What are peoples veiws on fox hunting in the uk? Do you think it should be banned, is it cruel????

Post your thoughts....

Just in case you dont know what exactly fox hunting is, below pretty much sums it up.

Basicly it involves a fox(S) being chased across miles of countryside by a pack of beagles to the point of exaustion, then being ripped apart to the enjoyment of the huntsmen.

Its just utterly pointless and makes me so angry that these fools go on telly and say "oh, it's totaly humaine bla bla bla bla"

It doesn't seem to have much point. But I'm not British, have never been on a fox-hunt, and generally only know superstition, folklore, and so forth. I've met folks who insist that a fox-hunt is the height of sportsmanship, dignity, and intellect. Apparently you have to know how to coordinate your riding outfit and not fall off a horse. I don't say that as a joke; someone has actually pointed out to me in the past the dignity of uniform.

It seems roughly comparative (though the actual circumstances are indeed different) to a guy I once met whose friends called down to Oregon to let him know their dogs had treed a game cat. He said, "Keep it there." Long story short, the dogs kept the cat in the tree for three days while he traveled up to Alaska, hiked out to the site, shot the cat, took its carcass, and headed off to a taxidermist to arrange stuffing, mounting, and shipping before he flew back to Oregon. That's all well and fine, I suppose. Some people tell me I ought not be judgmental about that, either. But I don't think he should include it in his tales of how great a hunter, how courageous a hunter, how masterful a hunter he is. I mean, the man literally wants to kill two of everything so he can mount them in coitus around the house. To the other, a relative of his was a state game warden somewhere, and resigned of his own volition after he realized he chose his hunting site from an outdated map and had killed an elk--otherwise legally--within a certain range of a road he had not known was there. Nobody knew; he never had to say anything about it. And he did. People found out about the incident when he announced his resignation and explained his reasons: "I broke the law. That's all there is to it." Extreme in its dignity, but that's a man who invests much pride in his hunting, and won't tolerate such an apparently-stupid stain in his conscience without acknowledging it.

For reasons similar to the above comparison, I find the idea of fox-hunting rather barbaric, stupid, and so forth. But who knows? I can't say I've ever seen "English riding" fashions at any gay club ever, but my first thought, literally, is that those outfits are "gay," as in How quickly could I get my ass nailed if I wore that to a club?

I am a hunter who does not understand this "sport". They do not hunt for food, or financial gain or even as effective pest control. They hunt for, what seems to me, simply a sadistic sense of pleasure of inflicting pain and terror on the fox. These appear to me to be the same sort of people who would enjoyed bear baiting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

:m: Peace.

I think there is a real difference between the pseudo hunt we have today where a huntsman buys his snipers outfit from his outdoorsman catalog and waits up in a tree or stalks through a bush with his military surplus rifle and high powered scope, covered in yak piss to keep his scent masked, or whatever he does, and the fox hunt. To my knowledge (and I may be wrong, we don't hear much about this practice in the US) The fox "Hunters" just sort of ride behind and follow the animal while their foxhounds do all the work. That’s not a hunt its just sadism.

I'm not really for either form of hunting, the first is a one sided contest, a ritual I don't understand because I don't need to kill animals for any practical reason, and I don't like things to be hurt. However it is still evocative of the real hunting of the olden days when you needed to feed yourself on what you killed. And besides, with elimination of natural predators, human hunters are necessary. The fox hunt seems like all the suspicions I have about hunters being sadists come true. They don't even want to try to outwit the fox themselves, they just want to see it torn apart.

So I say, no more fancy uniform, no more horse back. If you want to hunt a fox, get a rifle, some military BDUs crawl through the mud on your belly, and pretend that stalking the animal makes you a big man. Otherwise you are just a sissy with some mean dogs.

I find it a bit ironic that typically the fox is depicted as a clever or sly animal, but we chose to hunt it with a pack of angry dogs. . . I suppose he's not so clever that a few larger animals chasing him until they tear into his throat can't kick his ass. What a shame. If the idea is to show man's dominance over nature, wouldn't it make more since to pit his own cunning against a fox and prove that man's wit is dominant over that of even the most tricky of beasts?

