. Cowzerp you are wrong.

I dont accept it.
wolves did not prey on foxes either so what are you on about, the dogs only chase the fox because there trained too.

Vegeta

helena.ryan wrote: »

Nesting birds dying is of course a bad thing - but it is not an organised hunt for these birds - people do not get pleasure from it.

Sorry I meant to come back to this, I find this worse as the public are not even aware of it and do not give it the attention it deserves.

Vegeta

cowzerp wrote: »

I dont accept it.
wolves did not prey on foxes either so what are you on about, the dogs only chase the fox because there trained too.

The wolf, bear and eagle were the natural predator of foxes here. You are wrong

Please don't make me put you on ignore.

stevoman

cowzerp wrote: »

I dont accept it.
wolves did not prey on foxes either so what are you on about, the dogs only chase the fox because there trained too.

WRONG!! its in their nature! just like a ferret is programmed by nature to chase a rabbit. there's no training involved in this its 100% natural. i never have had to nor have ever heard of anyone training their ferrets to hunt. guess why? (you know the answer) - because its in their nature!

training a dog to heel and go in whatever direction you want it to by pointing, come to call and sit are all things that the hounds are trained to do. the dogs hunting is a natural instinct. there is just no escaping that fact im afraid!

Villain

FACT: People seem to have much more of an issue with people hunting foxes for fun that may or may not result in the death of a fox than with people simply shooting foxes, rabbits, deer, etc for fun which will result in huge number of animal deaths.

FACT: Hunting foxes with horses and hounds is a sport which most people get enjoyment from the chase i.e. riding horses following hounds which chase the fox, some people may get enjoyment from the fox being killed but I don't know if they do and no-one else can prove they do.

So a lot lot more people get enjoyment from hunting and killing deer, rabbits and foxes by tracking them and shooting them than people who go on hunts with horses and hounds which may not result in the death of a fox. Yet people only seem to gather in numbers online and at marches etc about Fox hunts???

cowzerp

Vegeta wrote: »

The wolf, bear and eagle were the natural predator of foxes here. You are wrong

Bear and eagles is true, im sure some wolves killed foxes but they did not prey on them. a fox would not even be worth it for a pack of wolves, great for 1 bear or 1 eagle.

Vegeta wrote: »

Please don't make me put you on ignore.

Please do like i'll care!