Fox hunting poll in todays Irish Times

peasant

togster wrote: »

What sources? How long does the average chase last for? Being an informed poster you will know right?

"mortal enemies"...really? How so? A tad sensationalist no?

Its hard to debate something with someone who has no experience in what they are discussing. By all means you can debate it but its the same old points and sensationalism. Your idea of cruelty is different to mine.

It is also very hard and tiresome to debate the basic idea of animal rights with someone who clearly has no idea of the concept and no will or inclination to change their point of view.

What else is a trained foxhound but the mortal enemy of the fox?
Don't you think that the fox gets a fair idea that these packs of dogs are after its hide?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if the chase lasts two minutes or two hours.

That animal gets to fear for its life, run for its life ..that animal is stressed to the extreme. That's not sensationalist, that's the simple truth.

Whoever participates in / facilitates a foxhunt knowingly and willingly subjects an animal to that extreme stress for no other reason than their personal enjoyment.

That precicely fits the definition of cruelty. Inflict pain and /or stress and possibly even death for enjoyment ...and no other reason but enjoyment.

We can argue about the finer points until the cows come home ...the bottom line stays the same.

But it's not only the fox that gets subjected to cruelty.

Packs of dogs are bred for just this purpose and sometimes live rather dismal lives while they are not hunting ...not to mention short lives when they are no longer fit for hunting.

Horses get injured (sometimes fatally) when they are chased over obstacles that are just too big for them.

Other wildlife and farm animals (sometimes even pets) get severly distressed when the hunt comes through.

All in the name of "a good day out"

I'm bowing out of this dicussion now, my standpoint on this issue is clear ...as clear as the fact that I won't be able to change the point of view of most hunters.

So I'll stop before it gets personal.

togster

peasant wrote: »

Packs of dogs are bred for just this purpose and sometimes live rather dismal lives while they are not hunting ...not to mention short lives when they are no longer fit for hunting.

Horses get injured (sometimes fatally) when they are chased over obstacles that are just too big for them.

Other wildlife and farm animals (sometimes even pets) get severly distressed when the hunt comes through.

All in the name of "a good day out"

Oh God again you have been spoonfed this from somewhere. Have you ever seen hounds in kennels? I really doubt it.

Really it boils down to different ways of life. I have mine, you have yours. I love what i do with every ounce of my being. As im sure you are passionate about yours.

I appreciate the debate btw. It was interesting to say the least.

It wasn't me!

I think that article I posted above merits a read. Certainly enlightening, probably for those on both sides of the argument.

tallus

doctor evil wrote: »

A shooter is not always going to get a clean shot. If a fox is caught by hounds it is quickly dispatched.

Just a question, but how long does the average chase last?
I mean quickly dispatched means nothing if the fox has been running for it's life for a prolonged period.
I have to say I find myself siding with peasant. I have no problem with hunting where the animal is shot humanely with a rifle/shotgun and dies pretty fast. I just find it hard to see how anybody can justify chasing an animal with packs of dogs over the countryside can be deemed to be humane.
I suppose it's all down to points of view.

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I think that article I posted above merits a read. Certainly enlightening, probably for those on both sides of the argument.

That article omits one minor but very important fact:

Fox, deer, hare and mink don't pay vets bills ...ever.

Hunts do !


Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds you ... :D:D

EGAR

I have been to Foxhound kennels and my stomach turned from the smell and the sight of hounds in their own filth. In the last kennel it seemed to be standard practise to chain to hounds together in pairs. I have also taken in foxhounds past their *sell by* date ad all I can say is: in other countries the owners of these dogs would be prosecuted for severe cruelty.

Oscar Wilde was right when he said:

*Foxhunting: the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible*.

I find it very funny that certain member never contribute anything here on the pets section unless it's about killing animals in an inhumane way and how much pride they take in doing so.

Missing a few inches, perhaps?

doctor evil

peasant wrote: »

Horses get injured (sometimes fatally) when they are chased over obstacles that are just too big for them.