I guess what I'm trying to say is hunt foxes with intellect, if you want to test your brute strength (or that of your pack of trained dogs) go hunt a rabid bear or something.

Rehashing a matter that Tiassa bought up: As a gay man I can fully understand the alure of dressing up in a "uniform" of sorts, to get together with your male friends, and have a bonding experience as you peruse a symbol of sexuality and physical attraction. However to then have that symbol mauled by a pack of dogs once you catch it seems to me something of a strange departure from the ritual I am familiar with, and I'm not entirely certain how it fits in with everything else.

I am opposed to being cruel in general and more specifically to those who are unable to give their consent. It is ethically wrong to torture people or animals. If you have to be brutal support blood sports but do not rip helpless animals apart because of an old outdated tradition.

I am all for hunting, because man naturally has hunted for fur and meat and bones for thousands of years.
I am against hunting if it changes the ecosystem.
After reading up on wolves and the way they were hunted in US, I realized, that if man is allowed and somewhat encouraged to hunt, he becomes unreasonably vicious.

I think you may be confused whitewolf. We HAVE to hunt to change the ecosystem. Granted, thats because we already hunted to change it in the first place to eliminate large preditors, but that dosn't mean that we now just let the deer and rabbits and whatnot just breed and breed till they boil out of the forest as a mass of cute fuzzy animal flesh. We need to keep them under control ourselves if we cant have preditors do it.

Bring the wolves back, they'll hunt down your damn deer. And get rid of some moose too :p JK

hehe, that still leaves us with the problem of living with wolves. They are cute and all, but they do attack things... things we like.

Technically nature controls itself and we have no need to interveen, if the population of prey increases then so does the preditor population due to increased food availability, nature keeps itself in check, except we mess that up, especially with over fishing.
The wolves would canabalise themselves or die of starvation, i believe the point to the banning fox hunting arguement is its a pointless killing of a creature for fun, they would not be allowed to hunt a human, or even a domestic animal, so why should they be allowed to kill a fox? If i want to go out on a hunt to capture escaped cons and kill them for fun, i would not be allowed to.

I have a friend... my father has a friend, who captures escaped cons for fun and profit. Well... actualy he is licensed to do this for the state, and most of them are still in the innocent until proven guilty phase, and have merely failed to appear for a court date.

They are cute and all, but they do attack things... things we like
I knew you'd bring that up. They did many, many studies and observations. I'll quote a few in a week.
Wolves hunt on mice. You like mice?

who captures escaped cons for fun and profit.
Dead or alive though? Is he a murderer for fun?

No no, generaly the point is to bring them back so they can be detained and made to attend thier trial, though this bounty hunting is potentialy dangerous, as popular media reminds us. For instance, in the news a few years ago, in my state, bounty hunters for the state broke into somones house and shot and killed too people. Oopse, it was the house next door they wanted. That caused a flap about perhaps ending the practicce of licensing bounty hunters but Im not sure anything was done about it.

Exactly, my point is nature runs its course with animals if we leave them and you cant have one rule for one thing and one for another, if i wanted to hunt somebody at random and kill them i would become a murderer(should i succeed) and that is unacceptable, the most common arguement for keeping fox hunting is tradition(and sometimes those have to be broken) and the jobs that would be lost, but thats what retraining is for, i simply dont think hunting anything down for sport is fun, its just barbaric.

The infliction of suffering for pleasure is revolting and should be made illegal. I can see no difference between partakers in this particular pursuit and those whom have a proclivity for nailing frogs to trees.

The British aristocracy is so hopelessly inbred* and pampered they have lost the ability to inspect their traditions beneath a modern, humane spotlight. The French had the right idea - "Orf wiv their 'eds!"

(*How do you circumcise an aristocrat? Kick his sister in the chin)

f

I believe that hunting is an acceptable past time as long as it is not deliberately cruel. If you want to shoot the fox then that is ok if you want to watch it be torn to pieces then that is just cruel. Man is always going to affect the population balance and eco system in some way. My objection to the fox hunt is that it is cruel without a purpose. The fox is tortured and then is not eaten or skinned it is just so much dog food.

