Why i am pro fox hunting

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I've heard the subject of fox hunting been brought up in numerous threads not related to it- i've always wanted to comment on such comments but i don't want to make such threads off topic, so i have decided to do my own thread based on my opinions on fox hunting.

One thing which irritates me is how poorly informed people are on fox hunting. So i will get straight to the point of why i was in favor of it and still are;

a. Environment: Fox's are pests- they have no natural predators. If you own a farm and raise animals on it like pigs, chickens, sheep, ducks etc and you do not do anything to monitor the fox's population levels, the fox's are pretty much guaranteed to become serious pests.
Fox's are opportunistic and very voracious little predators- while they may look cute, they are killers and will eat all manner of small animals from birds, rodents, baby animals of all sorts, rabbits etc to even frogs. If you are trying to conserve rare endangered animals on your land like rare ground nesting birds or voles, then fox's are bad news as they will wipe out these animals if they can. While they are not as voracious as animals like minx and weasels, if fox's grow in large enough numbers they can have a very detrimental impact on the local wildlife if their numbers are left unchecked.

From the farmers point of view, if he is raising small or baby animals, then fox's can pose a very serious threat to his animals. Unlike animals like cats which generally only kill what they are going to eat at that moment in time, fox's will kill as many animals as they can in one go as it is instinctive behavior for them to store food regardless of whether they are hungry or not. This means that when they find their way way into a shed full of chickens, they will literally kill every last bird in the shed (unless they are disturbed, in which case the fox will abandon the chickens, dead or alive). Growing up on my mums farm as a kid, fox's claimed the lives of hundreds of chickens over the years (they are very clever when it comes to getting into chicken houses and stuff).

This is why farmers kill fox's- if you don't control the fox population on your farm, the larger their population will grow and thus the more detrimental an impact they will have on the surrounding wildlife and so the more hungry they will end up getting and so will become more and more bolder/desperate to kill farm animals etc.

b. Fox population preservation: Considering that its necessary to keep control of the size of fox populations, farmers have come up with a range of methods of keeping fox populations low. This is where fox hunting came in.

Fox hunting is actually beneficial for the fox population as a whole. Up until fox hunting, fox's were viewed as pests and nothing more- people were happy to see the back of fox's and never have them return. But fox hunting offered a way of enjoying the sport of keeping the fox populations low; all of a sudden, the farmer doesn't want to wipe out every last fox on his farm- he's got a good thing going with the fox hunting and he wants to continue it, so on the one hand while he wants to hunt the fox's, he also wants to preserve them to so he can continue to hunt the fox's.

So all of a sudden you have farmers wanting to preserve the fox populations- farmers which held fox hunts would not hunt the fox's during their long breeding season to help ensure that fox populations were sustainable. But when fox hunting was banned, fox's once again turned back into a pest and nothing more. With no reason to preserve the fox's on their farms, farmers now hunt the fox's all year round and try to eradicate them rather than preserve their populations.
So banning fox hunting has ironically been bad news for the fox's- with no farmer wanting to protect the little beasties now, the future of fox's looks far more bleak without fox hunting than with it.

c. Community, economy, tradition/culture: Fox hunts were big events in small country communities where they were held in.
Rural life can be depressingly isolated a lot of the time, small scale farming is a back breaking job in this day and age which has little rewards; long hours, hard work and little free time or money to enjoy- this is what farming is about for the good farmers out there. There's little time to socialize if you're farming (single male farmers in particular have some of the highest suicide rates as far as work jobs/work goes), so if you hold a fox hunt it can be a really uplifting and enjoyable time where you can be with the whole community and the whole community can be with you. This isn't just for the farmers, everybody loved the fox hunts for this aspect.
From an economy point of view, fox hunting was big business and a vital support to many village communities where local economies don't tend to be that good- fox hunting involves a huge amount of business, organization and employment. You would need dog breeders, carers and handlers for the dogs, dog kennel businesses, dog groomers, stables for the horses, stable keepers, blacksmiths/farriers, people to look after the horses, shops to sell horse gear like saddles and bridles etc, tanneries to make such things, shops to sell hunting clothes and gear, people to organize the event, shops to sell food and drinks and people to serve them etc etc etc. So you see my point- it was a community event that was big business and a vital part of rural economies; the fox hunt benefited almost everyone living in the community and brought everybody together closer in a happy/peaceful way that upheld traditions/culture.

d. Issue's of the humane and the future of foxs: Many people who were opposed to fox hunting were opposed to it on the grounds of it being inhumane. But in my opinion, it really was not that inhumane. Yes, the fox got chased by the dogs, but chases rarely went on for a long time and during this time the fox would become pumped up with adrenalin, which is a hormone that relieves pain and stress, a natural high so to speak. When the fox was caught by the dogs it was quite literally dead in seconds as it would be ripped to pieces in a few seconds of being caught- while this may be gory, it is not an inhumane way for the fox to die as it does not take a long time to die nor is it likely to suffer much due to the large amounts of adrenalin present in the fox at the point of its death. In my opinion, it is actually a far more humane way for an animal to die than the methods many farm animals are killed with.

