Fox hunting poll in todays Irish Times

Whispered

Vegeta wrote: »

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?



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.

Vegeta - the reason I had/have an issue with numbers is because of this - I asked do the numbers have any bearing on how the fox escapes, I was thinking that the dogs run in a large pack which covers a large area if you know what I mean. I imagined that if this was the case it would prevent the fox from escaping in its usual natural way. Is this not a fair question? Bendihorse explained that there is a lead dog and the rest follow generally behind him so it does not effect the foxes natural tendancy to zig zag. But then you seemed to contradict him, saying that the numbers are good because it means there is less stress and a quicker death - please explain to me how. Perhaps I picked you up wrong. I have to assume that you did not mean more dogs catching means a quicker death as only so many dogs can "catch" at any one time, so does this mean that the chase is shorter? If this is the case then why if they all follow a lead dog. This is where I am getting the impression that you contradicted bendihorse. Can you clear that up for me please?

(also vegeta - a pack of over 15 wolves would be considered very large as far as I'm aware)

Again I see your point, the public not being aware of animals dying where fields are harvested - I also feel the same about those concerete bollards along motorways (poor animals have no escape once they get on the motorway) but again I will say it does not make fox hunting any better.

I was genuinely asking questions looking for answers but it has devolved into a silly tit for tat.

As for the numbers killed each year - if hunters were so intersted in conservation, surely they would have some idea?

AckwelFoley

SNYPER, where is your proof other than

Dogs are predators.

They hunt in packs.

I learned that in baby infants.

If i was to have to explain the wrongs in all the "facts" that i see posted in this forum id be here till my mother began lactating again.

cowzerp

snyper wrote: »

Dogs are predators.

They hunt in packs.

I said if they where pets they would not hunt fox, there kept in a pack deliberate so they can be used in this savage old age way, beagles, bloodhounds, greyhounds that live with familys dont go searching foxes when brought on a walk!! and even when a pack of strays get together they usually just scavenge bins and dont go hunting.

Regardless on wheter you agree with me or not, its still a savage act that should of gone out with bear baiting and dog fighting, people who do this would be the same people who would be into badger baiting too.

AckwelFoley

cowzerp wrote: »

I said if they where pets they would not hunt fox, there kept in a pack deliberate so they can be used in this savage old age way, beagles!!.

Wrong again


Dogs natural instinct is to be in packs.

people who do this would be the same people who would be into badger baiting too.

Wrong again.

I suggest you stop posting nonsence now.

mickoo

snyper wrote: »

Wrong again

Dogs natural instinct is to be in packs.

What sort of a ****stirrer are you? He clearly said pet dogs, meaning a family dog or maybe 2 dogs, your talking about packs of dogs and he is talking about a dog, a pet. i've never seen a domestic dog chase a fox! or a pack of dogs chasing them either for that fact.

And where i grew up there was loads of stray dogs wandering the streets in packs-they just scavenged bins and the local kids would feed them! and there was corn fields and woodsland every where back then with foxes around, not now due to dublin been built up...

Bendihorse

Mickoo, domestic dogs have been well known to hunt in packs - remember the add campaign about 10 years ago to warn people to take their dog in at night to prevent it from grouping with more dogs and going hunting for the night? The reason it came to light was because they hunted sheep among other things - which was a direct threat to a farmers livelyhood. So yes indeed it is true that domestic dogs - that were NEVER trained to do so, can and do form packs and go hunting in the dead of night.

Helena - to clarify, i THINK (dont want to answer for him) vegeta meant that its a quicker 'kill' if there are more dogs at the point of contact with the fox, ie after its caught, so hes not contradicting what i said about the dogs hunting in a line. Im female too by the way

stevoman

mickoo wrote: »

i've never seen a domestic dog chase a fox! or a pack of dogs chasing them either for that fact.

...

mickoo one of my parents dogs is a black lab, golden retreiver cross. he's twelve and has been a pet all his life. he sleeps indoors and stays in all day aswell lying in front of the fire. my parents take him for walks in the local woods most nights every summer and i often go with them. once he gets out there he takes into running into the cover and back and forth to my parents the whole time. as soon as he gets a scent of a deer or fox he is gone (deer espeically!) he runs into the woods and a few minutes later a deer would burst out onto the path running with him on his tail. its nature so it is. he not doing it to make a kill, but there is something in his head that triggers him to do that. Thats a 100% true

AckwelFoley

mickoo wrote: »

What sort of a ****stirrer are you? He clearly said pet dogs, meaning a family dog or maybe 2 dogs, your talking about packs of dogs and he is talking about a dog, a pet. i've never seen a domestic dog chase a fox! or a pack of dogs chasing them either for that fact.