Unfortunetly, shooting is not always as painless as being chased to the point of exaustion and then being ripped apart.

I watched some footage on Newsnight, wich showed a "goverment employed fox hunter" shoot a pregnant fox, he didnt kill it outright so he preceeded to kick it and then throw it in the air before smashing its brains out, the noises the fox was making were spine chilling.

Its all very well to say fox hunting is cruel along with shooting and that they should all be banned, nature is itself very cruel but you cannot ban nature.

Everyone fails to see the fact that in fox hunting they hardly ever kill a fox or even spot a fox on the hunt, its a rareity. All us townies see this as cruel and want all these things banned outright because the little fluffy foxes have done no wrong but the fact of the matter is the fox is a vermin, it kills livestock and the media would have you believe every time that a hunt takes place at least a few foxes are torn to bits - this is a myth generated by the media to dramatise the whole affair.

Ok in the grand scale of things you could say that its not man's place to try and rid his fields of vermin because man should be taming the land or whatever other excuse you may come up with but this is reality and vermin must be controlled some way.

I have no idea how you can relate fox hunting to shooting, two entirely different sports. Shooting is way more humane, usually the animal is killed outright instantly and these cases of shooting in the stomach or whatever so the vermin is not killed instantly is a rarety so please dont get confused. Usually the animals are shot an eaten so its not just a waste.

I voted no simply for the reason, you start banning one thing for cruelty and then it leads onto the banning of other activities because rarely is the banning of one thing enough. Where can you distinuish one sport being more cruel, you cannot, Im sure shooting and fishing could be classed as cruel - scientists have found that fish do infact feel pain - also so that means they too must be banned. Itll carry on until there are no field sports left and as a consequence the farmer's fields will be overrun with animals destroying his crops.

See that peice of premium steak sitting on your plate, the cow that was killed to get you that peice of steak was infact killed by electrocution and thats not completely painless either, so you must ban the killing of all animals because in whatever way its done its cruel as the animal feels somesort of pain in the process.

:)

Why then, do fox hunters claim they keep fox numbers down? they do find and kill lots of foxes.

Yes, fishing and hunting are both cruel, but nowhere near as brutal and pointless as fox hunting.

Okay, maybe they do kill loads of foxes through fox hunting. I always thought that was an excuse invented to justify fox hunting. By the way Im indifferent to fox hunting, I really didnt care that it was banned but it does concern me that other field sports will be banned also.

Do you not agree that banning shooting and fishing is the next logical step as protesters look for the next thing to ban? It appears so to me that it could easily be justifyable on the basis that its cruel and barbaric because it doesnt require the use of any high-tech gizmos to do the killing like in humane abatoirs but the use of a simple tool - thus making it seem more barbaric and it causes pain. How many towns people actually shoot anyway so its not like your losing a popular sport, I can certainly see shooting being banned next in Britain.

:)

Okay, maybe they do kill loads of foxes through fox hunting. I always thought that was an excuse invented to justify fox hunting.
No i think your right they dont even average 1 per hunt, thing is they are vermin for killing chickens, so why dont they just protect the chickens better? if the fox digs under the chicken coup then submerge a plank of wood at the bottom to prevent it, they just want their sick and brutal fun, vermin and keeping numbers down is the excuse for it.
Do you not agree that banning shooting and fishing is the next logical step as protesters look for the next thing to ban?
I agree but dont support that next step i think the reason most people are ok with other kinds of hunting is if its done for food or for an actual purpose, i dont think anything should be hunted just for fun i think thats sick and brutal and we might as well hunt humans if you want fun, it would certainly be more sporting.

i remember listening to my uncle talk about hunting and how they have to hunt or the deer will overbreed and take over. but whitewolf got me to thinking about this. she's right. we have eliminated the natural predators that keep huntable animals in check. the problem is that people are unwilling to live among other animals unless they are on leashes or have a cute furry tail. a bear gets into someone's garbage...OH MY GOD GET YOUR CHILDREN INDOORS and then you have a bunch of wannabe hunters from new jersey out trying to shoot it. these predator species are not dangerous to humans until we do something to them. wild wolves do not attack or eat humans. neither do bears. big cats don't hunt humans (although they are more dangerous if you bother or frighten them). if you can walk past a small cat without jumping out of your skin, why can't you ignore the mountain lion that has come down into the town? it's not trying to eat you.

captain, there are plenty of people who would be in favor of that.
p.s. a vegan friend of mine likes to joke...with a lip piercing and a straight face...about how cruel fishing is because you put a hook through the fish's lip.