But did fox hunting mean the end of fox killing? No, indeed it did not. In fact fox's are being killed more than ever now, because as explained earlier farmers now have little reason to conserve fox's (why would they want to now with the ban of hunting?). The most common methods of killing fox's include snaring (which can take days to kill the animal if the snare is forgotten about) and poisoning and trapping- none of these methods are very humane. I am sure any fox caught in a snare would wish to be killed by hunting dogs instantly.

So, for all you people that fought against fox hunting, in reality all you have done by banning it is actually increase the amount of fox's being killed by inhumane methods and also in the process you damaged rural economies and damaged the reputation of city people in country area's and only proven the beliefs of many that you city people really do not know that much about the ways of us country bumpkins etc. Hundreds (if not thousands) of hunting dogs were put to death when the hunts were banned as these dogs are only really semi-domesticated at best and are practically un-rehomeable as pets etc, and no one is going to want to look after hundreds of such dogs, so many were put to sleep. Hundreds of businesses had to be shut down, the communities became ever more isolated and separated, and the wildlife has suffered for it etc.

I know this thread may come out as a bit of a rant, but i want to inform you anti-fox hunters of many aspects of fox hunting which you do not seem to know of, understand or at least take into proper consideration. I hope for the most part i will help change some of this.

edit: It depresses me that so many people compare all forms of hunting as the same- this is really not the case and never should be, each case of hunting in my opinion is an individual case and depending on the situation/circumstances it may prove to be right or wrong etc. Now, i do not want you guys to take this thread in the light that you assume i am pro-hunting in general- i am not. I simply agree with some forms of hunting and not others for a multitude of reasons depending on the form of hunting and what is being hunted etc. The eating of meat, the killing/slaughter/culling of animals and the hunting of animals are subjects which i consider very in-depth and complicated and not ones which i wish to generalize about and nor do i think others should. Like most things in life, these are not black and white matters.

Another thing i will ask you- how many of you here go fishing as a hobby but are anti-fox hunting? How do you separate and differentiate what you do as a hobby than what the fox hunters do as a hobby? How many of you eat meat/animal products and buy stuff like McDonalds food but are anti-fox hunting etc?

 

[SushiShin]

A fox is clever animal and it doesn't really forms a treat to humanity, and yes, all what we did is "love" for the sport, while it's amount is decreasing heavily.

Poor animals, but yeah let's hope that they will live for some more years.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

A fox is clever animal and it doesn't really forms a treat to humanity, and yes, all what we did is "love" for the sport, while it's amount is decreasing heavily.
Poor animals, but yeah let's hope that they will live for some more years.

So whats your point- that an animal shouldn't be killed over another because its more intelligent or something? Do you not view animals as all equal? edit:Have you even read my post properly and taken my points into consideration?
And BTW, fox's are not endangered/threatened and they never have been nor are they even close to being it, so i don't get your point about wishing them to live "for some more years". Its about as logical/sound as hoping the rats as a species will make it over the next decade or something.

 

[SushiShin]

So whats your point- that an animal shouldn't be killed over another because its more intelligent or something? Do you not view animals as all equal? edit:Have you even read my post properly and taken my points into consideration?
And BTW, fox's are not endangered/threatened and they never have been nor are they even close to being it, so i don't get your point about wishing them to live "for some more years". Its about as logical/sound as hoping the rats as a species will make it over the next decade or something.

I didn't read your thread because it is frikking way too long
So please forgive me if you don't understand my opinion.
Just forget what I said

Gomen nasai Tokis-Phoenix!!!!

 

[Mycernius]

If you want to control foxes then shoot them or trap them. There is no reason to persue it on horseback so it can be ripped apart by a pack of dogs. It is barbaric, and in most cases inefficient as foxes do escape. I would rather think that one man with a rifle can kill a damn sight more foxes in a day than a fox hunt. You can still hunt foxes in the UK anyway, just not with a pack of hounds.
I should like to say it is culture and tradition in Spain to throw donkeys out of church towers and have bull fights. Culture and tradition does not excuse barbaric practice, if it did then some religions and countries would still practice human sacrifice.

 

[SushiShin]

If you want to control foxes then shoot them or trap them. There is no reason to persue it on horseback so it can be ripped apart by a pack of dogs. It is barbaric, and in most cases inefficient as foxes do escape. I would rather think that one man with a rifle can kill a damn sight more foxes in a day than a fox hunt. You can still hunt foxes in the UK anyway, just not with a pack of hounds.
I should like to say it is culture and tradition in Spain to throw donkeys out of church towers and have bull fights. Culture and tradition does not excuse barbaric practice, if it did then some religions and countries would still practice human sacrifice.

You are so right! That is what I also wanted to say! It's barbaric!
Well said!

