Ban on Fox Hunting

Cherry Blossom

obplayer wrote: »

Sorry, I meant any society where hunting for food is common. If we run around the woods with high powered rifles here we get the army after us.

Hunting for food is common here, anyone who has the necessary licences is allowed to carry a gun. I've had words with various people I've found shooting wildlife on my property, in a few cases they weren't particularly interested in leaving, in more than one case I've rang the Gardi about these trespassers, they didn't turn up, neither did the army funny enough.

GV_NRG

NeVeR wrote: »

cant believe there is 99 "No" votes !!

i think it should be totaly and utterly banned. period.

Shanao

GODDAMN HUNTERS!!!!

Well, not all of them are stupid as these guys obviously, but the guys out our way are a new breed of stupid. Not only have they been told repeatedly that they are not allowed hunt on my family's land but their dogs have stressed and caused abortion in some of the ewes over the last few years. And just a few days ago, the idiots were out hunting again and let their dogs run into a field with one of the bulls, who went on a rampage, knocked over a round, dragged a bale around the field and almost flattened the gate to get the dogs out of the damned field. He's worth a lot and if he had been injured because of their hounds, my family would be the ones out of pocket. Seriously, how stupid are these people!?

Rant over

obplayer

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Hunting for food is common here, anyone who has the necessary licences is allowed to carry a gun. I've had words with various people I've found shooting wildlife on my property, in a few cases they weren't particularly interested in leaving, in more than one case I've rang the Gardi about these trespassers, they didn't turn up, neither did the army funny enough.

I won't try it in Pheonx Park

kildare.17hmr

Yes

NeVeR wrote: »

cant believe there is 98 "No" votes !!

why is it so hard to believe??

i dont agree with lads on horses going where they have no permission and breaking fences or disturbing livestock ect but there are alot more people doing alot worse things than chasing a fox on their horse...

The sonner the stag hunting bill is overturned the better i say

gozunda

Yes

There appears to be some very strange presumptions about mounted fox hunting given in previous posts...

so....

Fox Hunting is not and has never been about eradicating foxes or large-scale population control - hunts hunt to cull sick, old and "problematic foxes" such as ones preying on livestock

A young healthy fox will outrun and "outfox" hounds on nearly every occasion.

Selective culling of foxes means that a more healthy population is maintained

On a hunt the average "run" for a fox is between 15-30 minutes not "hours". A hunt may last some hours but a lot of this time is spent navigating roads, ditches and waiting around for the hounds to find.

Once caught the fox is dead in a matter of minutes. Hounds may fight over remains but the fox is dead at this point.

Foxes learn to maintain a healthy respect of humans - staying away from habitations and farm animals.

Farmers & landowners may ask a local hunt to help in finding a specific fox that has been identified as preying on fowl / livestock

Many farmers are activley involved in hunting. All classes of people hunt from those who borrow a horse for the day to visitors from abroad. In Ireland hunting is not a class issue - they are definitly not a bunch of toffs....

Unless a shooter can get a clear shot - foxes do not die instaneously. A mishot fox will die slowly. A fox caught by hounds dies quickly and will not crawl away to die a lingering death.

There is nothing unnatural or cruel about hunting- even foxes do it..

Shanao

gozunda wrote: »

There is nothing unnatural or cruel about hunting- even foxes do it..

Uhm, surely hunting for sport is unnatural? Whereas foxes hunt for food? There isn't really even a comparison there.

gozunda

Yes

Shanao wrote: »

Uhm, surely hunting for sport is unnatural? Whereas foxes hunt for food? There isn't really even a comparison there.

gozunda wrote:

Fox Hunting is not and has never been about eradicating foxes or large-scale population control - hunts hunt to cull sick, old and "problematic foxes" such as ones preying on livestock

There was no mention in the above of "sport"... this is usually an title ascribed by non fox hunting souces.

Foxes wil loften engage in surplus killing ie killing more than they can eat. So no foxes dont always hunt for food alone.

