Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

gurramok

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, it's not. Why is killing something necessarily cruel? Why would killing something for a good reason necessarily be cruel? Do you leave the rats and mice run riot in your house just because it's their nature?

Rats and mice spread disease to humans, i don't think foxes do. Big difference there.
As said killing mice and rats has a legit purpose for protection of humans, hunting for foxes is for fun.

It wasn't me!

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Well the mice left, so they work.

What special definition of cruel are you working off?

Since you are asking what cruelty is...

1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2. enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3. causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
4. rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
Causing suffering; painful.
1: lacking or showing kindness or compassion or mercy

To be honest, the last defintion is the only one that would lend the simple act of killing any grace in being defined as cruelty, and I think both that it's a poor definition, and I don't think killing necessarily entails any lack of kindness or compassion.

gurramok wrote: »

Rats and mice spread disease to humans, i don't think foxes do. Big difference there.
As said killing mice and rats has a legit purpose for protection of humans, hunting for foxes is for fun.

Foxes, if we want to speak in terms of the damage they do, kill lambs, ewes, chickens, game birds and carry bovine neosporsis, so they're a rather huge source of problems for humans, regardless of whether they directly pass on disease.

djpbarry

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Sound devices are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. Killing every pest that enters your house is not 100% effective.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I don't think killing necessarily entails any lack of kindness or compassion.

:eek: To put that a slightly different way, someone with abundant kindness and compassion will likely find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to kill an animal.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Foxes, if we want to speak in terms of the damage they do, kill lambs, ewes, chickens, game birds and carry bovine neosporsis, so they're a rather huge source of problems for humans, regardless of whether they directly pass on disease.

Many farmers, including a farmer I worked for, considered foxes allies, as they helped to control the population of rabbits and rodents; he was prepared to lose the odd chicken as "payment".

jmayo

I come from a farming background in a part of the country with thousands of acres of bog, forest and mountain, but I have never seen as many foxes as I have in South County Dublin. I have never actually found a foxin my backgarden in Mayo but I have in Dublin.

We do not have foxhunting in my area of Mayo, because the land is poor, there are no big houses and is there is not a tradition of eejits riding around on horses dressed like a British soldier of King George, acting like lord of the manor.

Yet we are not overrun with millions of foxes.
There are rabbits, hares, pheasants, badgers, stoats, and sadly now mink (thanks to the unthinking animal rights eejits and which I do think should be hunted to extinction).
There are still lots of pheasants (the real wild sort and not the ones bred in a pin for someone to shoot on a day out).

If people want to hunt foxes, under pretence they are performing culling and removal of pests then why don't they ride around Leopardstown, Foxrock, Blackrock and they should find plenty of foxes.

I see fox hunting as a status thing, poor and simple.
Under current guise I would guist it was an invention of the British aristocracy to enforce class disctinctions, except now it delineates those who can afford to keep horses and those that can't or rather can't be ar**d.

Flukey

I live in that part of Dublin and I've often seen them around, for many years, as well as occasionally in the city centre. Unlike yourself JMayo, I have seen them in my garden, and I even got some video footage of one in it.

A fox in my garden.

"Hunting" them for the purpose of observing, photographing or filming them is as far as it should go.

jawlie

jmayo wrote: »

I come from a farming background in a part of the country with thousands of acres of bog, forest and mountain, but I have never seen as many foxes as I have in South County Dublin. I have never actually found a foxin my backgarden in Mayo but I have in Dublin.

Funnily enough, the urban fox may be a thing of the past with the introduction of the wheelie bin, as one of the attraction to urban living was the easy availability of food in black sacks. Now that the black sack is no longer strewn about the roads awaiting the bin men, but locked away safely in the wheelie bins, the urban fox has had an important food source taken away.

jmayo wrote: »

I see fox hunting as a status thing, poor and simple.
Under current guise I would guist it was an invention of the British aristocracy to enforce class disctinctions, except now it delineates those who can afford to keep horses and those that can't or rather can't be ar**d.

Its such a shame to see such anti-brit and inverted snobbish attitudes still in Ireland in 2008. Pneumatic tyres were also he invention of a brit, as was the flush lavatory, and to paint the "british aristocracy" as all bad and "Irish" as all good is just silly.