...

What kind of sh1t stirrer am i?


One armed with facts unlike the tripe im hearing from alot of ye..

Go read a book on animal behavior and get back to me ted.

Mickoo, domestic dogs have been well known to hunt in packs - remember the add campaign about 10 years ago to warn people to take their dog in at night to prevent it from grouping with more dogs and going hunting for the night? The reason it came to light was because they hunted sheep among other things - which was a direct threat to a farmers livelyhood. So yes indeed it is true that domestic dogs - that were NEVER trained to do so, can and do form packs and go hunting in the dead of night

.

Correct... and lol,, yes i remember the advert.. but it was more than 10 years.. it was closer to 20!! Like the ad about safety on farms where the boy hitting an empty tin of castrol oil goes head first into a tank

peasant

The hunters are correct.

Dogs (all dogs) are natural predators. Some have stronger hunting instincts than others, but all dogs have it.

It is also correct that dogs, if they can get out togehter, will form into groups (a pack is a family group ...a group is just that) and go hunting together. In those situations even the most mild mannered couch potatoe could turn into a hunter/killer only to return to the couch the following day and his owner never knowing.

The big difference is:

Pet dogs that go hunting do so because their owners are negligent. Foxhounds go hunting because they were bred and kept (mostly) for that purpose alone.
While hunting comes naturally to them, you can't really say that you're organising a foxhunt so that hte hounds get benefit from some "natural excercise". If there were no foxhunts, there wouldn't be many foxhounds. Certainly not packs of 20-40 of them, but only the occasinal few, kept by a real fancier and/or a solitary hunter.

AckwelFoley

peasant wrote: »

The hunters are correct.

Dogs (all dogs) are natural predators. Some have stronger hunting instincts than others, but all dogs have it.

It is also correct that dogs, if they can get out togehter, will form into groups (a pack is a family group ...a group is just that) and go hunting together. In those situations even the most mild mannered couch potatoe could turn into a hunter/killer only to return to the couch the following day and his owner never knowing.

The big difference is:

Pet dogs that go hunting do so because their owners are negligent. Foxhounds go hunting because they were bred and kept (mostly) for that purpose alone.
While hunting comes naturally to them, you can't really say that you're organising a foxhunt so that hte hounds get benefit from some "natural excercise". If there were no foxhunts, there wouldn't be many foxhounds. Certainly not packs of 20-40 of them, but only the occasinal few, kept by a real fancier and/or a solitary hunter.

Correct. 100%

togster

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.

Are you for real? Have you ever seen a pointer or setter (domesticated) on a walk in a forest and when they pick scent they will set or point? How is this un-natural? My labrador at home often picks up scent when out for a walk.
He was never shown how to do this. And i have a friend who has a grey hound and will chase anything that moves.

Seriously you need to read up on animal behaviour:rolleyes:

cowzerp

Regardless of all your PROVEN FACTS! that does not change the matter that 40 hounds organised by humans to hunt prey for the purpose of fun is sick and should be banned, some have used the excuse that it is for conservation! well then humanely kill the animals, the problem with this is the gang of snobbish wannabee brits on horses wont get there kick out of it.

stevoman

cowzerp wrote: »

Regardless of all your PROVEN FACTS! that does not change the matter that 40 hounds organised by humans to hunt prey for the purpose of fun is sick and should be banned, some have used the excuse that it is for conservation! well then humanely kill the animals, the problem with this is the gang of snobbish wannabee brits on horses wont get there kick out of it.

So its the people you have a prblem with then is it?

TBH your posts in this thread have been pretty damn useless. Your arguements unfounded. At least PEASENT and HELENA RYAN can make a valid arguement. All you want to do is call people names ad refer to people in sterotypical ways.

your also gone on my ignore list

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

Regardless of all your PROVEN FACTS! that does not change the matter that 40 hounds organised by humans to hunt prey for the purpose of fun is sick and should be banned, some have used the excuse that it is for conservation! well then humanely kill the animals, the problem with this is the gang of snobbish wannabee brits on horses wont get there kick out of it.