To be pedantic in the use of the term "sport" in relation to foxhunting then the definition of "sport" defined from the dictionary as "An active pastime".
Hunting, Shooting and Fishing can also be thus be defined as a "sport" I suppose

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Fox Hunting is not and has never been about eradicating foxes or large-scale population control - hunts hunt to cull sick, old and "problematic foxes" such as ones preying on livestock

But the hunting fraternity use control as a major justification for hunting - several hunters mention control in the TV3 documentary.

gozunda wrote: »

A young healthy fox will outrun and "outfox" hounds on nearly every occasion.
Selective culling of foxes means that a more healthy population is maintained

So if it makes the population stronger why the hell would any farmer want that !.

In reality it doesn't effect the quality of the population because only a tiny percentage of foxes are ever hunted.

gozunda wrote: »

On a hunt the average "run" for a fox is between 15-30 minutes not "hours". A hunt may last some hours but a lot of this time is spent navigating roads, ditches and waiting around for the hounds to find.

So it's only terrified for 30 minutes. The 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act makes it an offence to "terrify or infuriate" an animal.

gozunda wrote: »

Foxes learn to maintain a healthy respect of humans - staying away from habitations and farm animals.

Of course they don't. They either die or escape. If an urban fox nearly gets hit by a car he doesn't move to the country !.

gozunda wrote: »

Farmers & landowners may ask a local hunt to help in finding a specific fox that has been identified as preying on fowl / livestock

Yep & there is no guarantee that the hunt will get it & if they do there is no guarantee that it's the same fox . Even if they manage to get the real culprit another will take it's place.

gozunda wrote: »

Many farmers are activley involved in hunting. All classes of people hunt from those who borrow a horse for the day to visitors from abroad. In Ireland hunting is not a class issue - they are definitly not a bunch of toffs....

And many farmers oppose hunting & will not let the hunt on their land. Some farmers have publicly complained about hunts trespassing & damaging their land. So a hunter, jeep, horsebox, fields, stables, land, feed, vet bills etc are within the reach of Mr Average ?.

gozunda wrote: »

There is nothing unnatural or cruel about hunting- even foxes do it..

So you are dragging our civilisation down to the level of an animal ?. Foxes kill for necessity. Hunters kill purely for pleasure.

gozunda

Yes

Great to get a chance to present the facts btw...Sorry had already answered some of the questions below on the other thread...but for the sake of balance I'll go again if thats ok.

Discodog wrote: »

But the hunting fraternity use control as a major justification for hunting - several hunters mention control in the TV3 documentary.

This is an misunderstanding of what is meant by "control". Fox Hunting is not and has never been about eradicating foxes or large-scale population control - hunts hunt to cull sick, old and "problematic foxes" such as ones preying on livestock. This is the form of control that is refered to.

Discodog wrote: »

So if it makes the population stronger why the hell would any farmer want that !.

A young healthy fox will outrun and "outfox" hounds on nearly every occasion. This is how sick and old individuals are sucessfully hunted - these are the foxes that cause the most predation in domestic animals as they are less capable of fending for themselves hunting wild prey.

Discodog wrote: »

In reality it doesn't effect the quality of the population because only a tiny percentage of foxes are ever hunted.

Yes the small minority that are predating, old, sick etc. There is no reason why there would ever be a need to wipe out or eradicate foxes from the countryside. Uncontrolled shooting has a much more detrimental effect of fox numbers.

Discodog wrote: »

So it's only terrified for 30 minutes. The 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act makes it an offence to "terrify or infuriate" an animal.

1911? Ok going back a bit for legislation covering I believe domestic animals. Foxes run from hunters, shooters, people etc. it is part of their instict for survival. The average is 15-30 minutes and most foxes do get away. Those that get caught get caught quickly. They die quickly and they dont crawl away to suffer a lingering death

Discodog wrote: »

Of course they don't. They either die or escape. If an urban fox nearly gets hit by a car he doesn't move to the country !.