I have never hunted but do know guys who are passionate about it, which include people from all walks of life, and to make the mistake to assume its a pasttime which establishes class distinctions is mistaken and says more about Mayo's own prejudices than hunting.

Tar.Aldarion

It wasn't me! wrote: »

To be honest, the last defintion is the only one that would lend the simple act of killing any grace in being defined as cruelty, and I think both that it's a poor definition, and I don't think killing necessarily entails any lack of kindness or compassion.

Killing somebody hurts those around it, it induces suffering by default in this way, if nothing else.

I also disagree, it is cruel to kill somthing anyway, all something has is its life, and you are taking that from it.

It wasn't me!

Animals have no concept of death, they show no fear or premonition of it. To kill an animal is not to stress it as it worries about dying, as such is not a familiar concept, and is unfairly personifying an animal. I like animals, but recognise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, as it is an ecological necessity. I'll happily kill animals, in pursuit of vermin control, as part of ecological management, or for food, and for sport, yes. People who say man isn't guided by instinct are wrong, quite simply. I'm afraid an issue has been skirted around for a long time here, and that is man's response to a kill. Man, as a predator, gets a thrill from killing. Modern sensitization may make him feel some silly disgust, or attempt to sympathise with an animal with whom he shares no common psychology, but beneath all manufactured guilt and shame, there is the recognisation that he has succeeded. He has bested his prey. It harks back to time immemorial and that same instinct will remain long after anyone debating this is dead, because man is a dominant predator. His brain is how he survives, and whether the kill is attained by excellent marksmanship or skillfull manipulation of horses and hounds, or by a cunning trap, man is returning to his most primal, natural state, whereby he uses his own natural attributes of cunning and organisation and invention to overcome those of a prey animal, which may be a talent for concealment, or speed, or the power of flight, but the fact remains that every form of hunting is entirely natural, among the most natural, artful and beautiful things man can do if he truly wants to celebrate his species. If you want to be ashamed of being human and where your species has come from, by all means, go ahead, but I won't, and I'll hunt, because I feel no shame in at least being openly in control of myself and my environment.

jmayo

jawlie wrote: »

Funnily enough, the urban fox may be a thing of the past with the introduction of the wheelie bin, as one of the attraction to urban living was the easy availability of food in black sacks. Now that the black sack is no longer strewn about the roads awaiting the bin men, but locked away safely in the wheelie bins, the urban fox has had an important food source taken away.

Its such a shame to see such anti-brit and inverted snobbish attitudes still in Ireland in 2008. Pneumatic tyres were also he invention of a brit, as was the flush lavatory, and to paint the "british aristocracy" as all bad and "Irish" as all good is just silly.

I have never hunted but do know guys who are passionate about it, which include people from all walks of life, and to make the mistake to assume its a pasttime which establishes class distinctions is mistaken and says more about Mayo's own prejudices than hunting.

So I am anti Brit because I pointed out that fox hunting was in Britain and indeed this country a "sport" enjoyed by the landed gentry where the local wantabees (those that were on the way up the social ladder) were allowed tag along. Of course the locals peasants were looking after the horses, dogs and acting as beaters etc.
Or by pointing out it was developed in Britain by the gentry AFAIK, is now suddenly anti British.

A lot of people in Britain would actually have the same impressions, so it is not just because I am Irish I am making that statement.
But according to your opinin, if you come form Newcastle or Sheffield and you have the same impression of fox hunting then you must also be anti British :rolleyes:
I must tell my mates that next time I see them.

Did I paint all the British or indeed the Irish aristocracy as all bad ?
Did I say that all us "Irish peasants" were all good ?
No it is you that is jumping to that conclusion.

I am trying to point out the history of fox hunting (as in current guise) and how it was the local lordship and his friends riding around the countryside chasing after a fox.
Today it is still seen as bit of status symbol, but it is no longer dominated by a local lord or landlord. It includes lawyers, doctors, vets, business people, plumbers, farmers etc etc.

But to a lot of people it is still seen and indeed used by some as a status symbol. It is often used to display you have arrived at certain social level in society, at least in UK anyway.

I am also saying that to dress foxhunting up as performing some great service for the countryside, by ridding us of those pesky foxes, is boll****.

It wasn't me!

It's not a status symbol. To say so is to make unfair assumptions about people's characters.

