Why i am pro fox hunting

[Ryuk]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
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.

I understand the comparison is to show that "natural" e.g. nasty diseases, can control the population better than the past-time of fox hunting - however, I would rather not have to introduce such a nasty disease back into the country just to keep foxes in check. So again we are left with the dilemma of how can we control the fox population in a human manner? Think of the alternatives such as a man-made virus. For example, mixamitosis (sp) that was used to control the rabbit population in Australia. Not a nice way to go for old Peter the rabbit.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I understand the comparison is to show that "natural" e.g. nasty diseases, can control the population better than the past-time of fox hunting - however, I would rather not have to introduce such a nasty disease back into the country just to keep foxes in check. So again we are left with the dilemma of how can we control the fox population in a human manner? Think of the alternatives such as a man-made virus. For example, mixamitosis (sp) that was used to control the rabbit population in Australia. Not a nice way to go for old Peter the rabbit.

Ryuk I clearly see your point. Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that this was the kind of methodology you'd want to actively cultivate. Rather, it appears to be a naturally occurring force that exists unavoidably in wild creatures within the US that is also to everyone's benefit keeping their numbers at bay. I cited it to give fair treatment to the discussion as it may have related to the US.

I completely agree that introducing more of it into the populous as a control, or allowing it to go unmonitored, would not be the best way to control the population either.

 

[Sarapva]

I can see Tokis-Phoenix's point here that trapping and poisoning should have been banned along with fox-hunting if the reason fox hunting was banned is because it's inhumane. And I can also see the points about small villages being left in the lurch. Maybe these villages should have been given more help to compensate for the loss of fox hunting.

But I also believe that all these things are gradually on their way out as we people advance in our development and consciousness, etc. about how our actions affect the world around us. I think part of human advancement is becoming more compassionate.

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.

These are also things that will probably gradually become illegal. You're talking about "foie gras" (the force-feeding of ducks and geese to make their livers large) in France, which has been banned in a number of countries already (but is still going on in the U.S. and Canada). I think it's just the natural movement of things to leave these awful traditions behind (awful because they cause so much pain and suffering on the part of animals for humans' enjoyment) and adopt other, less harmful traditions.

Posted by Mars Man:

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.

That would be a good thread - it would be interesting to look at all these different issues from that one perspective.

 

[Mars Man]

I would like to ask that we all please, now, stay on topic as it is in regards to fox hunting in the UK, again, as I will have pointed out for the third time, I do believe.

Fundamentally, we have two central positions, one pro, one con, with variying degrees of a mixture of those two. (I do not mean necessarily here on this thread, but in real life--as this is almost always the case in knowable reality)

I suggest that we leave political concepts out of the argument central for now--I mean discussing matters of what is or is not democratic process. Also, I reason that there is no need to attack farmers or rual people, nor to belittle them--and I demand that there be no attacks towards other JREF members. As a moderator (particularly the one in charge of this Serious Discussions sub-forum) I have judged that this thread is valid enough in standing as a discussion and debate platform. While the OP could have been worded/framed better, I reason that the first 10 posts clarified the thread's state to a satisfactory degree--by my judgment.

As for other elements which are most foundational in aspect, please allow me to open a thread on that in the near future. Thank you all for your participation, and for your concern and help ! Mars Man

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.

From the site you gave;

"Study leader Professor Stephen Harris, of the Mammal Research Unit at the University of Bristol, UK, described the figures as something of a "guesstimate"."

"By itself, Ifaw says the survey does not show whether fox numbers would increase if people stopped hunting them."

So the figures are not accurate and nor do they prove much of a point.

"However it claims another study, which it also funded with the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) and published in Nature, shows there was no change in fox numbers when hunting was suspended for nearly a year during the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 2001.
Ifaw campaigner Josey Sharrad, said: "This research demolishes arguments by the hunting lobby that foxes need to be killed to prevent a population explosion."


This would only be true if fox hunting was the only method of population control being used on the fox's- but did the Ifaw and RSPCA people not consider that during the time fox hunting was suspended, farmers took to killing them via other means like shooting and snaring etc? Besides, they miss the point.
This i agree with;

"These figures come as no surprise," said Mr Bonner. "All that this research does is prove that the present controls for managing wildlife are effective at maintaining sustainable populations.

"We do not claim that hunting on its own can control the UK fox population," he told BBC News Online. "There is no link between this research and political arguments for or against hunting."


Baka, where have i claimed at any point in this thread that fox hunting with hounds is necessary to control population? No one is claiming such a thing, even in the article you gave.
What i have said is that fox hunting is a good way for controlling fox population on a humaneness level when its compared with other methods.