 

[Sarapva]

I should like to say it is culture and tradition in Spain to throw donkeys out of church towers and have bull fights. Culture and tradition does not excuse barbaric practice, if it did then some religions and countries would still practice human sacrifice.

I agree with you and SushiShin here. I think fox hunting is a cowardly thing: first of all the fox has to be caught in a box before the hunters and dogs are ready, then it's let go so the chase can begin. That's a tradition I think civilized England is well rid of.

I can understand your comments about it, TP, and it makes sense that it helps control the populations while not wiping the foxes out. But surely intelligent people can come up with better ways to do this. Isolated villages or farms could plan get-togethers that don't involve the traditional fox hunt.

I agree that getting ripped to shreds in seconds by dogs is probably quick and doesn't involve much conscious pain. But the time leading up to that, when the fox is caught first of all, can hear the barking dogs, then let loose and knows the dogs are chasing it and that it doesn't have much of a chance - that part seems inhumane to me. I'm sure a fox can feel terror like any other living thing, and it's not right to subject a feeling, living thing to that kind of trauma in the name of "entertainment".

 

[MadamePapillon]

Wasn't fox hunting a past time for the rich before? It didn't have much to do with protecting livestock so much as entertainment.

I'll agree than foxes can be enormous pests to farmers and the like but killing foxes to keep them out of your hen house is a world away from getting a team of dogs together to chase a fox through the forest with the end result of that fox being ripped apart.

so,
Yay to the farmers
Nay to the dogs

 

[Sarapva]

Even part-time gardeners fight against wildlife (birds, moles, rabbits, deer, bugs). Around here some gardeners poison moles because they eat the roots of plants under the ground. Why can't we find some creative ways to foil these "pests" (which are only pests because we put delicious food out to tempt them) instead of destroying them like they're the enemy? Planting vegetables in pots or above-ground would solve the mole problem. Fences keep deer and other animals out. Bright decorative things that blow in the wind keep birds away. And there are natural alternatives to keeping bugs off plants instead of killing them with chemicals.

There's got to be such a thing as a fox-proof chicken coop. Aren't we smarter than these animals? Surely a creative and ingenious farmer could find ways to outsmart "pests" who are "trying to sabotage" his farm. :atsui:

 

[Mars Man]

I wish to point out here, and most ingenuously, yet sincerely hope all do take heed, that this thread is about Fox Hunting, and more specifically, that style related to the UK (since it is done in other places as well, with other animals (hawks, for example).



As far as fox hunting a la 'English' style goes, I have tended to think negatively of it--I'm speaking of the style and involved social-ranking attitude portrayed--while not really worrying about the pure hunting element of it. Again, there will surely be some number, however arbitrary in nature it may be, above which hunting kills should be limited, that would likely prove to be beneficial in the more overall balance of things.



(as a side note, it might have been good to have broken the OP presentation down into at least two posts...for easier read and following)

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

If you want to control foxes then shoot them or trap them. There is no reason to persue it on horseback so it can be ripped apart by a pack of dogs. It is barbaric, and in most cases inefficient as foxes do escape. I would rather think that one man with a rifle can kill a damn sight more foxes in a day than a fox hunt. You can still hunt foxes in the UK anyway, just not with a pack of hounds.
I should like to say it is culture and tradition in Spain to throw donkeys out of church towers and have bull fights. Culture and tradition does not excuse barbaric practice, if it did then some religions and countries would still practice human sacrifice.

When it comes to the killing part, traps and guns are actually less humane as they can actually take longer to kill the fox.

The reason why people pursue the fox on horseback is so they can keep up with the fox chase.
My point about there not being fox hunting anymore with hounds being bad, is that the methods that do not use hounds to kill the fox are not actually as humane.
The moment the fox gets caught by the hounds, its lucky to last a few seconds- shooting isn't all that humane though because its very difficult to shoot a fox with much accuracy with the guns permitted- your much more likely to do something like blow the animals leg off with the gun than actually kill the animal instantly. At the end of the day, shooting with fox's as a matter of being humane or not purely depends on how good the farmer is at shooting. Trapping doesn't actually kill the fox and snaring is very inhumane.

Hunting with hounds is actually very effective, where have you based your assumption that it is not most of the time?

Also, i do not excuse fox hunting on culture and tradition- if you see my first main points, the reason why i am primarily in favor in fox hunting is because it actually served as a form of protection over fox populations in general. If you really care about fox's, surely you would want to preserve the animals?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I can understand your comments about it, TP, and it makes sense that it helps control the populations while not wiping the foxes out. But surely intelligent people can come up with better ways to do this. Isolated villages or farms could plan get-togethers that don't involve the traditional fox hunt.