LOL you are like a spoilt child throwing your toys out of your pram!!:D

You resort to name calling when you are proved wrong... AGAIN.

So its the people you have a problem with? LOL wannabe brits. At least i know that dogs have natural instincts!!:rolleyes:

peasant

So, while we have now established that it is quite "natural" for a dog to want to go and hunt, there are a few distinctions to be made.

A solitary foxhound has a snowflakes chance in hell of catching any fox other than a crippled or wounded one.

A foxhound, despite its name, would quite happily hunt everything else it comes across that isn't called "fox". It is not specialised on foxes only but a general hunting dog. In order to become a successful and dedicated fox hunter it needs to be trained and integrated into a pack that already has fox (and not everything else that moves) hunting experience and discipline.

So in order for a foxhunt to actually have a chance of hunting and catching a fox, the hunt must keep a dedicated pack of hounds. These are looked after and trained by specialised members of the hunt. In order to keep the pack keen on foxes, it is not a good idea to use the dogs for general hunting as techniques for different prey differ wildly and would only confuse the hound and make it forget its foxhunting skills.
Furthermore, the pack needs to stay together all the time, in order to sort out its pack order and to keep the cohesion. The dogs don't go home to their individual families after the hunt, they stay together in dedicated kennels as a pack. If every hunter brought their own (family-) foxhound to the hunt, the hunt would never get underway as all the individual dogs would either quarrel or just play with each other (or both) but not form a dedicated hunting pack.

So, you could say that a foxhunt keeps and maintains a dedicated hunting tool (or "weapon") in the shape of a trained and dedicated pack of hounds.
(and if they still practise "digging out", then some terriers as well)


Now ...to look at the whole affair from the foxes point of view:
As correctly stated, the fox (apart from a few Eagles up in Donegal) has no natural predators in Ireland.
In its lifetime, the fox will have come across a few dogs (herding dogs, straying dogs and maybe even the odd lone hunting dog) and will have learned to avoid/evade them with ease.

The main argument of the foxhunt fraternity is that it is not cruel to hunt the fox with hounds but perfectly natural, because its the natural predator hunting its natural prey.

That's simply not true.

As outlayed above, the hounds are a specialised, trained hunting tool.
The fox has never faced anything like that before, especially not in those numbers.

In a somwhat stupid comparison (because one shouldn't really compare human behaviour with animal behavior) it is like this:

Any ordninary Joe Soap will have lerned how to deal with or best avoid the odd skanger that wants him ill. While there is stress in those situations , it's a situation that you are used to and that you can deal with, "naturally", if you like.

Now picture yourself being chased by 20 - 50 well trained and fit skangers, armed with knives, wanting to kill you.

Would you call that a "stressful situation"? ...well I bloody well would.


Now imagine that group of skangers was being housed, fed and trained all year round by a group of people for the sole purpose to chase after you at some stage so that they could watch ...would you call these people "cruel"?

I would ....



The comparison is flawed ...but nonetheless the fox finds itself in a situation it has never experienced before, it finds itself pursued by an overwhelming force that is clearly out to kill it. It doesn't just experience a "natural fight or flight instinct" ... that fox is running and fighting for its life and under extreme stress and anguish.

Even if the fox gets away, it is subjected to stress levels that in my mind qualify as cruelty.

If it doesn't get away, it's even worse.
The hunting fraternity would like you to believe that the fox is swiftly killed by the hounds, that the hounds apply one deadly bite with surgical precision to kill the fox and only then will they tear it apart.

Bollox ....


X number of highly excited and agitated hounds will get a hold of some bit of fox at the same time and they will want it all for themselves, so they will start pulling and tearing. That the fox in the middle is still alive is of no consequence to them.

Whover is trying to tell you that the hounds form an orderly queue and wait until one dog has actually killed the fox before they try and get their piece of the "action" must take you for one very gullible eejit.

If the dogs get the fox, they will tear it apart alive, full stop.


Organising a foxhunt, with all that it entails, licence, permissions, organisation, hounds, horses, coordination, etc, etc ....just to partake and witness an animal being torn apart by other animals ...

well ...to me that is and always will be cruelty. Intentional, savage cruelty for which there is no excuse.


It should be banned.