Captain, I agree with you that people would try and get other hunting types banned, although fishing is cruel, the fish are usually caught to be eaten.
:)
Only fox hunting should be banned for the moment, untill such a time comes where fishing becomes a pointless cruelty.

Hmm, id imagine if you put a lion in the middle of a town, there'd be a rather big decline in the towns population :D

Hey, look at it another way, youve got something that can be done quicker with a man with a gun, but the British, (english especially) manage to get dressed up and have a day out an contribute money to the local economy. not to mention the waste meat disposal capabilities of a pack of hounds.)
So, Whilst I dont like many of the people who take part on hunting, i dont really think it should be banned. Just make sure they dont dig the fox out, or torture it, etc.

captain, there are plenty of people who would be in favor of that.
Yes, usually townies that have only seen real animals on television and have no grasp on the real concepts of the countryside.

Captain, I agree with you that people would try and get other hunting types banned, although fishing is cruel, the fish are usually caught to be eaten.
I know more people that go out to catch fish to throw back than for eating. So they inflict pain on the fish for absolutely no practical purpose. Its cruel.

:)

Why then, do fox hunters claim they keep fox numbers down? they do find and kill lots of foxes.

You know this idea of fox hunting to keep the fox population in line has got me thinking a bit. We have foxes in the US, but we don't have Fox Hunting, yet somehow, those foxes aren't overrunning our farms and homes. They aren't boiling out of the forests to destroy agriculture as we know it. But then I also know next to nothing about the breeds of foxes present in the US vs. the UK, and am none to well versed in fox population statistics, so I suppose this should all be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally i think you've got it right, nature keeps them in check in the US without need for hunting.

In the UK foxes are a common occurance in towns and cities, this is mainly due to litter louts just throwing food on the pavement. Foxes are litrary overrunning towns and cities as well as the countryside. Humans have a big part to play in this I suppose.

Overrunning towns and cities? I have only seen one in the last few years, and that was because someone left food for it in the garden, and what about rats overrunning towns and cities? There are billions of them if they ever decide to leave the sewers.
If we clean up after ourselves and stop hunting foxes nature will keep them in check, they dont have an unlimited food supply and when the population is too high they will die out.

I'm British and fox hunting's a part of our heritage.
However, I voted YES to ban it. We don't need it in the 21st Century.
And foxes are kinda cool...!

The Flemster.

YES


because it's disgusting, retarded, idiotic, moronic, stupid, pathetic, a waste of time, a waste of foxes who are beautiful and in danger of being extinct...

and anyone who votes "no - it should be kept" should be covered in fox scent and sent out to be torn to pieces by poor inocent dogs who are trained to hunt them down. Then their skins should be hung from trees and spat on by passers by who then go on to stomp on their graves. And if there really is a God, then he shan't be merciful and shall pack them off to Hell where their souls shall be condemned to an eternity of pain, suffering and having their asses speared by tridents.

This goes for any type of sport hunting, non-esquimos with expensive fur or crocodile or snake coats/hats/blankets/shawls/gloves/boots, all the defenders of bullfights, shark hunting, rhino killing, elephant killings, whale hunters, tiger hunters of any other fucking bastards with no respect for anything.

And I'm being merciful here.
Bastards. Bastards. Bastards. They disgust me.

That was quite a tirade. What is special about Eskimos that they should be allowed to continue hunting? Their reasons, cultural heritage, are the same as the British fox hunters reasons. They don't have to do it, they could get with the 21st century program and stop killing animals, but they cling to this practice because it is their heritage. What is different here?