Other wildlife and farm animals (sometimes even pets) get severly distressed when the hunt comes through.

If a horse doesn't want to jump something it won't!. Who would be chasing the horse?. With regards to injury a horse can break its leg out in its own field.

Riders are not meant to at all go through herds of animals, which is why you stick around the perimeter of the field. Anyone who breaks this should be reprimanded.

NoNameRanger

TBH I'm a little tired of these old debates, I've been involved in them for donkeys years. Same old deal, people who don't hunt can't understand why some people do hunt and the people that do hunt just want to be left alone and not have their way of life threatened.
I asure you all that none of you love animals as much as i do or have invested so much of your life in wildlife as i have. I grew up with all types of hunting and an appreciation and love for wildlife.
I followed horse and hound on foot as a kid, tbh i grew to dislike the people on the horses and gave it up. I did every kind of hunting that could be done, most of it i don't do anymore, I don't dig badgers and foxes anymore, i don't run lurchers after hares anymore, i don't follow otter hunts anymore and the list goes on and on. I learned a lot about hunting though and a hell of alot about animals.
The world is a very violent cruel place and animals deal with this and don't experience the stress that a human would in similar circumstances. Animals are killed by other animals every day, it has been this way for millions of years. Hunting is the reason humans evolved into such intelligent animals that they have now started to question the need for hunting.
Thing is if we had stuck with hunting and hadn't started farming our planet wouldn't be in the state it is now. We'd have vast forests in ireland full of wildlife that has been long extinct, such as the bear, wolf and the wild boar. The fox would be hunted by the bear, wolf, boar and the golden eagle. They would have taken out the weak and old foxes and left a strong genetic line to continue the species. Now the only natural predator for the fox is a handful of reintroduced Eagles in Donegal and Man. Man has to take the place of the other predators, but he has also created the perfect habitats for foxes by farming and creating a hugh abundance of food. So now Man has a whole load more foxes to control. So he uses his gun, but the gun does not select out the weak and sick animals, it is simply reducing numbers and most likely taking strong competitive animals. So to take out the genetically weak animals and keep things in balance we bring back the wolfs relations, the hounds. They mop up the sick and weak and in the end you have a genetically strong population of foxes free from disease. Now if people are not happy with this solution there is another alternative. We the humans can give up our way of life and return to iron age, we can give up farming, restore the forests and bring back the foxes natural predators and restore the natural balance. At least then we'd probably be able to use the fur and not have some yob spray paint it and when things get bad we'd probably eat the fox too.
Personally I don't like the people in the Red coats on horses, but i do see the service they and their hounds do for the conservation of foxes. Also remember, not all fox hunts with hounds are followed on horseback, there are many packs followed on foot.

And to the person that said Rangers don't enjoy culling, your talking rubbish, i have yet to meet a person that hunts and doesn't enjoy it and get satisfaction from it. I have seen new rangers from the urbanised, anti-hunting, veggie background being trained to cull and totally enjoying the experience, much to their own surprise. They are now hunters, don't knock it till you've tried it. A little knowledge and a strong opinion is a very dangerous thing.:)

togster

EGAR wrote: »

I have been to Foxhound kennels and my stomach turned from the smell and the sight of hounds in their own filth. In the last kennel it seemed to be standard practise to chain to hounds together in pairs. I have also taken in foxhounds past their *sell by* date ad all I can say is: in other countries the owners of these dogs would be prosecuted for severe cruelty.

Oscar Wilde was right when he said:

*Foxhunting: the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible*.

I find it very funny that certain member never contribute anything here on the pets section unless it's about killing animals in an inhumane way and how much pride they take in doing so.

Missing a few inches, perhaps?