The anti-hunt lobby was caricatured earlier as being scruffy, cider-drinking dreadlocked dole scum, and when they responded angrily, it was pointed out that they were doing the same to the hunt lobby. If we want to be civil, and have a reasoned debate, then stop the painting of hunters as "toffs" and "snobs". Unless you know every one of them and can give bullet-point evidence as to their snobbish character, it's not fair.

I want a real debate, not a mudslinging contest.

nacho libre

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

I hunt myself and really hate bringing up this subject because it's such an emotional topic for many people that they have absolutely no interest in hearing my side of the argument. It's like trying to discuss the topic of abortion with someone who's fanatically religious.

My main point is as a poster mentions above is the number of foxes culled in hunting is absolutely tiny, especially on poorer land where I hunt in Clare. The odds are very, very heavily stacked in the foxes favour despite what you might think. While you have alot of dogs they invariably go the wrong direction, get lost for hours while you stand about in the rain or just go around in circles for a few hours and hours because there are several foxes in the area and their scenes all criss cross each other. I've had the fox run under the legs of my horse twice before and get away no problem. Before the hunt starts people have to pay a 'cap' that pays for the damage done to fields and walls by the hunt. The route is predetermined and if the fox goes off that section of farmland into another persons land who you haven't payed for then that's it, the fox is gone.

The crux of the issue for most people seems to be that people are doing this for sport and they have no intention of eating what they catch. I find this a bit moot. It's not like we're all starving here and need to be eating as much meat and fish as we do. Everytime you eat a cheap ass chicken roll you're propagating an incredibly cruel industry on a scale millions of times larger than anything to do with fox hunting. Ditto the fishing industry. I think alot of so called animal rights activists have got blinded by the fact foxes are cute and fluffy so they're getting all caught up on a very, very niche activity. There are acts of cruelty going on on a much larger scale that I admit I've been guilty of being a part of them well.

Frankly if people were more concerned with supporting rural communities, their customs (good and bad) and paying a little more to purchase locally reared meat then both they and the animals would lead much more healthy and fulfilling lives.

this post reminds me of something i read recently.

here it is:

http://www.itchmo.com/ethics-professor-discusses-dog-fighting-and-hunting-2637

djpbarry

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Animals have no concept of death, they show no fear or premonition of it.

Nonsense. Every single creature on this planet has a survival instinct that manifests itself in the form of FEAR.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I like animals, but recognise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, as it is an ecological necessity.

Please explain why hunting is necessary?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Man, as a predator, gets a thrill from killing.

Just because you do, doesn't mean we all do. I myself would have serious reservations about anyone who gets a kick out of killing something and I would recommend that they seek immediate psychiatric treatment.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Modern sensitization may make him feel some silly disgust, or attempt to sympathise with an animal with whom he shares no common psychology, but beneath all manufactured guilt and shame, there is the recognisation that he has succeeded.

If this is true, then why do so many people keep pets? Why don't they just kill them and be done with it, if it's so "thrilling"? Would it be because a lot of people form emotional bonds with animals?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...whether the kill is attained by excellent marksmanship or skillfull manipulation of horses and hounds...

:rolleyes:
There's about as much "skill" involved in a fox-hunt as there is in driving a car.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...the fact remains that every form of hunting is entirely natural...

Does that go for cannibals too?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If you want to be ashamed of being human and where your species has come from, by all means, go ahead...

You are aware that we evolved from ape-like creatures that most likely threw faeces at each other? Would you support that activity as well to celebrate the origin of our species?

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Everytime you eat a cheap ass chicken roll you're propagating an incredibly cruel industry on a scale millions of times larger than anything to do with fox hunting.

First of all, I don't know of a single animal-rights activist who is not fully aware of the appalling practice of factory farming. For example, neither I, nor any member of my family, buy anything other than free-range eggs and chicken.

Secondly, your alluding to factory farming is pointless. The ethics of fox-hunting are in no way affected by farming practices. You cannot defend fox-hunting by saying, "hey, never mind us, look what they're up to over there." That's like someone charged with assault saying in court "you're charging me with assault when there's people out there being murdered!". It doesn't change anything.

Tar.Aldarion

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Animals have no concept of death, they show no fear or premonition of it.

If an animal knew about death, how would it show it to you?
It of course shows fear.