""Professor Harris said he did not think that a ban on fox hunting would affect fox populations in Britain.

"The number of foxes killed by hunts each year is minuscule""

Ok, now this doesn't make sense. In the bbc link, they say "Of the latest figure, 225,000 of the foxes inhabit rural areas of Britain"- In your independant link they say that fox hunting can claim up to 25,000 foxes a year. This is hardly a "minuscule" number don't you think?

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.

Taken from your link;

"He said: "A fox is lucky to get passed its first birthday and even luckier to pass its second. It is a combination of factors, chiefly motor vehicles. They are also being shot by farmers, caught in snares and still hunted, despite the ban. I think it's had virtually no effect. They are constantly being persecuted for no good reason.""

Hunting claiming 25,000 foxes is a large impact on their population- or are these numbers not high enough for you? Whats your point- that you would have preferred it if more fox's were killed by hunting or something?

These stats are not that great because they don't show that the majority of fox's which inhabit farms are getting killed by the cars or not- he stats are just an average drawn and don't show the area's where the fox's are most likely to get killed by cars etc.
Are you trying to suggest that farmers should rely on cars to kill fox's? What if you don't have any busy face paced roads to sort out the fox's for you?

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.

The badger cull thing is not related to fox hunting bans or anything and i'm well aware of the problems of ecological problems man creates which lead to increases in pest species- in fact i already wrote about this a fair amount earlier, if you read my earlier posts you will realize this...

Also, i have never tried to prove or said in this thread that fox hunting should be kept because its necessary to control fox populations. I simple argued that it is the most humane form of population control on fox's in comparison to the other methods available to farmers, and that it encourages fox conservation as well as benefits the communities that participate in the hunts etc, and these are the reasons why it should not have been banned. You still don't seem to really get my points if you've if you believe that i'm trying to argue that its necessary to hunt foxes with hounds to keep control of their populations. In fact on the contrary, i have stated that fox populations would be more likely to decrease than increase in the absence of fox hunting (please read back through my posts for my reasons for this belief).

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I can see Tokis-Phoenix's point here that trapping and poisoning should have been banned along with fox-hunting if the reason fox hunting was banned is because it's inhumane. And I can also see the points about small villages being left in the lurch. Maybe these villages should have been given more help to compensate for the loss of fox hunting.

Indeed. There are a lot of people that view animal rights activist groups as people who care more for the wellbeing of animals than people. This is not a completely ungrounded opinion when you consider that many animal rights groups don't seemingly seem to care what happens to the communities of people after their hunts have been taken away from them- there has been no attempt by animal rights groups or other groups for that matter to help fill the economical losses left by such hunting bans in such communities.

For a lot of people who were pro-fox hunting and lived in these small rural communities, one of the main reasons why a lot of people were pro-fox hunting was because fox hunting was very good for small rural economies by offering a variety of large scale employment and helped support a multitude of businesses in small communities.
If such people in these communities had been given more help to counteract the losses of the ban on fox hunting, then i am positive a lot of people in such communities would not have fought so vigorously to protect fox hunting. As it stood though, with the fox hunting ban many small rural businesses were forced to go out of business and a lot of jobs were lost because of the ban.

I would actually estimate that the vast majority of animal hunting of all sorts that takes place in the world, takes place in communities which do not have strong economies/much money and do not have very good employment prospects for the communities as a whole. It is a fact that more young people are moving out of small rural communities than moving into them, and this is pretty much because of employment prospects. Had i continued to live on my mothers farm, there would have been no way that i would have attempted to find a well paid job in my village- in fact, up until i met the guy who would become my fiance, my plan was to move out of the village and find a job in the closest town (Salisbury). If small rural communities are to survive and prosper, then a heck of a lot more needs to be done by the government to help improve the prospects of these communities, because little is being done to help them (if anything, the government is actually continuously making life harder in small rural communities).

Considering that small rural communities have been shrinking and their economies getting worser and worser for a very long time now, the fox hunting ban simply displayed itself as another kick to small rural communities economies and the people that lived in such communities.

But I also believe that all these things are gradually on their way out as we people advance in our development and consciousness, etc. about how our actions affect the world around us. I think part of human advancement is becoming more compassionate.

The thing is though, is that you can't ban farmers hunting fox's altogether- these animals still pose themselves as a problem to many farmers and their livestock (fox's also take a toll on many rare wild animals- for example there are an awful lot of endangered native ground nesting birds in my country which often end up on the menu's of foxes).

