Fox hunting coming back.

[guest*]

Originally Posted by CptCoatHanger

If it could be convincingly argued that hunting with dogs was one of the most effective ways of killing foxes, would anyone here who is currently against fox hunting change their mind?

NO! Would you accept your vet "putting your dog down" by allowing him/her to set a group of other dogs on it?

[CptCoatHanger]

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

NO! Would you accept your vet "putting your dog down" by allowing him/her to set a group of other dogs on it?

The analogy is far from exact. If foxes were bringing themselves into vets' surgeries, or it was feasible to send packs of vets armed with syringes into the forest, then maybe the analogy would stand. Currently, foxes aren't that obliging and culling foxes isn't in a vet's job description.

[guest*]

I'm talking about the Humane side of it. Why can't foxes just be left alone. I can understand a farmer going after a fox for getting at his chickens, but to go out on purpose & kill an animal for the sheer "thrill of the hunt" is beyond me. I will never agree with these activities! Anytime anyone has come on to our land trying to lamp rabbits for coursing, they got cleared out of the place. Thats another thing, Trespassing across other people's land, the last time they came right up to the back of our house with torches. The cheek! our dog's were going beserk! They got the road from me! The hunt goes nearby sometimes, although some farmers in the area won't give permission, simply beacuse they don't want their land dug up ( not to save foxes), but at least some foxes excape.

[CptCoatHanger]

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

I'm talking about the Humane side of it. Why can't foxes just be left alone. I can understand a farmer going after a fox for getting at his chickens, but to go out on purpose & kill an animal for the sheer "thrill of the hunt" is beyond me. I will never agree with these activities! Anytime anyone has come on to our land trying to lamp rabbits for coursing, they got cleared out of the place. Thats another thing, Trespassing across other people's land, the last time they came right up to the back of our house with torches. The cheek! our dog's were going beserk! They got the road from me! The hunt goes nearby sometimes, although some farmers in the area won't give permission, simply beacuse they don't want their land dug up ( not to save foxes), but at least some foxes excape.

Sure, it'd be more humane to bring a fox into the vet and have it put down with a lethal injection. And I'd rather have my dog put down by a vet that ripped apart by dogs - we're just not dealing with reality framing the debate this way.

If it could be argued, as Jamelia did by further qualifying my earlier question, that fox culling was necessary, and that logistically death-by-dog was the quickest way to kill a fox, would you still be against fox hunting?

[Thunderstruck]

Originally Posted by jamelia

If there were compelling evidence that hunting with dogs was an effective way not just of killing foxes, but of significantly controlling the fox population;

And I was presented with a compelling case that such a cull of the fox population is absolutely necessary (I'm not saying it's not - I'm just not sure about it);

Then I absolutely would change my mind.

I repeatedly asked for evidence of the first claim in this thread; no one presented any.

I would be interested to hear the case for the second condition too.

Seek and ye shall find:

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/show...4&postcount=84

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

I'm talking about the Humane side of it. Why can't foxes just be left alone. I can understand a farmer going after a fox for getting at his chickens, but to go out on purpose & kill an animal for the sheer "thrill of the hunt" is beyond me. I will never agree with these activities! Anytime anyone has come on to our land trying to lamp rabbits for coursing, they got cleared out of the place. Thats another thing, Trespassing across other people's land, the last time they came right up to the back of our house with torches. The cheek! our dog's were going beserk! They got the road from me! The hunt goes nearby sometimes, although some farmers in the area won't give permission, simply beacuse they don't want their land dug up ( not to save foxes), but at least some foxes excape.

Foxes will be left alone as soon as chickens are left alone by foxes.

To be honest, I'm so bored of arguing this so hopefully, this will be it, once and for all.

- Foxes kill chickens
- Chickens = farmers' livelihoods
- Therefore, foxes kill farmers' livelihoods
- Fox hunting, even if it doesn't result in a kill (as many do) disperses the local fox population
- Therefore, fox hunting is an effective way of dispersing foxes and keeping their numbers in check
- Scientific evidence (see above) corroborates the long-held view amongst the hunting community that hunting with dogs is the most humane way to kill foxes
- Shooting, poisoning and even lamping are far more inefficient and cause immeasurably more distress to the animal

And a few pikeys trespassing on your land to go lamping does not mean that all hunts are trespassing. That is a complete fallacy.

[jamelia]

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck

Seek and ye shall find:

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/show...4&postcount=84

That post doesn't actually answer either of the questions I asked. Read them again carefully.

I didn't ask whether it was an effective means of killing an individual fox. I asked whether fox hunting made any impact on the population and was an effective method of culling.

My knowledge of population science is poor. But I read somewhere that in order to make any dent at all in the fox population, you would have to kill something like 70% of the entire population in a given year. And we all know that can't be achieved by chasing one fox with horses, a pack of dogs and a bugle.

Neither does that post indicate that there are good reasons to need to cull the fox population.

So until those questions are answered, my position remains anti-hunting. If you are able to answer my questions, I'm open to having my mind changed.

[guest*]

Originally Posted by CptCoatHanger

If it could be argued, as Jamelia did by further qualifying my earlier question, that fox culling was necessary, and that logistically death-by-dog was the quickest way to kill a fox, would you still be against fox hunting?