To kill an animal is not to stress it as it worries about dying, as such is not a familiar concept, and is unfairly personifying an animal.

You are saying that it knows no fear and suffering, these are human traits and are in no other animal, or is it just death that we are aware of and nobody else is?
At what point in evolution did that kick in? We are just animals too, and although we are smarter, all animals have basically the same set of instincts and emotions developed to a different degree.
If anybody suggests that an animal can not feel fear, lonliness, etc that is nonsense.

I like animals, but recognise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting, as it is an ecological necessity. I'll happily kill animals, in pursuit of vermin control, as part of ecological management, or for food, and for sport, yes. People who say man isn't guided by instinct are wrong, quite simply.

You clearly don't 'like' animals, you may feel a bond with some of them that have various traits, but, if you have no problem with killing them, they may as well be a rock to you. You say you do not think there is anything at all wrong with killing for sport, this disgusts me. If I was led by instinct alone it would be a lesser disgust but we are not controlled by instinct alone. It is a combination of instinct and intelligence. I have aggressive urges, which are natural, but I am smart enough to not let them get the better of me. It does not matter what is 'natural', if humans are as great as we make out, overcoming your natural responses would be a simple thing, using your intelligence. If you can not, how are you different from than any animal?
I, for one, let my mind control me and not some primitive instinct alone. As we evolve we are becoming less and less dependent on our instincts alone, as it should be.

I'm afraid an issue has been skirted around for a long time here, and that is man's response to a kill. Man, as a predator, gets a thrill from killing. Modern sensitization may make him feel some silly disgust, or attempt to sympathise with an animal with whom he shares no common psychology, but beneath all manufactured guilt and shame, there is the recognisation that he has succeeded. He has bested his prey. It harks back to time immemorial and that same instinct will remain long after anyone debating this is dead, because man is a dominant predator.

It is not simply a case of being a 'response' to kill. I do not get that, it is overridden by my mind. I also do not feel this disgust from myself killing as you make out, I don't have any qualms with killing somthing if I have to, animal or man. Compasssion is also not just some modern sensitization.
I recognize the need to kill, and empathy. By 'modern' you are referring to evolution, it is not some 'silly' thing. We are evolving so that we need to kill less, and want to kill less.

If you want to be ashamed of being human and where your species has come from, by all means, go ahead, but I won't, and I'll hunt, because I feel no shame in at least being openly in control of myself and my environment.

I fell no shame for being human, I am ashamed for others of the speices.
You say you are openly in control of yourself here, but clearly you think it is just instinct that drives you, that is not being in control of yourself at all. I get the same instincts as any other human, I love to fight and am probably one of the most agressivly natured people I know of, so I did martial arts etc. I control myself, following instinct is not control.

It wasn't me!

Animals do not have a premonition of death. The natural instinct to survive to propagate their species can not be taken to be a premonition or understanding of death. Pigeons navigate using the earth's magnetic field, and don't do so consciously. Nature is a system of automated neurological responses.

Hunting is necessary to maintain a balanced ecological structure. Foxes are a fast-breeding predator with no natural predator to keep their numbers in check except man. Where fox numbers have risen steeply, so numbers of ground-nesting game birds, songbirds, small rodents and reptiles have declined in response, and damage to livestock has risen. Where fox numbers are strictly controlled, game bird numbers are stable or increasing and the lives of farmers are made easier.

It's pointless to deny a natural response to something, ingrained by millenia of genetic conditioning. It gives us our love for competition which has made us the dominant species in most parts of this planet. Humans like to kill, as do dogs, as do predatory species around the world.

People keep pets for many reasons. Historically, dogs and other animals were domesticated for the purposes of hunting and protection, and as such, were brought to share a bond, working with and living with those who owned and domesticated them. However, a distance is still maintained between pet owners and their pets, despite the decline in the largely functional role of animal domestication. People and animals are not equals, in the same way that bears and cats are not equals. We are different creatures and it is wrong to lose sight of that.

There is an enormous amount of skill involved, including great equestrian skill and a great level of communication with the pack, and the navigation of frequently difficult and challenging terrain. The fact that you do not ride horses or train and manipulate dogs in order to appreciate the skill involved does not take away from it, though your comments show close-minded ignorance of it.

Cannibalism is a fallacious comparison, as it has nothing to do with hunting. I will respond no further to it, as it was a foolish point and only diverts the debate.