Well i have been to kennels and have seen nothing like that! And i can assure you i have been in more than you.
As for missing a few inches....maybe;) but thats not why i hunt. At least i'm not missing some screws.

peasant

NoNameRanger wrote: »

... So to take out the genetically weak animals and keep things in balance we bring back the wolfs relations, the hounds. They mop up the sick and weak and in the end you have a genetically strong population of foxes free from disease. ...

Personally I don't like the people in the Red coats on horses, but i do see the service they and their hounds do for the conservation of foxes. Also remember, not all fox hunts with hounds are followed on horseback, there are many packs followed on foot.

If one were to follow your argument that hounds were the best way of keeping the fox population in check ...then there still is the minor matter of definition of "service provider"

Organised foxhunts are anything but a service provider.

First of all, they tag along dozens of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the hunt ...they don't provide a service, they're in it for the "fun" of it. Don't make them out to be conservationists.
Secondly, hunts only ever hunt in the same areas and thus only keep a percentage of the fox population genetically checked (if at all). Are you trying to tell me that the "genetically clean" foxes will abstain from having relations with the "unclean" ones from three fields over?
And lastly ...I'm yet to see your "service providers" looking after those foxes that really do pose a problem and definetly are surplus to requirements ...those foxes that have decided that suburbia and town centres make a nice place to live.
But culling those foxes would be hard work and no fun ...so they can't be arsed.

Conservationists ..."service providers" ...me arse!

togster

peasant wrote: »

Conservationists ..."service providers" ...me arse!

Our hunt disposes of dead farm animals = "service providers. We also raise alot of money for charities in the local area 50,000 euro last year... and your organisation? So yes we do contribute to the local communities.

Have you ever seen a fox suffering from mange? When we kill it we help to conserve the population of foxes in that immediate area. So yes we are conservationists too.

Next?

It wasn't me!

And urban foxes don't cause as much hassle, and of course it would be criminally irresponsible to trap or shoot in urban areas, but of course, whatever makes sense to you.

peasant

I don't know where exactly your charitable hunt is, but let me tell you the story of my neighbour:

He is a small sheep farmer whose few acres sit on a bit of a knoll that is surrounded on three sides by marshland that floods with every high tide.

Said marshland is a wild bird conservation area. Nonetheless you get the occasional hunter trawling through it, hunting ducks and pheasants (with the occasional "accidental shot" hitting some rarer bird). Most of the hunters are members of the local foxhunt that traditionally hunts a few miles away.

The marshland also is the home of two breeding pairs of foxes on either side of the knoll and a third pair occasionally wanders in from the dry side.

That poor farmer has besieged the local hunters for a bit of help in fox control and what was the answer he got?

No way would they be interested in hunting those particular foxes ...sure you couldn't expect them and the hounds to wade knee deep in muck and silt ...where would be the fun in that? He should take care of the problem himself.


Is that what you call "service" or "conservation" ?

togster

peasant wrote: »

Is that what you call "service" or "conservation" ?

Neither its common sense. You won't get a scent in wet land like that. Areas like that are often dangerous for horses to cross or even hounds.

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And urban foxes don't cause as much hassle, and of course it would be criminally irresponsible to trap or shoot in urban areas, but of course, whatever makes sense to you.

Urban foxes cause no hassle?

Look up "Echinococcus multilocularis" and then come again ...


Of course you can't have a hunt with blazing guns, galloping horses and your stupid little horns in suburbia ...that's why ye "conservationists" are not interested in looking after those foxes.

Which you should be ...if ye really were those conservationists and experts that ye claim to be.

But ye choose to hunt onlty where it's fun ...so shut up about being conservationists and doing a service ...because you don't. The only thing you serve is your own self-interest.

togster

peasant wrote: »

But ye choose to hunt onlty where it's fun ...so shut up about being conservationists and doing a service ...because you don't. The only thing you serve is your own self-interest.

But as i have already pointed out we are conservationists. You just choose to ignore the face. We are not appointed fox conservationists. So you agree urban foxes should be eradicated. We live in the countryside. Perhaps we will leave the fox problem in the towns to people in the towns.