Yes, i'm still against it & ain't going change now. I have never seen any "fox-culling" being necessary here in Ireland, as the Fox population isn't actually very large. It seems the most effective method for Fox's & Badger's to die in this country, is to try to cross the road! Having said that we can't change that fact that fox-hunting happens, although the amount of hunts of late are few & far between.

[guest*]

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck

-And a few pikeys trespassing on your land to go lamping does not mean that all hunts are trespassing. That is a complete fallacy.

Organised hunts need permission from all farmers who's lands they wish to cross.....most farmer's are co-operative, I don't know if they get paid or something?! There's a long running saga in Ireland about land & Tresspassing etc, but the problem now is insurance! Some people on a walking trail fell, & the land owner got sued! So can you imagine the risk of a high speed fox hunt? This is compo nation, I'm afraid

[ShyBoy]

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck

Seek and ye shall find:

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/show...4&postcount=84



Foxes will be left alone as soon as chickens are left alone by foxes.

To be honest, I'm so bored of arguing this so hopefully, this will be it, once and for all.

- Foxes kill chickens
- Chickens = farmers' livelihoods
- Therefore, foxes kill farmers' livelihoods
- Fox hunting, even if it doesn't result in a kill (as many do) disperses the local fox population
- Therefore, fox hunting is an effective way of dispersing foxes and keeping their numbers in check
- Scientific evidence (see above) corroborates the long-held view amongst the hunting community that hunting with dogs is the most humane way to kill foxes
- Shooting, poisoning and even lamping are far more inefficient and cause immeasurably more distress to the animal

And a few pikeys trespassing on your land to go lamping does not mean that all hunts are trespassing. That is a complete fallacy.

Your scientific evidence is out of date. The burns inquiry in 1999 left a much more open verdict and said that hunting was
a) hutning with dogs from a conservation point of view is pretty much a null point

Summary
78 Hunting exerts much less influence than agricultural market and policy
trends, the management of game for shooting or incentives under agri-environment
schemes. With the possible exception of hare conservation, a ban on hunting with
dogs would be unlikely to have a major impact from a conservation perspective. In
the case of the hare, on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather
than shooting, a ban might lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to
encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious
consequences for a number of birds and other animals. (Paragraph 7.43)

b) hunting with dogs was likely to cause distress to foxes

Summary
56 The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a
fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck
or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical
vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and
vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of
seconds once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the
effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above
ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously
compromises the welfare of the fox. (Paragraph 6.49)[/

Finally, dispersing a fox population is good, in the sense that it encourages foxes to form breeding pairs - if there are 6 or 7 foxes in a den, only one pair will breed at a time to stop overpopulation / lack of food, normally the alpha male / female. By splitting the group up you could create 2 or 3 breeding pairs = more for hunting. This was achieved deliberately by creating artificial earths and cubbing (or cub hunting), in order that there were more foxes come hunting season.

Regardless though, fox hunting isn't the worst thing and there are worse things - but it is by and large not 'humane' or 'necessary for population control' as indicated by the Burns report, and we have banned inhumane treatment of other animals (or uneccessary suffering), so why should fox hunting be different?

The real motive is that people like it (which the Burns report touches on - if it is a main hobby for so many people you are depriving them of a big part of their life - imagine how a jocky would react if we banned horce racing). This is a real benefit and through this it helps other people, but do the cost vs benefit and you see that why make an exception for the fox and allow cruelty (which would upset people, afterall wouldn't murder be legal if it didn't upset people?) for the benefit of a few - the 'significant' portion of that benefit being the reduction of the pest which the Burns report indicated that a ban would not have a significant impact upon.

[guest*]

This debate looks dead now, unlike the fox, who is still alive, thank god, because fox hunting is banned in england. Now why is that...........

[Skive]

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

This debate looks dead now, unlike the fox, who is still alive

It's still dead I'm afraid, just by other means.

Just goes to show that people arn't actually concerned about the fox - it still gets killed and often in unpleasant ways. But as long as fox hunting's banned your happy.

[guest*]

Originally Posted by Skive

It's still dead I'm afraid, just by other means.

Just goes to show that people arn't actually concerned about the fox - it still gets killed and often in unpleasant ways. But as long as fox hunting's banned your happy.

OH I'm concerned about the fox alright, once we picked up a fox that had been hit by a car crossing the road, & took her to our vet... & our vet called us "noble"! Imagine that! Unfortunately she did die, & to make it worse she was pregnant, but our vet not only didn't charge us for the visit, he said our next visit would be free for being so kind! So, I can sleep at night, knowing I tried to help a defenceless animal!

[guest*]

Originally Posted by Skive

It's still dead I'm afraid, just by other means.

Just goes to show that people arn't actually concerned about the fox - it still gets killed and often in unpleasant ways. But as long as fox hunting's banned your happy.

P.S. Are you going to see "fantastic MR. Fox" in the cinema? My one quarter french arse you are...

[Skive]

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

OH I'm concerned about the fox alright

Well you seem content the ban on fox hunting because you think it means foxes arn't culled, which they are.

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

P.S. Are you going to see "fantastic MR. Fox" in the cinema? My one quarter french arse you are...

I don't go to the cinema. And I don't know what relevance a cartoon character has on the issue. I didn't stop fishing after watching Finding Nemo.

[purplestarfish]

I asked this a while back but don't think i got an answer.... are the same people who are against fox-hunting, against fishing?