We can pick and choose our heritage, and while I don't know of anyone who frequently experiences great natural compulsions to throw their fecal matter at people (If you do, feel free to say so), the urge to hunt is still a strong instinct in the human brain, and will remain so for a very long time to come, I daresay.

While for most it takes exposure to hunting to understand and feel the thirst for it, it is, even in their brains, a latent desire, however deeply suppressed by liberal human guilt. To deny it is fine. To refuse to indulge it is fine. To attempt to impose your guilt on those who feel none and respond positively to an entirely natural human instinct is not.

nacho libre

it seems to me going by this train of thought the only impediment to me killing anyone i fee like should be the legal consequences of doing so. i should not feel guilt about fighting and possibly seriously injuring someone because i'm just obeying atavistic desires. in my views that sounds like a receipe for nihilism if we all do what is natural to us. what does 'natural' mean anymore. we have imo, through technological and scientific advancements, subverted nature so often that the term is rendered meaningless.

well that is taking the debate in a philosophical direction. sorry about that.

djpbarry

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The natural instinct to survive to propagate their species can not be taken to be a premonition or understanding of death.

I never said it could be. I am arguing, as is Tar.Aldarion, that animals do indeed show fear. Whether they are aware of death or not is irrelevant.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Hunting is necessary to maintain a balanced ecological structure.

This argument does not add up.

Fox-hunting does not and cannot make a significant difference to fox populations:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=158534

The red fox was introduced to Australia specifically for the purpose of hunting. The Australian government's Department of the Environment and Heritage has concluded that "hunting does not seem to have had a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers":
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/fox/pubs/fox.pdf

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's pointless to deny a natural response to something, ingrained by millenia of genetic conditioning.

If every man lived by that philosophy, then they'd do nothing all day except try and have sex with just about every woman that comes near them. But they don't, because we are not animals and we have learned to control our "natural responses".

It wasn't me! wrote: »

People keep pets for many reasons.

I would imagine the fact that most people like animals is one of the main reasons.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

People and animals are not equals...

I don't recall anyone on this thread saying otherwise.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The fact that you do not ride horses or train and manipulate dogs in order to appreciate the skill involved does not take away from it, though your comments show close-minded ignorance of it.

I do actually have experience of hunting. I was taken deer-hunting in Texas and I was, quite frankly, disgusted. I saw little in the way of skill - only a group of (largely) overweight, trigger-happy individuals. Needless to say, I no longer associate with the individuals involved.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Cannibalism is a fallacious comparison, as it has nothing to do with hunting. I will respond no further to it, as it was a foolish point and only diverts the debate.

It was a response to your comment: "the fact remains that every form of hunting is entirely natural". Does that include the hunting of other humans? That is a form of hunting, is it not?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...the urge to hunt is still a strong instinct in the human brain...

No it is not because we no longer have the need to hunt for our food. There was a time when hunting was necessary for us to survive - that time has passed.

I should add at this point that I have no problem with someone killing an animal if they are prepared to eat it, but there is no justification in killing for "sport".

It wasn't me! wrote: »

To attempt to impose your guilt on those who feel none and respond positively to an entirely natural human instinct is not.

Your use of the word "positive" is entirely subjective. I very much doubt that the average person's natural instinct is to kill every animal they see.

It wasn't me!

I, were I so equipped, would much prefer to kill all my food. It would separate me from the disgusting farming practices of the modern age, which I have no wish to support. As such, I have a need to hunt, because it is morally upright.

Hunting with rifles has been shown in this country to keep the fox population under control. Ask any farmer who maintains them.

Equating hunting animals to cannibalism is putting animals and humans on the same footing in terms of importance, so yes, someone has been saying that.

Yes, we are animals and humans do have a rather enormous sexual urge.

Your experience of hunting is of watching someone kill deer. First off, if people never ate the deer, certainly in this country, they have to be shot anyway to keep their numbers in control, due to the extinction of their natural predators, and secondly, there is skill involved. Shooting is a skill, correct butchery of an animal is a skill. If nothing else, these are incontrovertibly skills.

I care nothing for the attitudes and characters of the hunters concerned. There are plenty of bad hunters, but plenty of bad-charactered hunters are very good at hunting.

djpbarry

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I, were I so equipped, would much prefer to kill all my food. It would separate me from the disgusting farming practices of the modern age, which I have no wish to support.