Farmers in England really do not have much money, if you want to make money in business then farming is something that you should stay well clear off. Farmers which farm with inhumane methods like battery farming tend to be quite wealthy, but there are a lot of farmers which refuse to do this and instead choose to farm with more traditional and humane methods- the cost of this is that many farmers which do this can end up living in near poverty with how little profit they make out these traditional methods. At the current moment, a lot of farmers which choose to farm in humane manners tend to do it for the love of farming rather than because it is a good business- it is very hard work with little rewards.
So farmers are not going to hold hunts if they do not make money of them- considering all the work and money that goes into organizing and going about hunts, its a heck of a lot of work to be doing for no money, and would leave the farmer in debts if he didn't make profit off it as its a very time consuming business, which to be honest the farmer would be better off not doing but rather just attending to his animals and shooting/snaring/poisoning fox's along the way.

In small village communities, everything is about the cost- councils have stupidly low budgets to work with, and when you consider that villages are not exactly cheap to run, councils cannot afford to hold non-profit adventures.
The thing is though, a lot of you guys who were anti-fox hunting did not take into consideration these things- what better ways are there to kill fox's in a profitable way that also ensures the future survival of local fox populations and at the same time brings small communities together in social events that benefit everyone in the community? If there was such a way, then the fox hunting ban wouldn't have been so bad, but as it is, the fox hunting left a great big gaping hole in a lot of communities and the fox populations have suffered for it.

I agree that getting ripped to shreds in seconds by dogs is probably quick and doesn't involve much conscious pain. But the time leading up to that, when the fox is caught first of all, can hear the barking dogs, then let loose and knows the dogs are chasing it and that it doesn't have much of a chance - that part seems inhumane to me. I'm sure a fox can feel terror like any other living thing, and it's not right to subject a feeling, living thing to that kind of trauma in the name of "entertainment".

To be honest its just the way of the world- fox's are not nice animals, if you've ever seen the damage they will do massacring animals like chickens you will understand this. When a fox breaks into a chicken shed, the chickens have no chance of escaping, and i will tell you for a fact that like cats, fox's actively enjoy hunting and terrorizing animals like chickens. The fox will enjoy chasing the animals around just like the hunting dogs do to fox's and cats do to mice etc.

You might think it inexcusable to hunt an animal for pleasure, but don't we find enjoyment when we eat meat, when we go fishing, when we wear a brand new leather coat etc? IMHO Arguing that you shouldn't find pleasure in hunting is no better than arguing that you shouldn't find enjoyment in eating meat or that there should be a ban on proposed on sports like fishing (really, how does fishing differ that much from fox hunting?) . IMHO, the importance shouldn't be placed on whether the person enjoys the act or not, but rather how the act is performed and any benefits the act will have etc.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Wasn't fox hunting a past time for the rich before? It didn't have much to do with protecting livestock so much as entertainment.
I'll agree than foxes can be enormous pests to farmers and the like but killing foxes to keep them out of your hen house is a world away from getting a team of dogs together to chase a fox through the forest with the end result of that fox being ripped apart.
so,
Yay to the farmers
Nay to the dogs

I think in its origins, like most other types of hunting, it was a sport of pure enjoyment. But as man has disturbed the ecosystems and ever more intensively farmed the land over the centuries, animals which have taken advantage of these ecosystem unbalances became pests and these pest animals are now more of a serious problem than ever.
The fact of the matter is that we've wiped out a lot of animals in this countries and introduced new predators like cats and minx in area's which never had them before- this has only made pest animals even more prevalent.

Animals like foxes and deer have no natural predators. Hunting over the years became less of something purely for enjoyment and more of a necessity and a good way of controlling pest animal populations in ecosystems that cannot be changed back to the way they were etc, hunting with hounds was an effective way to keep control of fox populations, but also gave reason for the farmers to at the same time preserve those fox populations so the animals were never wiped out and so the farmer could continue to hold hunts.
It is an irritating city person view that fox hunts are all about a load of posh toffs sitting on their thoroughbred horses drinking port and speaking down on lower classes etc- this is a really outdated view and is not accurate. Just because people wore traditional clothes and presented themselves well, does not mean at all that these people are wealthy or posh- all the people that i knew growing up who went fox hunting were just ordinary friendly people of normal middle class backgrounds and were not posh, wealthy or judgmental etc.

But the main problem with the fox hunting ban is that they aren't really any humane methods to kill fox's. Snaring is horrible inhumane (tends to just inflict terrible damage to the animal rather than kill it), the humaneness of shooting depends on how good the hunter is at shooting (as said before, you're more likely to blow a limb off the fox with the guns permitted than actually kill it instantly), poisoning is no better either (i think its illegal, but its not uncommonly practiced amongst some poorer farmers), trapping doesn't kill the animal it just captures it (although most people drown the fox in its trap when its caught- sounds horrible i know, but its probably more humane than the others methods, although in comparison to hunting with dogs it isn't in my opinion).
When you compare hunting with hounds to these methods, hunting with hounds takes a lot quicker (most hunts last only 5-15minutes tops on average) and kill the fox quicker too and cause it less suffering in the process of killing etc. If you want fox's to be killed in the least cruel manner possible, then perhaps you shouldn't have been campaigning against the hunts but rather things like the snares.