Its called learned behaviour. A fox that nearly gets hit by a car will avoid cars in the future

Discodog wrote: »

Yep & there is no guarantee that the hunt will get it & if they do there is no guarantee that it's the same fox . Even if they manage to get the real culprit another will take it's place.

Thats why hunts are local - you dont get flying hunts task forces They use local knowledge to help identify a particular fox if required. And yes I agree there are no guarantees but that is part of why I prefer fox hunting - every hunted fox has a good chance of escape. If the fox escapes it will earn to avoid humans. A large pack of hounds, hunters and horses are easily picked up by the most laid back fox. They dont exactly sneak up on the fox!

Discodog wrote: »

And many farmers oppose hunting & will not let the hunt on their land. Some farmers have publicly complained about hunts trespassing & damaging their land. So a hunter, jeep, horsebox, fields, stables, land, feed, vet bills etc are within the reach of Mr Average ?.

And thats ok too Not every one might be set up allow access - Hunts will hunt over agreed areas but hounds do stray and the hunt staff will do their best to get them back. You also get the odd eegit who decides they will take a shortcut - they dont last long tbh. You could go out tmrw and hire a horse if you wish to go hunting. You can borrow or you might already have a horse on the farm etc. Like having a car - having a horse does not mean that you are part of the elite...

Discodog wrote: »

So you are dragging our civilisation down to the level of an animal ?. Foxes kill for necessity. Hunters kill purely for pleasure.

Foxes will engage in surplus killing so not just killing of necessity. Hunters may have a range of reasons. The purpose of hunting does not change.

Whispered

Yes

Nice to see reasoned debate

I'm not going to comment on the rest as it's late, I'm going to bed and I wish to mull it over but I did want to comment on this

gozunda wrote: »

but hounds do stray and the hunt staff will do there best to get them back.

It is not acceptable for my dog to be on land which he shouldn't be on. Under any circumstances. If my dog was to escape and be on a farmers land, the landowner would be within their right to shoot my dog. It wouldn't matter if I was trying my best to get him back. It wouldn't matter why he was there. Simple fact is, legally, he shouldn't be there.

What is the legal status of the hunts hounds?

gozunda

Yes

Whispered wrote: »

Nice to see reasoned debate

I'm not going to comment on the rest as it's late, I'm going to bed and I wish to mull it over but I did want to comment on this

It is not acceptable for my dog to be on land which he shouldn't be on. Under any circumstances. If my dog was to escape and be on a farmers land, the landowner would be within their right to shoot my dog. It wouldn't matter if I was trying my best to get him back. It wouldn't matter why he was there. Simple fact is, legally, he shouldn't be there.

What is the legal status of the hunts hounds?

You are right landowners have rights to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock. This is something that farmers have a right to do. However where a dog is straying but not worrying the decision is up to the landwoner on whether or not he will let a dog go on its way or kill it. Hounds are taught early in the years what they should and should not hunt. They are exposed to livestock etc. Hunt staff try to prevent the hounds from running riot. They can achieve this by using commands to the hounds. The huntsmen will always try their best to get the hounds back - though explaining legalities to hounds can sometimes be difficult

Whispered

Yes

gozunda wrote: »

You are right landowners have rights to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock. This is something that farmers have a right to do. However where a dog is straying but not worrying the decision is up to the landwoner on whether or not he will let a dog go on its way or kill it. Hounds are taught early in the years what they should and should not hunt. They are exposed to livestock etc. Hunt staff try to prevent the hounds from running riot. They can achieve this by using commands to the hounds. The huntsmen will always try their best to get the hounds back - though explaining legalities to hounds can sometimes be difficult

I understand this, but like the hounds, my dog has no interest in sheep (although this is not something we take for granted). We regularly walk through the curragh and they are ignored totally. It is still illegal for him to be on certain lands. To your knowledge, have there been many hounds killed for tresspassing on farmers land? Would there be an uproar if it happened, or would the hunt accept it as the farmers right? (EDIT:I know you can't answer this with certainty, but you'd make a more educated guess than I would.)