As I have said, I have absolutely no problem with that, provided the animals are killed in as humane a fashion as possible.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Hunting with rifles has been shown in this country to keep the fox population under control.

Shown where? I have yet to see a study that demonstrates that fox-hunting controls the population.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Equating hunting animals to cannibalism is putting animals and humans on the same footing in terms of importance, so yes, someone has been saying that.

Actually it is you who maintain that humans are animals but at the same time you maintain that humans and animals are different. Which is it?

Again, I was responding to your claim that "every form of hunting is entirely natural"; well that depends on what you consider to be natural. If nature is to be defined as "existing in or produced by nature", then a gun, for example, is not "natural".

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yes, we are animals and humans do have a rather enormous sexual urge.

An urge that we (well, most of us) are able to control. Animals, on the other hand, have mating seasons, when pretty much anything goes.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Your experience of hunting is of watching someone kill deer.

That's generally what is involved in hunting I would have thought. They did not just "kill deer". If they shot a couple of mature deer and brought them home and ate them, I would have been ok with that. But they didn't; they shot as many as they could and kept a couple as trophies.

Ironically, advocates of fox-hunting often claim that foxes will regularly kill a large number of animals on a farm and only eat one (which is not actually true).

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...if people never ate the deer, certainly in this country, they have to be shot anyway to keep their numbers in control, due to the extinction of their natural predators...

Rather ironic you should say that - foxes will often hunt fawns and hence help control the deer population:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w0fgbae2rpqvvtn5

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

Shown where? I have yet to see a study that demonstrates that fox-hunting controls the population.

So much nonsense is talked about when to comes to fox hunting, often by people who sit down to a Tesco Chicken at €4.99 in the evening. Double standards and double thinking.

But this really made me laugh, that someone wants to see a "study" showing that by killing foxes, there will be less foxes in a neighbourhood. LOL.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

So much nonsense is talked about when to comes to fox hunting, often by people who sit down to a Tesco Chicken at €4.99 in the evening. Double standards and double thinking.

I don't buy chicken in Tesco. In fact, I buy very little in Tesco, or any other supermarket for that matter. Stop making assumptions.

jawlie wrote: »

But this really made me laugh, that someone wants to see a "study" showing that by killing foxes, there will be less foxes in a neighbourhood. LOL.

That's not what I said at all. What I did say was that there is no evidence that I have seen that shows that fox-hunting controls the overall fox population. I already gave the example of Australia, where the fox was introduced specifically for the purpose of hunting, but no amount of hunting could control the population. Here is another example, a report by Prof. Stephen Harris at Bristol University:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/hunting/hh_1c_sharris.pdf

"Lord Burns concluded that foxhunting made little contribution to controlling fox numbers and that a ban on hunting was unlikely to result in an increase in fox numbers. This conclusion has just been reinforced by an independent study by The Mammal Society who compared fox densities across Britain before the ban on hunting during FMD with densities in exactly the same areas post-FMD. This showed that a cessation of hunting for a year had no impact on fox numbers."

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

"Lord Burns concluded that foxhunting made little contribution to controlling fox numbers ........... This conclusion has just been reinforced by an independent study by The Mammal Society

The Mammal society ?

http://jonaderks.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/1013press_cartman_and_otters1.jpg

Mammal society studies notwithstanding the fact is if a fox hunt results in dead foxes then there are less live foxes to worry about.

It wasn't me!

Hunting controls populations, by killing them, seems fairly self-explanatory, no? I can work out that if I kill an adult fox, that fox, and any progeny it might have brought forth, will not now exist. This is a reduction both in existing numbers and in potential numbers. Control of numbers, no?

Yup, humans are animals, but we are not other animals. Nor is a fox a hare, or an eagle a fox, or a cat a mouse, but they're all animals, and there's a predator/prey dynamic in them all.

Guns are natural in that they come from entirely natural substances, worked by man, the "god of artifice", who, instead of having fangs or claws or wings or warm winter coat, has an intellect to craft his way to the domination of the planet.

Foxes do regularly kill large numbers of farm animals. If you're going to ask for studies, I'm going to suggest that you go talk to farmers around the country who find half a dozen mutilated lambs or a largely decimated henhouse one morning. These people may not submit reports on the matter, but they're perfectly capable of telling you that yes, foxes get bloodthirsty and kill widely, and that yes, this does affect their living.