And already i have pointed out that we raise alot of money for charity. Hardly "self interest". Wouldn't you agree?

peasant

togster wrote: »

Neither its common sense. You won't get a scent in wet land like that. Areas like that are often dangerous for horses to cross or even hounds.

Yet the same huntsmen have no problem traversing that land with their spaniels hunting ducks or pheasants ...hmmm ....:D:D:D

peasant

togster wrote: »

And already i have pointed out that we raise alot of money for charity. Hardly "self interest". Wouldn't you agree?

I regularly donate to charity.

Does that make me a hunter? Or a "conservationist" even?

Can I wear one of those red coats now, can I ,can I ? ...pleeeze ...I want to blow that horn too :D:D

stevoman

peasant wrote: »

I regularly donate to charity.

Does that make me a hunter? Or a "conservationist" even?

Can I wear one of those red coats now, can I ,can I ? ...pleeeze ...I want to blow that horn too :D:D

Im sure you could be sorted out if you really wanted. Is there any particular type of horn you'd like?

Bendihorse

Why do the red coats in particular bother people so much?
The hunt i used to ride out with (and plenty of other irish hunts) wear green coats if that makes anyone feel better about things??

togster

peasant wrote: »

I regularly donate to charity.

Does that make me a hunter? Or a "conservationist" even?

No you referred to "self-interest" and i said that we donate alot of monet to charity every year. I don't know how you think that would be acting as a conservionist

peasant wrote: »

Can I wear one of those red coats now, can I ,can I ? ...pleeeze ...I want to blow that horn too :D:D

No. You have to become a master to get a red coat. It takes alot of practice to blow a horn:D:D:D

togster

Bendihorse wrote: »

Why do the red coats in particular bother people so much?

Yes we wear green coats too. It depends on the hunt. Mis-information again.

peasant

Ohh, I'm ever so sorry ...I got my facts completely wrong, I was grossly mis-informed.

I hereby withdraw everything I said and claim the opposite.

How could I be so foolish and confuse you green-coat wearers with the red-coat-wearers.

This of course changes everything!

Foxhunting is good !

Long live the foxhunt!


:D:D:D

yeah, right ....

togster

peasant wrote: »

This of course changes everything!

No but it is one in a string of things you are mis-informed about.

peasant wrote: »

Foxhunting is good !

Long live the foxhunt!

Cool.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

stevoman

peasant wrote: »

Foxhunting is good !

Long live the foxhunt!

I definitly second that motion

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

I don't know where exactly your charitable hunt is, but let me tell you the story of my neighbour:

He is a small sheep farmer whose few acres sit on a bit of a knoll that is surrounded on three sides by marshland that floods with every high tide.

Said marshland is a wild bird conservation area. Nonetheless you get the occasional hunter trawling through it, hunting ducks and pheasants (with the occasional "accidental shot" hitting some rarer bird). Most of the hunters are members of the local foxhunt that traditionally hunts a few miles away.

The marshland also is the home of two breeding pairs of foxes on either side of the knoll and a third pair occasionally wanders in from the dry side.

That poor farmer has besieged the local hunters for a bit of help in fox control and what was the answer he got?

No way would they be interested in hunting those particular foxes ...sure you couldn't expect them and the hounds to wade knee deep in muck and silt ...where would be the fun in that? He should take care of the problem himself.


Is that what you call "service" or "conservation" ?

Sorry peasant but that's just not a believeable story. Why would foxes build homes in an area that floods every tide. I'm sure they visit the area but I doubt they have set up camp there.

Also anyone with a decent rifle would only love to be given permission to shoot the farmers land for foxes. Ring the local gun club secretary (visit the NARGC website, they'll give you the number of the district head and he'll put you in touch with the local secretary) and he'd bite your arm off to get permission to shoot on the land for fox.

Slightly off topic but what rare birds are being shot up your way? If the hunters are genuinely in a conservation area and shooting rare birds then please report them. I'm sure they drive there so you could easily get their car regs and give it to the gardai or the local rangers.