Just to add, in the documentary on tv3 I was struck by how healthy and happy the hounds looked and I do believe that for a working dog, a working life where they are well looked after is the best life for them. What usually happens with dogs who don't work well, or old, injured dogs?

gozunda

Yes

Whispered wrote: »

I understand this, but like the hounds, my dog has no interest in sheep (although this is not something we take for granted). We regularly walk through the curragh and they are ignored totally. It is still illegal for him to be on certain lands. To your knowledge, have there been many hounds killed for tresspassing on farmers land? Would there be an uproar if it happened, or would the hunt accept it as the farmers right? (EDIT:I know you can't answer this with certainty, but you'd make a more educated guess than I would.)

Just to add, in the documentary on tv3 I was struck by how healthy and happy the hounds looked and I do believe that for a working dog, a working life where they are well looked after is the best life for them. What usually happens with dogs who don't work well, or old, injured dogs?

I know of hounds having been killed during the last century over disputed lands but to my knowledge I havn't heard of this happening in our area. Generally if hounds did go where they shouldn't the hunt staff or master would make contact with the relevant land owner / farmer and offer to make good any damage etc. Like other working dogs, hounds are pts if they are too old or injured to an extent they cant work anymore. They generally are not rehomed as they have lived as part of a pack all their lives. You are right hounds are well looked after and are very happy animals.

Whispered

Yes

gozunda wrote: »

Like other working dogs, hounds are pts if they are too old or injured to an extent they cant work anymore.

honestly this is my biggest issue with hunts (and I know it's not confined to hunts, but racing etc). So much time is spent trying to persuade people that dogs are not disposable. Then you have large operations disposing of them in large numbers I'd imagine. Are there no other options?

It's this idea of disposable life that permeates these sports that I find hardest to understand. It's not just the foxes (hares etc) who are the victims. A topic for a different thread though maybe, and I don't want to go too far off topic.

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

I know of hounds having been killed during the last century over disputed lands but to my knowledge I havn't heard of this happening in our area. Generally if hounds did go where they shouldn't the hunt staff or master would make contact with the relevant land owner / farmer and offer to make good any damage etc. Like other working dogs, hounds are pts if they are too old or injured to an extent they cant work anymore. They generally are not rehomed as they have lived as part of a pack all their lives. You are right hounds are well looked after and are very happy animals.

No, I have working dogs and mine are not pts if they are too old or injured to work, no way.

Hounds are happy animals until they are no longer of use.:(

gozunda

Yes

I agree this off topic so i'll give my own personal views on the matter. Ref hounds I believe- these working dogs have a dignified end - not abandoned not sold etc. I myself have had animals that I put to sleep because of old age and illness. I prefer to regard quality of life more important than my own needs tbh

Whispered

Yes

gozunda wrote: »

I agree this off topic so i'll give my own personsl views on the matter. Ref hounds I believe- these working dogs have a dignified end - not abandoned not sold etc. I myself have had animals that I put to sleep because of old age and illness. I prefer to regard quality of life more important than my own needs tbh

The arrogance that you are doing the right thing by ending the life of an animal, as soon as the animal can no longer keep up is astounding. Although very common among hunting types. Again the problem of disposable life.

Older dogs, even ex working dogs, can and do have a great quality of life if homed properly. If you think that is to do more with my needs than the dogs so be it. I'd prefer for my need to be to nurture than destroy.

TBH I have always tried to encourage young fit working dogs (regardless of breed) to go to homes where they will be worked. This conversation has changed my stance on that. The fact that someone who comes across as so reasoned and measured in their responses can actually act indignant when asked about putting old but otherwise healthy dogs to sleep is worrying.

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

I agree this off topic so i'll give my own personal views on the matter. Ref hounds I believe- these working dogs have a dignified end - not abandoned not sold etc. I myself have had animals that I put to sleep because of old age and illness. I prefer to regard quality of life more important than my own needs tbh

I don't think this is off topic at all, as I think this kind of attitude that the hounds are so disposable is very relevant to the fox hunting debate.