This is my last post in this thread, it is a summary of all I have said before. I know people will disagree and want to rip it apart ...I won't go through the whole rigmarole again, my opinion stands and I belive I'm entitled to express it.

You're entitled to disagree ...just don't expect an answer any more.

togster

Yeah we have been over all that before. Im bowing out too.
People are just not going to agree.

arybvtcw0eolkf

togster wrote: »

Yeah we have been over all that before. Im bowing out too.
People are just not going to agree.

Dunno about that.

I'm a hunter, I shoot & fish, so you might say I'm biased.

I never really looked into the whole fox hunting debate, I'd have said 'yea let em at it' but Cowzer's posts have made me think.

I never thought to look at it from the point of view Paul spoke about, ie the gang chasing you down the street & how stressful it must be for the fox.

While I'm not against it (yet) the thread and people's view's in it have made me think.

stevoman

I am bowing out of this one also.

I agree to disagree.

(MAYBE THIS COULD BE BEST LOCKED MOD, ITS LOOKS AS THOUGH ITS RUN IT COURSE)

Bendihorse

Mairt wrote: »

Dunno about that.

I'm a hunter, I shoot & fish, so you might say I'm biased.

I never really looked into the whole fox hunting debate, I'd have said 'yea let em at it' but Cowzer's posts have made me think.

I never thought to look at it from the point of view Paul spoke about, ie the gang chasing you down the street & how stressful it must be for the fox.

While I'm not against it (yet) the thread and people's view's in it have made me think.

Mairt, iv said it before and ill say it again, animals do not experience emotion as humans do. The fox foes not sit in his burrow for weeks on end worrying in anticipation that a gang of dogs (thugs as it is compared to) are going to come along any day now and chase it. There is no personal vendetta.

At the time of the hunt, there will of course be a certain amount of stress experieced as there is by any animal wild or not when it is being hunted.

Take a herd of hienas after a gazelle in the wild. The gazel is not concerned by the amount of hienas present, or the snarly look on their faces, or will i go to heaven if i die or what they might do to him when they catch him, it is only capable of thinking to 'i need to get the flock out of here' - its survival instinct at its most basic.

Once he is sure the hunt has passed, no sounds, smells or other signs, he will arise from his burrow the next day and continue on hunting and eating and surviving until the next day he is hunted, tracked or feels threatened, then his survival instinct will kick in again - and so it continues.

BryanL

quote

keen on foxes, it is not a good idea to use the dogs for general hunting as techniques for different prey differ wildly and would only confuse the hound and make it forget its foxhunting skills.
Furthermore, the pack needs to stay together all the time, in order to sort out its pack order and to keep the cohesion. The dogs don't go home to their individual families after the hunt, they stay together in dedicated kennels as a pack. If every hunter brought their own (family-) foxhound to the hunt, the hunt would never get underway as all the individual dogs would either quarrel or just play with each other (or both) but not form a dedicated hunting pack

that really isn't true, most hunting packs in Ireland are what is called "trencher " packs , that is where the hounds are kept by many individuals in the club.

of course hounds don't form a orderly que when meeting the fox but they've usually become strung out in the hunt. The hunting inquiry in England still found that death for the fox took 80 milli seconds from hounds and that the average hunt lasted less than 20 minutes!!! not the fairy tales some would ask you to believe.

the odds of escape are stacked in the foxes favor,so they are most likely to have been hunted a few times and know from experience that running roads,through farm yards etc. will help evade hounds

stress and distress are 2 different things,every time a fox runs from a human,farm machine or dog they are not running for their lives, they are just running.
hounds are much faster than any fox, the hunt is usually concluded by the fox being over taken by hounds, not run to exhuastion.
and again hunting with hounds favours the maintenance of a overall healthier fox population
Bryan

Whispered

Bendihorse wrote: »

Helena - to clarify, i THINK (dont want to answer for him) vegeta meant that its a quicker 'kill' if there are more dogs at the point of contact with the fox, ie after its caught, so hes not contradicting what i said about the dogs hunting in a line. Im female too by the way

OOps sorry.......very sexist of me to assume you're a man!