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

Yet the same huntsmen have no problem traversing that land with their spaniels hunting ducks or pheasants ...hmmm ....:D:D:D

You see, on one hand you criticise the destructive nature of the hunt. You claim it harms other wildlife in the area and now you criticise it for not going into a conservation area where the animals may damage themselves.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

peasant

togster wrote: »

No but it is one in a string of things you are mis-informed about.

To bring this thing to an end before it descents into utter foolishness let's summarise:

In this forum, your main reason and justification for hunting foxes by horse and hound has been that of population control, conservation and "natural selection" of fox by hound ...which supposedly is good for the fox population as a whole.

During this long thread this argument has been disproven utterly and substantially.


- you only ever kill a percentage of the foxes, quite a lot get away. Whether those killed actually are the weak and sick or just random specimen that the hounds just happenend upon remains questionable

- you only ever hunt in certain areas. Even if the hunt should result in an envigored/cleansed fox population, cross populating with foxes from unhunted areas will quickly change that again

- no attempts are made to control fox populations that lie outside your immediate area of interest.

So, foxhunting may or may not play a small part in the control of the fox population in certain limited areas, but as a means of fox control on the whole island of Ireland it is insignificant.


And this is your main argument ....:D


If we now get into all the other aspects like animal cruelty to foxes; questionable living conditions for the hounds outside of the hunt; injury to hounds and horses during the hunt; damage to land, fences and wildlife / farm animals during the hunt;

...all that remains is a social activity that rates the enjoyment of people very much higher than the damage done to animals (and property) and cloaks itself in the mantle of conservationism.

I'd say ...BAN IT ...because it's pointless, useless, ineffective and cruel.


And now, please go back to the hunting forum from whence you came

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

If one were to follow your argument that hounds were the best way of keeping the fox population in check ...then there still is the minor matter of definition of "service provider"

Organised foxhunts are anything but a service provider.

First of all, they tag along dozens of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the hunt ...they don't provide a service, they're in it for the "fun" of it. Don't make them out to be conservationists.

If all of a sudden people were not allowed to follow a fox hunt on horseback would this suddenly make hunting with hounds ok in your eyes?

Secondly, hunts only ever hunt in the same areas and thus only keep a percentage of the fox population genetically checked (if at all). Are you trying to tell me that the "genetically clean" foxes will abstain from having relations with the "unclean" ones from three fields over?

How many hunts have you followed, I know any I have witnessed cover a lot lot more than 3 fields. Would you rather mange ridden foxes mixed with healthy ones?

And lastly ...I'm yet to see your "service providers" looking after those foxes that really do pose a problem

So are you trying to say rural foxes don't cause problems?

and definetly are surplus to requirements ...those foxes that have decided that suburbia and town centres make a nice place to live.
But culling those foxes would be hard work and no fun ...so they can't be arsed.

Conservationists ..."service providers" ...me arse!

There is a fox who frequents my estate and I would love to catch and release him back to the wild but he wouldn't do very well as he has adapted and may die before readjusting to rural life. So then the other alternative is killing them. I cannot use a gun in a housing estate or run a pack of hounds so what have we left.

peasant

Vegeta wrote: »

You see, on one hand you criticise the destructive nature of the hunt. You claim it harms other wildlife in the area and now you criticise it for not going into a conservation area where the animals may damage themselves.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Try to follow the discussion, if you can

Nowhere in this thread have I said that I'm opposed to all forms of hunting.

This farmer has a real problem with foxes and has approached the local foxhunt to please lend him a hand with a few people on foot with a few hounds and/or terriers to flush the foxes out and shoot them.

They couldn't be arsed ...because it's not a real foxhunt (read: "no fun") and it would be too much like hard work. Yet the very same hunters (different dogs though) happily slush through the very same muck in pursuit of duck and pheasant.

There's your so called "conservationists" and fox "population control"