Were you equipped with the knowledge of the local deer population where these hunters were? Do you know what proportion of them they were killing? It's very easy to make people look bad without actually giving the facts. Perhaps it was bad and greedy hunting practice, or perhaps the area is so crawling with deer that heavy culling is needed? Where I live, enormous culling has to be done to keep the deer population from destroying forestry and from succumbing to the problems of their own numbers. Whether the deer then get eaten or not is a side issue to the very great and very real need for them to be killed. Unpleasant? Not for the hunters and rangers, but you may find it a bitter pill to swallow.

Hunting will remain an important and necessary facet of rural life as long as man wants to produce his food on conquered land.

IRLConor

djpbarry wrote: »

Here is another example, a report by Prof. Stephen Harris at Bristol University:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/hunting/hh_1c_sharris.pdf

"Lord Burns concluded that foxhunting made little contribution to controlling fox numbers and that a ban on hunting was unlikely to result in an increase in fox numbers. This conclusion has just been reinforced by an independent study by The Mammal Society who compared fox densities across Britain before the ban on hunting during FMD with densities in exactly the same areas post-FMD. This showed that a cessation of hunting for a year had no impact on fox numbers."

That study (or at least the result from it which you quoted) fails to account for the control of the population caused by people shooting foxes rather than hunting them with hounds. As far as I am aware, the number of foxes killed by people with rifles far exceeds the number killed by hounds in a hunt.

If you can provide a study which shows that all hunting of foxes by all methods has no effect on the fox population I would be very surprised.

Jim_Are_Great

You can't ban fox hunting! THink of the unemployment! 10,000 beagles hanging around all day, nothing to do. Drive 'em to drink, that would.

BryanL

the IFAW showed that shooting foxes didn't reduce the number of foxes,FFS:D

the Austrailian study advocated more controls on fox numbers,shooting,poisoning and hunting

funny how fox numbers affect ground nesting birds in Austrailia but not here????
funny how last years study on Irish hare numbers showed an increase in numbers everytime more foxes were killed,amazing.
hunting is cruel? how do you guys think foxes die? in their sleep

Kimbot

BryanL wrote: »

how do you guys think foxes die? in their sleep

The Don gets his revenge....



Fox hunting is horrible tho, I see enough dead foxes on the roads so I thought they would be fairly low in numbers in anyway.

It wasn't me!

Think about it, if you see a few on th roads, how many others aren't getting hit by cars? The countryside is crawling with them.

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/hunting/hh_1c_sharris.pdf

"Lord Burns concluded that foxhunting made little contribution to controlling fox numbers and that a ban on hunting was unlikely to result in an increase in fox numbers. This conclusion has just been reinforced by an independent study by The Mammal Society who compared fox densities across Britain before the ban on hunting during FMD with densities in exactly the same areas post-FMD. This showed that a cessation of hunting for a year had no impact on fox numbers."

I rest my case that so much nonsense is talked about when to comes to fox hunting. Where does on begin to counteract such nonsense as this?

1 Lord burns proves the rule that you don;t set up an enquiry until you know what its findings are going to be in advance.

2 You select the chairman of any enquiry carefully and make sure he know what conclusion you want before appointing him

3 Hunting have never stopped in the UK and continues today as much as it ever has

4 The mammal Society?

5 How do we know what levels the fox population would reach if there were no hunting, so how can you claim hunting does not control the fox population?

6 What we can say for sure is that killing foxes must have some control over the population

Why can't you be honest and say you don't like the idea of people killing foxes, rather than trying to dress it up with such nonsense as this.

IRLConor

I don't know, that study could be true. It only covers hunting with hounds, not all fox hunting, and since hunting with hounds kills very few foxes it's possible that banning it would cause no statistically significant change in fox numbers.

peasant

In my personal opinion foxhunting (the horse and hound variety) is ineffective as a form of vermin control and cruel. On the bottom line it is a passtime for people that is likely to result in animal cruelty ...therefore it should be banned.

On the other hand, it is questionable if a governement that has a dismal record on animal welfare legislation has the moral authority to ban one activity while turning a blind eye (or even worse: subventions!) on many others.