 

[Mycernius]

When it comes to the killing part, traps and guns are actually less humane as they can actually take longer to kill the fox.

After being persued by a pack of hounds I suspect the foxes stress levels are somewhat increased to the point of terror. Hardly humane to be then cornered and ripped apart, no mater how quickly, or slowly it takes.

The moment the fox gets caught by the hounds, its lucky to last a few seconds-

How does that make it 'Lucky'?

shooting isn't all that humane though because its very difficult to shoot a fox with much accuracy with the guns permitted-

Rifles are still permitted in the UK with proper sights.

Trapping doesn't actually kill the fox and snaring is very inhumane.

At least a trapped fox then can be dealt with in a more humane way than being shot or ripped apart. Just a side note, I know someones father who traps grey squirrels in cages. He then throws them into a deep body of water an drowns them.

Hunting with hounds is actually very effective, where have you based your assumption that it is not most of the time?

Excatly how many foxes does a hunt manage to kill every weekend they have a hunt? I'm pretty sure one man with a rifle is more effective, or come to think of it the M1.

 

[Sarapva]

But the main problem with the fox hunting ban is that they aren't really any humane methods to kill fox's. ...When you compare hunting with hounds to these methods, hunting with hounds takes a lot quicker (most hunts last only 5-15minutes tops on average) and kill the fox quicker too and cause it less suffering in the process of killing etc. If you want fox's to be killed in the least cruel manner possible, then perhaps you shouldn't have been campaigning against the hunts but rather things like the snares.

Thanks for that informative description about the fox hunting. I don't think I've known anyone who actually did fox hunting (though some of my older relatives probably did), and I've never heard anyone talk about it from that close of a perspective before. I do agree that methods like poisoning, snaring and trapping are very inhumane.

I have relatives who have a farm in England, and though I'm not in direct contact with them I know they're trying to do things the natural way (raising grass-fed cows, etc.). It does sound like it's been a struggle for them, though.

I'm sure those who've had direct experience with fox hunting would understand better the implications of banning it. But there must have been lots of British citizens against fox hunting also for it to have been banned.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

After being persued by a pack of hounds I suspect the foxes stress levels are somewhat increased to the point of terror. Hardly humane to be then cornered and ripped apart, no mater how quickly, or slowly it takes.

At least a trapped fox then can be dealt with in a more humane way than being shot or ripped apart. Just a side note, I know someones father who traps grey squirrels in cages. He then throws them into a deep body of water an drowns them.

So you believe that trapping is more humane? Well i ask you this- don't you think a fox trapped in a cage is going to be scared sh*tless too? Your average farmer is probably only to check the traps once a day, so the fox could spend an entire day trapped in a cage before it is found and then killed. The fox trapped in the cage is going to spend far longer in a state of stress than the fox being chased by the dogs- and while drowning is not a bad method of killing, its always going to take longer than the fox which gets caught by a pack of hungry hyped up hounds.
So the trapping and downing method is always going to cause the fox stress for a much longer period of time and whatever method of killing it is not going to be quicker than the fox getting ripped to shreds in a few seconds by a pack of hounds. Do you really think that trapping is more humane than fox hunting taking these points into consideration?

"Snaring and trapping.
Conservancy Trust and gamekeepers recognise that cage traps are not effective for rural foxes.

In either case, the fox is held captive in unnatural surroundings. It is likely to be severely distressed, which it cannot resolve through its natural mechanism of flight. When the fox is found in the trap it then has to be dispatched by a means which is available.

Snares and traps are required by law to be inspected only every 24 hours. In practice there is only the trapper's conscience that might ensure regular inspections actually happen."

"When, and if, a fox is caught it is killed almost instantaneously by the hounds as a result of either cervical dislocation or massive compressive trauma to the thorax. The weight of a fox-hound is approximately 75lbs and the weight of a fox about 15lbs. The fox-hound has a powerful jaw capable of killing on impact. There is no chance of the fox being wounded and escaping. Once the fox has been killed, the hounds may tear the already dead carcass apart, but this is irrelevant to suffering. What is relevant is that the fox does not have the mental capacity to imagine what it has never experienced before and will have no premonition of death"

"Prof. David Macdonald and others (Managing British Mammals 2000) suggest that the average duration of a hunt to be about 30 minutes. Surveys undertaken by the MFHA in 1997, 2003 and 2004 involving 33 hunts, 290 hunting days and 1048 fox finds showed an average length of chase of 27.5 minutes. 159 foxes were caught "above ground" . 30% of the kills were achieved within 5 minutes of the find."

http://www.mfha.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=48

How does that make it 'Lucky'?

I was using a figure of speech, so to speak. The fox isn't lucky, but my point is that the fox is only going to have a few seconds to live once its in the jaws of a pack of hounds.