Now I don't want to drag this out as people are bowing out (and rightly so) but my issue with numbers is still bugging me. Firstly peasant made a good point about a number of dogs fighting over the fox, I don't know how true this is but it makes sense (having been brought up with dogs I have seen myself that no matter who the pack leader is, when they are excited that all gets blown out the window and they will fight). Ms Benidhorse you would have me believe that one dog or two dogs make a swift kill (or have I picked you up wrong?)and that the fox is not "ripped to pieces" if this is the case how can the higher number of dogs make a swifter kill. It sort of contradicts itself - the fox is killed quickly as one dog delivers a swift death bite, but more dogs mean a swifter death? If you have 10 dogs, how many are going to be able to have contact with the fox at any one time? So if bendihorse is right and only one (or 6,7 whatever) dogs kill the fox, the others are surplus to needs, unless it's to create a moving barrier to the foxes escape which would indeed influence his natural ability to zig zag his way to escape?

Tell you what guys, just agree to never fox hunt again and we can put this to bed

Bendihorse

They hunt in a pack with one dog heading group, to say they go in single file is for want of a better way of explaining things...

Let me try again... This is how it goes to the best of my knowlege:

All the dogs will roam around trying to find the scent of a fox, the mounted whipper-in has to keep a certain amount of controll of the dogs while this is going on and they will always be within easy reach of the huntsmaster and the 'Green/Red' coat wearing members of the lead hunt party, of which there will be roughly 5 members.

Something i think isn't really understood either is that the majority of the mounted field dont get near the hounds, they are only allowed to follow on behind at a distance where they wont disturb the hounds.

Once the scent is picked up, the hunts master blows the horn to signal that a scent has been picked and that the hounds are 'hunting'. At that point the lead hound follows that scent in chase of the fox (who is long gone at that stage ) and the rest follow on. From this point its a game of chase, the hounds only have the scent to go on. The fox can see and hear the hunt coming for miles before they ever catch a scent of it so he gets a HUGE headstart on the hounds.

The fox will track along at a swift pace zig zagging in his natural fashion to confuse the hounds and put them off his scent (if it wasn't natural for a fox to be chased then why is this trait engrained in it?)

Most often the fox is young and fit and due to the fact that its being hunted in its natural habitat, its at a distinct advantage. It will head straight for its burrow or a safe area. If he 'goes to ground' i can honestly say that in my experience thats it game over, Fox:1 Hounds:0.

Now, up until point of contact the dogs are following the scent of the fox, once contact is made - ie the fox is stopped or dragged down, the lead dog goes in for the kill (bite to the neck) but he is CLOSELY followed by the pack of hounds who, at that stage want in on a piece of action and will crowd around the fox and effectively, tear the carcass to pieces.

This practice is used by wild animals world wide.

So as far as i understand it, the reason there is a large group of dogs is to pick up the scent of the fox in the first place. Togster might be a better person to explain in detail as he has a lot of experience of hounds and hunting.

togster

Bendihorse wrote: »

the reason there is a large group of dogs is to pick up the scent of the fox in the first place. Togster might be a better person to explain in detail as he has a lot of experience of hounds and hunting.

Yet again another good post bendi! That is exactly the reason and i explained that to helena already:)

I am out now (hopefully);)

Bendihorse

Also just to reiterate another point made by BryanL, the fox is not run to exhuastion - unless it is sick or weak, Foxes will always be within reasonable/safe running distance of their burrow when out hunting.

Whispered

togster wrote: »

Yet again another good post bendi! That is exactly the reason and i explained that to helena already:)

I am out now (hopefully);)

Did you? If you did then I obviously did not understand, or do you think I am here asking questions for the good of my health? From what I saw there were two conflicting accounts (which has now be cleared up) so there really is no need for sarcasm in my direction.

Bendihorse

Im happy as long as you understand what goes on Helena, hope i was clear in my explanation. Togster has a lot of experience and may take it for granted that people should understand when they dont. Dont take it personally

Im all for people understanding what goes on at a hunt to its fullest extent, this may be an example of there communications break down between Pro and Anti hunts people, the pro hunting people get frustrated explaining things that just make sense to them, to people that are generally not as open minded and interested in real facts as you are Helena.

I do realise that you may still be anti hunting, but at least your decision will be based on something you understand a bit better now.

peasant

Alas, I can't resist ...

BryanL wrote: »

of course hounds don't form a orderly que when meeting the fox but they've usually become strung out in the hunt. The hunting inquiry in England still found that death for the fox took 80 milli seconds from hounds

Aha ...80 milliseconds then ...impressive ...