I have a dog at the moment who is 7, she's not as fast as the younger dogs, but she still loves working. If I let her carry on until she's 10, then retired her, you are seriously saying that it is my needs I'm meeting by allowing her to live out her life - which will probably be until she is 14/15, paying for her food and medical care? My view is that I am rewarding a faithful friend, who has always done what is asked of her and repaying her for what she has given to me and my life?

I too have had dogs pts due to old age and illness, it is something that we can do for these animals that give us so much. But, I only did this to ease their suffering, not because they were no longer useful to me.

gozunda

Yes

Whispered wrote: »

The arrogance that you are doing the right thing by ending the life of an animal, as soon as the animal can no longer keep up is astounding. Although very common among hunting types. Again the problem of disposable life.

Older dogs, even ex working dogs, can and do have a great quality of life if homed properly. If you think that is to do more with my needs than the dogs so be it. I'd prefer for my need to be to nurture than destroy.

TBH I have always tried to encourage young fit working dogs (regardless of breed) to go to homes where they will be worked. This conversation has changed my stance on that. The fact that someone who comes across as so reasoned and measured in their responses can actually act indignant when asked about putting old but otherwise healthy dogs to sleep is worrying.

No arrogance or indignancy meant.. I wont pretend to have all the answers. There are more dogs out there atm than there are homes for them. Its not just "hunting types" btw - dogs are put down everyday in this country because they have been abandoned or ill treated. This doesnt make it the best option for longevity but as a quality of life issue thats the way things currently are.

Hounds are pack animals and dont usually enjoy being kept in a domestic situation. I dont know many people who could rehome a pack of hounds. The morality of keeping any animal is compounded by the ways in which they are used. Cattle, pigs and sheep are all slaughtered for use when quite young animals. Chickens and turkeys barely reach a year old before dispatch. Dogs and cats are put to sleep because no one wants them or they reach old age and or illness and their quality of life is poor. Responsible ownership means making decision based on quality of life or in the case of cows, sheep etc how they are used

Hounds are not abandoned or sold to unscrupulous breeders and this is a good thing. They have a long, stable and happy life doing what they have been breed to do. They are only pts when they are ill, or to old to have a good quality of life.

As Whispered has said this a topic for a different thread though and I don't want to go too far off topic either. These are my views only- I repect that others have different opinions...

Whispered

Yes

gozunda wrote: »

There are more dogs out there atm than there are homes for them. Its not just "hunting types" btw - dogs are put down everyday in this country because they have been abandoned or ill treated. This doesnt make it the best option for longevity but as a quality of life issue thats the way things currently are.

Oh I know it's not just hunting types who do this. But I can't think of any other organisations besides "field sports" who dispose of healthy animals as a matter of regularity.

gozunda wrote: »

The morality of keeping any animal is compounded by the ways in which they are used. Cattle, pigs and sheep are all slaughtered for use when quite young animals. Chickens and turkeys barely reach a year old before dispatch. Dogs and cats are put to sleep because no one wants them or they reach old age and or illness and their quality of life is poor. Responsible ownership means making decision based on quality of life or in the case of cows, sheep etc how they are used

Farming is totally different in that it's a food process. Much like I wouldn't compare game hunting with sport hunting. <-(although I know this may not be a commonly held view and is personal opinion).
I agree and find the conditions most intensively farmed animals are kept in abhorrent too. I don't think you can justify an injustice by pointing out other people/ organisations who do it too. If you see something which you feel is wrong, hearing others do it as well is not going to make you feel better about it, so it is a bit of a moot point for me anyway.

gozunda wrote: »

Hounds are not abandoned or sold to unscrupulous breeders and this is a good thing. They have a long, stable and happy life doing what they have been breed to do. They are only pts when they are ill, or to old to have a good quality of life.