Chickens in particular are at a large risk from foxes. The only way that you can absolutely guarantee that your chickens are not killed by foxes is if you keep the chickens locked up in a secure barn 24/7.
However this obviously isn't ideal- i personally believe that all chickens should be range. IMHO, the only time when chickens should be made to be kept indoors all the time is when they are chicks are and too small and vulnerable to the elements to be kept outdoors all the time.
When you keep chickens outdoors in pens though, there's always some degree of risk that they will be taken by foxes- foxes are quite intelligent animals and if they are determined enough to eat chicken, they will almost always find a way into the pen. I remember when i was a kid a fox took a lot of my pet chickens- i later discovered that the fox had dug a 3ft deep tunnel going under the pen enclosure (even digging through rubble) just so it could catch the chickens.

When a fox is taking a lot of chickens, the farmer will try to kill it, as once foxes get a taste of chicken they will prefer to hunt them and will start to go to a lot more determined measures than before so they can get more chickens.

So farmers certainly need to have some means of killing foxes- the problem is though is that none of the methods are particularly humane or even always possible for the farmers to use. So there's no point in continuously banned methods of killing foxes until you actually come up with better methods to replace the methods lost- however unfortunately no progress has been made on this front. I don't think people can look down on farmers for killing foxes with the methods they use when no one gives the farmer any better options of killing the critters.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

All those articles are meant to show is that fox hunting, whether YOU purport it to be necessary or not, is apparently not necessary within the larger dynamic of how foxes are (positively or negatively) affected by other human activity and indigenous influences such as disease. The fox hunt isn't necessary for anything, hence, the ban. This is the argument as far as I could gather, not your argument or this JREF argument, but the argument: are the reasons for banning hunting outweighed by the necessity for hunting? Apparently not, and now we have a ban.

You're saying you never said it was necessary for population control but I disagree.

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.

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

A strong correlation between hunting and population management was certainly implied.

At any rate you're taking the things I've posted and misconstruing them as some alternative, definitive model of the fox population. Again, all I'm saying is that any argument the people on the pro-hunting side may have had about their sport being so vital to population management, is not so concrete.

If all you're saying now is that its simply a great community sport and its humane I don't think your position even touched on the major issues as they were reported in the UK.

In addressing THOSE arguments, we're back at square one with regards to 'what is humane' and 'what is necessary' in terms of killing animals (this is now outside of any arguments surrounding necessity, this is more about freedoms being curtailed by the greater good of the 'oceans common' argument, which at the risk of being condescending I will remind you applies to the planet and not just the oceans) and we're at odds over many of the same principles as those in the dolphin threads.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

All those articles are meant to show is that fox hunting, whether YOU purport it to be necessary or not, is apparently not necessary within the larger dynamic of how foxes are (positively or negatively) affected by other human activity and indigenous influences such as disease. The fox hunt isn't necessary for anything, hence, the ban. This is the argument as far as I could gather, not your argument or this JREF argument, but the argument: are the reasons for banning hunting outweighed by the necessity for hunting? Apparently not, and now we have a ban.
You're saying you never said it was necessary for population control but I disagree.
A strong correlation between hunting and population management was certainly implied.

"Sigh", BakaKanadajin there is a big difference between me saying "fox hunting is a good way to control fox populations" and someone saying "fox hunting is necessary to control fox populations"- there are many ways to control fox populations and the point i was making was that i believed it was the best for so-and-so reasons (look back at my posts for numerous reasons described etc) etc.
These things are about as different from each other in saying as say if i said "leading a varied vegetarian diet is a good way to lead a healthy lifestyle" in comparison to saying "Its necessary to lead a varied vegetarian diet to lead a healthy lifestyle" etc- in essence these are actually quite two different opinions..

It is not my fault that you've misinterpreted what i have said or you believe i have said things which i have not. But i'm telling you this now so we can clear these matters up.

At any rate you're taking the things I've posted and misconstruing them as some alternative, definitive model of the fox population. Again, all I'm saying is that any argument the people on the pro-hunting side may have had about their sport being so vital to population management, is not so concrete.

Its pointless posting these articles in a manner which you display as evidence against my opinions (which you've misinterpreted or whatever either way) when these arguments are not being used anywhere in this debate on the forum, and even in your BBC link an important pro-hunter said that this was not their side of the debate. Its not an argument being used here or anywhere in your articles.