Not 78 Milliseconds ? Or maybe it was 82 Milliseconds?

How was that measured? Does every foxhunt bring along a team of scientists and equipment?

A millisecond is 1/1000th of a second ....according to Wikipedia it takes 100 milliseconds to blink an eye and yet the fox is dead within 80.


Pure and utter bullcrap that somebody (not necessarily you, BryanL) made up as they went along ...

If you snapped the foxes neck or even decapitated it, it would still take several looong seconds before all life had left the heart and brain.

80 milliseconds ...me arse.


All just propaganda to gloss over the fact that the fox is not killed with surgical precision but torn apart while still alive ...ah yes ...80 milliseconds ...that sounds nice and scientific and short enough, we'll use that.

the lead dog goes in for the kill (bite to the neck) but he is CLOSELY followed by the pack of hounds who, at that stage want in on a piece of action and will crowd around the fox and effectively, tear the carcass to pieces.

can somebody (obviously not bendihorse, she's got me on ignore) please explain to me how exactly the lead dog enforces its rank and right to the first bite? The same bite that it supposedly places exactly right there where it can kill the fox instantly?

Does it turn around and bark at the other pack members to give it some room so it can get at the neck?
Does it call back other pack members that might be one noselength ahead of it?

Or is there a ticket machine somewhere that gives out numbers :D:D?

Anyone with video footage of such a "clean kill by hound" ?


Ok folks ...just had an idea ... here's a bet:


You provide video footage of at least two (one could be a fluke) clean kills, where the lead dog kills the fox with its very first bite, before any of the other dogs sink their teeth in (and I want to see that fox dead before any of the other dogs bite)

You do that ...and I will become an official pro-foxhunt supporter.


Promise !

~Thalia~

Bendihorse wrote: »

Im happy as long as you understand what goes on Helena, hope i was clear in my explanation. Togster has a lot of experience and may take it for granted that people should understand when they dont. Dont take it personally

Im all for people understanding what goes on at a hunt to its fullest extent, this may be an example of there communications break down between Pro and Anti hunts people, the pro hunting people get frustrated explaining things that just make sense to them, to people that are generally not as open minded and interested in real facts as you are Helena.

I do realise that you may still be anti hunting, but at least your decision will be based on something you understand a bit better now.

Christ, did you require special training to become so patronising or does it just come naturally? *Awaits ignore*

You are making a lot of assumptions that any of the anti fox hunter contributors to this thread are not aware of hunts, have never been to a hunt or know nothing about it. For what it is worth you are wrong.

togster

peasant wrote: »

can somebody (obviously not bendihorse, she's got me on ignore) please explain to me how exactly the lead dog enforces its rank and right to the first bite?

Alas i can't resist either;)


The lead hound is the hound in front. Hence the name lead. This is usually the same hound, not always. The lead hound is usually the fastest, most agile, most experienced, best nose.

peasant wrote: »

Does it turn around and bark at the other pack members to give it some room so it can get at the neck?

No

peasant wrote: »

Or is there a ticket machine somewhere that gives out numbers :D:D?

No

peasant wrote: »

Anyone with video footage of such a "clean kill by hound" ?

No i don't. I don't make a habit of holding a video camera while i try and hunt a horse. But i know aome groups who are expert with cameras and other hand held devices;)

I have seen a fox killed instantly by a hound. The fox had just left a covert and doubled back on its tracks, the lead hound (first hound) caught bit him by the neck and shook violently. The fox never moved as far as i could see.He went limp with the first bite. Now i know people won't accept this but that is what i have seen. It would be naive of me to suggest the fox didn't experience pain.I cannot pretend to know what an animal feels and to what extent that animal feels that pain. I have NEVER seen a fox ripped to pieces while alive. I have also seen a fox shot with a rifle and drop dead and i have seen one limp across a field with a bullet lodged in its leg. My point is this and i hope its the last time. There is no guarantee in any method of fox control that the death will be painless. And almost everyone on this thread agrees fox control is necessary.

cowzerp

togster wrote: »

Alas i can't resist either;)


There is no guarantee in any method of fox control that the death will be painless. And almost everyone on this thread agrees fox control is necessary.

But there is a guarantee that it will be painful with dogs ripping it apart, where a clean bullet shot will make it very quick and less painfull.