Rifles are still permitted in the UK with proper sights.

I've never owned a gun but i can say for a fact that a variety of guns are owned by farmers and not all of these have sights- i am sure price is a major deciding factor in buying a gun, the shotgun is a particularly popular gun of choice where i grew up. Even if you do have a sight on your gun though, thats not going to make you an expert marksman. A clean kill can never be guaranteed though, even by an experienced marksman. Not every farmer is going to own a gun though and from the farmers point of view, trapping is always going to be more cheaper.

"It needs a high calibre rifle (i.e. over .22) used by a skilled marksman in ideal conditions. It is vital that the fox is visually identified as the target species; is stationary; that the marksman has sufficient time to take proper aim; and that he has an unobstructed view of the fox.

It is only practical for large scale control when carried out at night from a vehicle (hence vehicular access is necessary) with a lamp and whistle to "call up" foxes, but foxes soon become lamp shy. "At night" means anti-social hours, involving more than one person. Fox Control in the Countryside (GCT 2000) suggests a strike rate of "0.2 to 0.6 foxes per hour" which with 2 men equates up to 10 man hours per kill.

Suitability is limited because it cannot be used, even in many rural areas, due to the danger from stray bullets and ricochets (a high velocity bullet can kill at up to 3 miles). The dangers, whether on open moorland or where people, animals, cars or buildings may be concealed from view, are obvious.

A clean kill can never be guaranteed, even by a skilled marksman. Not all who use this method are skilled marksmen, and when unskilled marksmen use rifles, the risk of wounding is high. Skilled marksmen would have to be trained and paid for if other control methods are banned or restricted.

When wounding does occur, it can be assumed that the fox's suffering is prolonged and intense, even if it recovers but the more so if it dies from its wounds or starvation."


"Shooting with shotguns.
Wounding occurs frequently because the killing power of shotguns decreases exponentially at ranges above 20 yards. The risk of wounding increases correspondingly even for a well aimed shot.

Foxes are likely to be shot when moving which presents a more difficult target and less time to aim. When they are moving away from the shooter, which is frequently the case, foxes are especially vulnerable to being wounded as they will be shot at from behind.

"Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes" peer reviewed and published in Animal Welfare (May 06) concluded that "there was no (shooting) regime that had no probability of wounding, a factor that varied dramatically with gun-type, ammunition and range. " Wounding rates were much higher than previously claimed – up to 50% in some cases.

Scott Henderson reported: " It is significant that the RSPCA consider that the cruelty involved in shooting foxes is such as to make it an unsatisfactory substitute for hunting and that they would prefer hunting (to which they are naturally opposed on ethical grounds) if its abolition were likely to lead to an increase in the amount of shooting" and concluded "

We have no hesitation in saying that, unless very great care is taken, shooting may be an extremely cruel method of control".";

http://www.mfha.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=48

Excatly how many foxes does a hunt manage to kill every weekend they have a hunt? I'm pretty sure one man with a rifle is more effective, or come to think of it the M1.

It varies a massive deal- i never personally attended any fox hunts, my friends did, but the fews hunts which i did participate in were more along the lines of pheasant shooting, which is a different matter. As far as i am aware though, fox hunts can claim as many as 15,000-20,000 foxs a year, which is about 3% of the fox population. However not long before the ban on fox hunting, fox killing by shooting increased 10 times (and i'm sure its a great deal higher these days).

"Fox Control in the Countryside (GCT 2000) reported " Several discretionary aspects of present-day foxhunting influence the number of foxes killed. The amount of land any pack attempts to hunt, the number of meets per season, the distribution of meets in relation to fox abundance, and the length of the hunting season all determine culling intensity - as do the decision as whether to dig out foxes that have gone to ground, and the proportion of the season run under early season rules. For many hunts, current choices on these aspects can only be interpreted as a policy of moderation, implying that the impact of hunting could be increased if desired.";

http://www.mfha.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=48


So you see, in comparison to other methods of killing fox's, fox hunting was one of the best methods there were for killing foxes humanely. There is less cruelty in fox hunting than in most other methods of control. A popular myth is that the fox is killed by being torn apart by a pack of hounds when it is still alive. This is not true.
Figures on the Foxman website show that during the Second World War, when fox hunting ceased, the fox population went into decline, because farmers took to shooting them all.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thanks for that informative description about the fox hunting. I don't think I've known anyone who actually did fox hunting (though some of my older relatives probably did), and I've never heard anyone talk about it from that close of a perspective before. I do agree that methods like poisoning, snaring and trapping are very inhumane.
I have relatives who have a farm in England, and though I'm not in direct contact with them I know they're trying to do things the natural way (raising grass-fed cows, etc.). It does sound like it's been a struggle for them, though.
I'm sure those who've had direct experience with fox hunting would understand better the implications of banning it. But there must have been lots of British citizens against fox hunting also for it to have been banned.