If all you're saying now is that its simply a great community sport and its humane I don't think your position even touched on the major issues as they were reported in the UK.
In addressing THOSE arguments, we're back at square one with regards to 'what is humane' and 'what is necessary' in terms of killing animals (this is now outside of any arguments surrounding necessity, this is more about freedoms being curtailed by the greater good of the 'oceans common' argument, which at the risk of being condescending I will remind you applies to the planet and not just the oceans) and we're at odds over many of the same principles as those in the dolphin threads.

Again, you must not be reading my posts properly, because i have never said fox hunting is humane, but rather i have said it is more humane than some other methods of fox population control being used. Can you quote where i have said fox hunting is humane and thats that etc? Because the fact of the matter is that i have only said it is more humane in comparison to other methods (there is a being difference between something being more humane than something else, and something being completely humane in essence).

You're the one who keeps dragging this back to square one, because it seems that no matter how detailed and in-depth i try to write my posts, you seem to keep on misinpretating what i write in my posts etc.

Just to make this sun-shiningly clear over your recent misinterpretations of what i have said and how you have misinterpreted what i have said;

a. Me saying that fox hunting is a "good way" of fox population control is not the same as someone saying "fox hunting is necessary to control fox populations". Taken from my own post (post 13);

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.

Again, i didn't state it as a necessity, but rather that it was more of a necessity (i.e. it has its increasing importance but is not completely necessary) and a good way at controlling pest animal populations (i.e. foxes) etc. The debate of shooting foxes was then discussed, however as i proved with facts about shooting, its not a humane method on the whole due to numerous factors (please see post 16), the RSPCA does not even view shooting as a satisfactory substitute for for hunting etc.

b. Me saying that fox hunting "is more humane than other methods of fox population control" is different from someone saying "fox hunting is humane"- something can be less than humane but still more humane than something else, even though this doesn't make it humane in essence. I quote from my own earlier words what was said (post 24);

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 lastly, can you refrain from bringing up other old threads (you just mentioned "the dolphin threads")- this is not a thread for discussing every form of hunting, animals rights/welfare, cruelty etc issue under the planet (which is what the original dolphin hunting thread turned into which is partly why it was locked because people just abused the thread as a place for a general worldwide animal rights rant etc), this thread is on a particular subject which is not vague in discussion, and i want to keep it that way by keeping it to the direct subject at hand and not make it into another place on the forum for discussing stuff like dolphin/whale hunting etc. I'm trying to achieve this, so so can you- if it helps you achieve this, treat me and this thread as the first time you've ever come into contact with me and base your opinions on this thread and not others.

Anyways, i apologize for rubbing in these points a bit in this post, but they do seem they have to be as clear as possible in all this.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

You have given clear reasons as to why fox hunting is good, like its level of humanity and the benefits of hunting re: population control. But then after those reasonings have been questioned and shown to be mutable (there exists a reasonable doubt at the very least), you partially retract that information and say "Well despite the fact that I heavily extolled its virtues I didn't mean that its the best way, it's just one of the best ways. And agian it's not actually needed to control population, it just really, really, REALLY helps. You're reading too strongly into my words."

That's fine, I don't need to have the last word here, especially not on a topic like fox hunting. My position is that traditional fox hunting is an outdated and unenlightened practice, that it is inhumane, and that the need for it cannot be clearly demonstrated. In responding to the contents of the OP, I do not appear to have been alone in this sentiment, not to mention the fact that there was a democratically supported ban put into effect. I don't feel like I'm defending anything unpopular or wrong here so I'll stop posting now, its case closed as far as I can see, you can have the last word.

But I will repeat one thing because you've gotten it completely wrong, and personally I think this is far more important than any individual topic.

If all you're saying now is that its simply a great community sport and its humane...
In addressing THOSE arguments, we're back at square one with regards to 'what is humane' and 'what is necessary' in terms of killing animals.. and we're at odds over many of the same principles as those in the dolphin threads

Here I am simply explaining that our intrinsic starting positions appear to be different when it comes to how animals should be treated and what their innate value is. I referenced the dolphin thread only to show a link to the principle, I could have used the seal hunt topic instead. All I want to point out is that your idea of humanity is different from mine so we'll never fundamentally agree on MANY things to do with the human(e) treamtent of animals and nature. This is not far-removed from the topic at hand, since you are the one bringing up the topic of hunting within a context of humanity.

It's a long winded way of saying 'agree to disagree' and an honest attempt on my part to just squash the argument and move on with things.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

You have given clear reasons as to why fox hunting is good, like its level of humanity and the benefits of hunting re: population control. But then after those reasonings have been questioned and shown to be mutable (there exists a reasonable doubt at the very least), you partially retract that information and say "Well despite the fact that I heavily extolled its virtues I didn't mean that its the best way, it's just one of the best ways. And agian it's not actually needed to control population, it just really, really, REALLY helps. You're reading too strongly into my words."