I think we have different views of responsible ownership. I don't think I would have it in me to have a healthy but old dog pts. What would you consider old? At what stage would a dog be deemed too old to have a good quality of life?

gozunda

Yes

Whispered wrote: »

...
I think we have different views of responsible ownership. I don't think I would have it in me to have a healthy but old dog pts. What would you consider old? At what stage would a dog be deemed too old to have a good quality of life?

Agreed on having differnt views and opinions :cool:. For myself every animal is different - there are no defined points where an animal can be automatically considered to old, infirm etc - it will depend on an animals individual quality of life as judged by someone who knows and cares for them.

Whispered

Yes

So are they not automatically PTS as soon as they can't keep up anymore? Like is it unheard of to have a few oldies pottering along after the main pack? (genuine question btw even if it sounds silly!)

I just love the little oldies I've known and their relaxed dignified demeanour. There is nothing like a wise old dog.

homerhop

Yes

Whispered I know the local pack have some pretty old dogs still with them.

gozunda

Yes

Whispered wrote: »

So are they not automatically PTS as soon as they can't keep up anymore? Like is it unheard of to have a few oldies pottering along after the main pack? (genuine question btw even if it sounds silly!)

I just love the little oldies I've known and their relaxed dignified demeanour. There is nothing like a wise old dog.

No not automatically pts when they reach some predetermined age like the humans in Logans Run! Older hounds are have a place in the pack - to teach young hounds how to behave and maintain a pack hiarchy.

EGAR

gozunda wrote: »

No not automatically pts when they reach some predetermined age like the humans in Logans Run! Older hounds are have a place in the pack - to teach young hounds how to behave and maintain a pack hiarchy.

Yes, like to local guy does it by chaining them together .

As to Hounds being pack animals and no doing well in home situations, maybe I should have told that to the hounds I have re-homed into family settings..?

Or to the one I found half dead and with a broken leg in the forest?


Hmmmm....

gozunda

Yes

EGAR wrote: »

Yes, like to local guy does it by chaining them together .

As to Hounds being pack animals and no doing well in home situations, maybe I should have told that to the hounds I have re-homed into family settings..?

Or to the one I found half dead and with a broken leg in the forest?
Hmmmm....

Hounds (plural)?
Ok so one is a greyhound and the other is a bloodhound?
Please elaborate on statement above
"local guy..." dont get the gist of this.
What did you find in the local forest?

EGAR

BLOODHOUND?? Do you really know anything about Hounds?? Oh dear.... He is a Foxhound x Beagle found in the forest with a broken leg), specialty of the *local guy* who keeps the hounds for the hunt, the selfsame who chains young to old dogs to *teach* them.

gozunda

Yes

EGAR wrote: »

BLOODHOUND?? Do you really know anything about Hounds?? Oh dear.... He is a Foxhound x Beagle found in the forest with a broken leg), specialty of the *local guy* who keeps the hounds for the hunt, the selfsame who chains young to old dogs to *teach* them.

"Oh dear" The photograph was not exactly a full profile was it :rolleyes: I could tell it was not a Foxhound anyway...please dont try to be rude and abusive in an otherwise interesting discussion.

I dont know what country your talking about but Foxhunting hunts here use pure bred foxhounds not foxhound x beagles crosses etc. If it is a "special" then it has nothing to do with proper foxhunting. Question: Why did you steal his hound if you knew it belonged to the local guy? If the hound had an accident then the normal thing would be to inform the owner.

Young foxhounds are run as a couple with an older hound during training. Its a bit like putting a dog on a lead except the one with the lead is the older hound not a human. The "lead" only stays on for training. The young hound learns by following the lead of the older hound....if anything else is going on then its because your "local guy" is obviously special.

Discodog

The problem is that we do not know the Foxhound figures. We also do not know how many Hares are killed. We can get some idea regarding Greyhounds because some data is published but, of course, not the numbers killed. It's all a big secret & with coursing/racing we give a load of our taxes to this secret society.

After all the Hunt kennels sought exclusion from the inspections that were part of the Dog Breeding Bill.

No one can claim that these animals are well looked after without the figures to prove it.