I never participated in fox hunts myself, they never really interested me when i was growing up on the farm. We did pheasant shooting but that was about it as far as the hunting went.
We also occasionally employed people to shoot the deer on the farm to keep their population numbers in reasonable levels, we liked the deer a lot on the farm so we never shot them to eradicate them, however unfortunately illegal poaching from trespassers on the farm became a major problem as the years went by and the poachers ended up eradicating almost all the of the deer, which was a shame. I remember growing up as a kid on the farm, when i was very young i would wake up early in the morning at first light and i would see the herds of deer (there were two main herds of deer on the farm about 30-50 strong each) eating the crops in the early morning as they came out of the woods, but unfortunately the big herds were wiped out by the illegal poachers.
Although we didn't want the deer herds to be wiped out by the poachers, it was necessary to keep some control over their populations as my parents planted thousands of tree's on the farm and deer have a particular liking for eating young sapling tree's, so it was important to make sure the deer numbers never rose too high so that the young tree's could have a chance at survival (which many did in the end, there are now over 10,000 tree's of native varieties growing on my mums farm , although unfortunately my father never lived long enough to see their glory).


Some random statistics about rural and urban life in England and Wales;

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/rural0305.pdf

edit: And a few more;

"Almost one million households in rural England live in poverty, a study says";

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7273516.stm

So life is pretty harsh for many living in rural area's.

The reason why i believe fox hunting was banned is simply because these matters are decided on the decision of the majority rather than the minority- the majority of people live in urban area's these days and (although i hate to stereotype) many people who live in the cities really have little understanding of rural matters/affairs, yet on the other hand many of these city folk believed that they should have a say in rural matters even though their decisions over what happens in rural area's will not affect them. In essence, its people voting over what happens in other people's business. I am positive that if people living in urban area's had not been allowed to vote on the fox hunting ban, then there would have never been a ban on fox hunting.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

The reason why i believe fox hunting was banned is simply because these matters are decided on the decision of the majority rather than the minority.

No offense but... that's how democracy works.. are you kidding?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

No offense but... that's how democracy works.. are you kidding?

Not every decision made under democracy was right. Plenty of bad decisions have been made under democracy- this is not to say that i have total issue with democracy, but rather that i believe that probably some decisions should be best primarily undertook by those most relevant to them- this is not flawed logic and is something i think should certainly be taken into consideration when concerning certain matters.

Misinformation was also another factor that i believe played a large part in people's opinions on fox hunting etc, which i do not think helped. I hope that the fact i was raised in the countryside on a farm in a farming area and that i do know much on these matters, my posts will hopefully help inform others here on the forum who do not come from such backgrounds etc so i can help them to understand these sorts of matters better and take new fresh perspectives into consideration etc .

 

[Mars Man]

There is probably much embedding which could be done here to uphold any number of points brought out in relation to this particular thread, although such would likely even be better on yet another thread. We would surely run into debate without conclusion, but that which would well develop and present the several positions held, by digging downward into just what the life force actually is, and how without that, there could of course be no pain nor death.

Now, for the moment however, I'd like to take a meditative, Ghandi position, and ask that any fires of possible jealousy be quenched with blankets of patience, so that the thread can resume its course in discussing the fuller details that both sides have to present.

It is without doubt whatsoever that many animals kill for a reason, whatever that reason may be; especially is that true of the Homo sapien. I seriously doubt that will change anytime soon, although it would be nice if it were to start changing from the top down, sooner.

Well, I may open a thread for that then, since it would be the most fundamental base from which all such threads (those in whaling too) are projected from. Such would likely save much trouble, perhaps.

Let's please let this thread go on, then, as a good discussion of the topic of this thread, as pointed out in post # 10, above. Thank you !!

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Not every decision made under democracy was right. Plenty of bad decisions have been made under democracy- this is not to say that i have total issue with democracy, but rather that i believe that probably some decisions should be best primarily undertook by those most relevant to them- this is not flawed logic and is something i think should certainly be taken into consideration when concerning certain matters.

You simply can't have your cake and eat it too. So you want a vote but only certain people can participate? Who decides who votes on what, how do you measure the personal relevance? What a mess that would be! It's very nice to say that from where you sit but can you even begin to imagine the logistics involved in trying to dissect and apply democracy in that fashion? It violates so many principles it wouldn't even get first reading as a piece of legislation.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

You simply can't have your cake and eat it too. So you want a vote but only certain people can participate? Who decides who votes on what, how do you measure the personal relevance? What a mess that would be! It's very nice to say that from where you sit but can you even begin to imagine the logistics involved in trying to dissect and apply democracy in that fashion? It violates so many principles it wouldn't even get first reading as a piece of legislation.

Look, you don't get my point, and my point was that misinformation played a large part in anti-fox hunters opinions and that if city people had not been allowed to vote then it is pretty certain that the fox hunting ban would have never happened.