What reasons of mine have been shown to be mutable in your opinion?

Secondly, i don't get whats so bad about praising the good sides of something where often little attention is rarely placed on these sides because they go unnoticed or un-thought about etc. If we are to progress as a species, then we need to acknowledge both the good and the bad in things, rather than always label things as entirely good or bad when in fact they're not. Life is not black and white.

That's fine, I don't need to have the last word here, especially not on a topic like fox hunting. My position is that traditional fox hunting is an outdated and unenlightened practice, that it is inhumane, and that the need for it cannot be clearly demonstrated.

Can you accept that there are good sides to fox hunting (for example, it encouraging fox conservation) just as much as there are bad ones?

My main issue with your side of the debate in this is that you can't seem able to accept anything good about something you disagree with on the whole because you disagree with it on the whole, even though you must be well aware that there are positive aspects to fox hunting. Either this is stubborness, denial, or something else- if you disagree that the good points i have raised about fox hunting are not true, then you should debate why you don't think they're good/correct etc.
And anyways, things shouldn't always be decided on a matter of necessity- cars for example claim millions of animals lives and thousands of human lives every year and they also pollute the environment, they cause widespread pollution and loss of life, the fact of the matter is that most of us could actually probably live without cars if we put our minds to it, however that doesn't mean that cars shouldn't be banned on the fact that the humane race can live without them etc.

But I will repeat one thing because you've gotten it completely wrong, and personally I think this is far more important than any individual topic.
Here I am simply explaining that our intrinsic starting positions appear to be different when it comes to how animals should be treated and what their innate value is. I referenced the dolphin thread only to show a link to the principle, I could have used the seal hunt topic instead. All I want to point out is that your idea of humanity is different from mine so we'll never fundamentally agree on MANY things to do with the human(e) treamtent of animals and nature. This is not far-removed from the topic at hand, since you are the one bringing up the topic of hunting within a context of humanity.

If you don't want to debate anymore then you're more than welcome to leave just as you're more than welcome to stay. IMHO its un-progressive though to concentrate on who will have the last say sort of thing for the sake of it- i debate for the point of debate and the progress of opinion, rather than for the point of winning or loosing or having the last say etc.
Seriously, i'm not in this just to have the last say sort of thing etc. Please don't make conclusions about me though, you don't really know me anymore than i know you, so its best that we do not assume to much about each other.

It's a long winded way of saying 'agree to disagree' and an honest attempt on my part to just squash the argument and move on with things.

I can do that if thats want you want- i suppose mutual peace is sometimes better than an unresolved argument/debate.
Anyhoo, no hard feelings eh? IMHO, (just musing over things) its good to debate with those who strongly oppose your opinions every now and then because then you really get to take in different perspectives etc, and this can often only be good . Debating with you about this topic was good stuff in the respect that its been a long time that i've so avidly debated on a topic like this on the forum.

 

[Pete]

I`D Like to know why the Poms(english) need an entire cavalry unit and a pack of dogs to kill one fox?In Australia we only need 1 Ute 1 spotlight & 1 .22 rifle(smallest gun there is)to kill this rodent.Also the Poms indruduced rabbits to australia not once but 3 times ,cause the first two species failed,I guess they wanted something else to run down with there cavalry lol!

 

[bluepilot]

In the North East of England (where I am from, yay, Geordies) we have a special ceremony of `fox hunting` every year whereby people ride out for the hunt with horses and dogs in the special red coats

However, no foxes are hunted or killed. This ceremony is just a parade to preserve the culture but in a humane fashion.

So I think that culture and history can be preserved without resorting to barbaric means. Some places have evern swiched to the drag method so the sport can be played but no animals hurt.

I agree that foxes are a pest, and have come into the cities where they have even been known to kill and eat cats

I think that if a fox ate little `fluffy-kins`, people`s affection towards the animal would change.

I do not like fox hunting though because it turns killing into a sport. I am not against killing of animals when necessary but I am against killing animals for fun.

Though, when it comes to using dogs to kill foxes (as means to an end, not a sport) I find myself on the fence. I think that foxes ought to be killed to control the population and so farmers can protect their farms. But I do not want to think about how...perhaps this is the source of the problem...that people know what has to be done but do not want to get their hands dirty.

If foxes looked like frogs, would we like them as much?