I have already said i do not take issue with democracies system- but if you still do not understand my point, to further it i was making a point that the fox hunting ban was not necessarily the right thing because of these factors i have just spoken about (i.e. like the widespread misinformation and ignorance of such issues etc).

Fox hunting was one of the least cruel methods of fox population control and it had many benefits in fox conservation on the whole and the communities that participated in such hunts.

If after this, you still have disagreements or questions etc, then please present them in an in-depth manner with as much logical reasoning as you can come up with. Other people on this thread have achieved this with ease in a straightforward, mature and reasonable manner, so so can you.

 

[Ryuk]

Fox hunting is a bit over the top but it's better than just laying snares and poisoning them all which is what's going to happen if the population keeps growing. Yes, it's cruel but then what about bull fights in Spain, bull riding in the US, eating swans livers in France (not the eating part, the fattening up before that).... the list goes on. My point being, that it might seem cruel but it's a part of our various cultures to do these things and in the end maybe we shouldn't just try to terminate these traditions but just limit them.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Fox hunting is a bit over the top but it's better than just laying snares and poisoning them all which is what's going to happen if the population keeps growing.

Indeed, i totally agree, While fox hunting is not totally humane, its one of the most humane methods of fox population control in comparison to the others available (and it also encourages fox conservation)- so i don't think it should have been banned at the least because it is not the most cruel method (i think if people are to ban a certain method of killing animals, then they should start with the most cruel rather than some of the least cruel etc).

Yes, it's cruel but then what about bull fights in Spain, bull riding in the US, eating swans livers in France (not the eating part, the fattening up before that).... the list goes on. My point being, that it might seem cruel but it's a part of our various cultures to do these things and in the end maybe we shouldn't just try to terminate these traditions but just limit them.

I think if people really have to terminate a tradition, then they should first give people living/upholding the tradition more reasonable options to help fill the economical gaps left by the eradication of such traditions etc. Tradition shouldn't save something alone simply because its traditional, but the needs of people certainly need to be taken into consideration into. The fox hunting ban was very bad for small rural community economies, yet no particular support has been given to the people living in these communities to help fill the losses left by the ban- people understandably in these communities cannot but help feel negatively targeted and then abandoned at a loss in these respects when it came to the fox hunting ban.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Look, you don't get my point, and my point was that misinformation played a large part in anti-fox hunters opinions and that if city people had not been allowed to vote then it is pretty certain that the fox hunting ban would have never happened.

I have already said i do not take issue with democracies system- but if you still do not understand my point, to further it i was making a point that the fox hunting ban was not necessarily the right thing because of these factors i have just spoken about (i.e. like the widespread misinformation and ignorance of such issues etc).

Fox hunting was one of the least cruel methods of fox population control and it had many benefits in fox conservation on the whole and the communities that participated in such hunts-

I get your point, please believe me when I say my reading comprehension isn't that bad. You're essentially echoing the same thing you said last time. City people for whatever reason didn't tender the issue to your satisfaction so they should have therefore not been permitted to participate in the popular vote. That is the jist of what you're saying, whatever spin you want to put on it.

At what point will they be permitted to vote, once they agree with you? How do you know they were misinformed? Where is your hard evidence that city-dwellers didn't research both sides of the argument before voting? How do you even measure something like that en route to justifiably preventing a person or group of people from participating in the democratic process? I'm talking about the PRACTICAL application of your gripe, now. Forget theory.

There's one requirement alone when it comes to democracy, that is being a citizen at or above the age of majority.

If after this, you still have disagreements or questions etc, then please present them in an in-depth manner with as much logical reasoning as you can come up with. Other people on this thread have achieved this with ease in a straightforward, mature and reasonable manner, so so can you.

If you truly mean what you just said, and since you really play on this so much, I trust you will choose to respond ONLY to what I've written from here in, as it is the material that relates closest to the argument at hand and it's what you asked for. It's my factual and honest participation. If you're going to go back over everything I just posted with a fine tooth comb however then you're negating your own professions.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No change' in fox populations
Hunting doesn't really have a huge impact on the fox population in Britain. Whatever nostalgic or contextual preference you give it, it's not required to control them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-deaths-among-our-fox-population-398674.html
What DOES impact fox population is motorists running them over. Nearly 75% of foxes do not live past 1 year thanks to inadvertent population control by motorists.

U.S.
The American fox population is well-controlled partly because of the prevalence of rabies[30] so hunting is not needed to keep the species in check, whereas this disease is not present in Britain

A fully referenced statement which outlines the uselessness of fox hunting as a population control outside of Britain.

Environment
A loosely related but interesting look at how mismanaging sensitive ecological issues and using baid-aid solutions can have negative impacts.

One can think of any number of reasons as to why fox hunting is 'ok', but you won't be able to prove its necessity in comparison to: a) how the dynamics of the fox population are actually influenced, b) how barbaric it is and c) people's foundational beliefs that nature isn't here for the purpose of human sport-killing. And that's why there's a ban at the moment.