Esquimos are like south american indians and african tribes - you can't inforce a so called "civilization" on them, or a culture because they have their own views and necessities. As for the British - who parade themselves as educated, everyone knows that only the rich pompous bastards with nothing else to spend their fucking time on go to the fox hunts. It's the most pathetic thing in the "civilized western world" after wars. You can't pretend to be educated, attempt to uphold some sort of judiciary system and defend the human rights if you're not intelligent enough to undestand why SPORT hunting and fishing is disgusting, despicable and outright moronic. It's an offense to dignity and those who are truely educated.

Hunting and bullfighting is a tradition here and I hate the Portuguese as much as any other nations or individuals who do anything that comes close.

That still sounds like a double standard to me. If the Eskimos can hunt because they apparently don't know any better, I think the British can claim it too.

I am all for hunting, because man naturally has hunted for fur and meat and bones for thousands of years.
I am against hunting if it changes the ecosystem.



Yeah retard; I can tell you're really smart.

You're all for hunting because its tradition? Great. Let's abolish courts and stone people to death. That used to be a tradition. Let's sacrifice children when it rains to appease the Gods. What a brilliant tradition.
Lets stop evolution and live in caves. Brilliant idea, mate.
How about shoot the idiots that defend hunting? I say that tradition should be started.

You're against hunting when it changes the ecosystem? Wow eh, that's a REALLY inteligent comment. When does killing animals faster than they can reproduce NOT damage the environment?

That still sounds like a double standard to me. If the Eskimos can hunt because they apparently don't know any better, I think the British can claim it too.

The pompous rich British fox-hunting bastards are a disgusting section of the so called "upper class" and NOT a seperate culture. Please; I beg you to make use of your brain.

At what point should they be defined as a separate culture? They have different lifestyles jargon and mannerisms.

I'm British and fox hunting's a part of our heritage.
However, I voted YES to ban it. We don't need it in the 21st Century.
And foxes are kinda cool...!

The Flemster.

Way to go Flemster - we are clinging on to British heritage and ethnic identity and you want to rid a part of it. If we don't stop the threat now in 20 years or so we will be looking at this country and thinking - what was world war 2 all about - we've lost our land.

Esquimos are like south american indians and african tribes - you can't inforce a so called "civilization" on them, or a culture because they have their own views and necessities. As for the British - who parade themselves as educated, everyone knows that only the rich pompous bastards with nothing else to spend their fucking time on go to the fox hunts. It's the most pathetic thing in the "civilized western world" after wars. You can't pretend to be educated, attempt to uphold some sort of judiciary system and defend the human rights if you're not intelligent enough to undestand why SPORT hunting and fishing is disgusting, despicable and outright moronic. It's an offense to dignity and those who are truely educated.

Hunting and bullfighting is a tradition here and I hate the Portuguese as much as any other nations or individuals who do anything that comes close.

Sounds like you hate everyone in the world LOL!

Don't tell me, lemme guess - You're a vegetarian. :D

Actually; I'm not, and I like my meat... it's called survival - not sport hunting.

At what point should they be defined as a separate culture? They have different lifestyles jargon and mannerisms.

You're telling me the so called "british upper class" is a seperate culture? *sigh* then you are lost beyond mine or anyone elses help.

You don't HAVE to eat meat to survive - thats why we are omnivorous. Remember that the next time you have a dead meat sandwich.

I rather a dead meat sandwich than a live one, actually.

We are omnivorous because we need meat, or we'd be vegetarians. So much for your philosophy. Check your teeth. See any canine teeth? Their on either side of your incisors. Now take a guess at what type of cabbage and tofu those were designed for.

I asked you at what point a culture has sufficient divergence that the culture gets a free pass from social responsibility. You are the one who said that native cultures should not have to abide by the restrictions that are placed on mainstream culture. My point is that everyone is someone else’s freak. I do not believe that any form of affirmative action is helpful in the long run. When you encourage people to be divisive then they only end up marginalized in the long term.

I don't see what your point is. I don't know exatally at what point a group becomes a new culture, but I doubt a 'class' can be called one.
If you wish me to say that eskimos too should not hunt, fine by me. But they eat what they hunt as well as use the fur for protection.

You're a cheeky bitch Jaded, I was trying to humour you but you are just another snotty working class snob.....LOL!

Begone you nonetity.

well, mine was as much a joke as yours. no need to get nasty.

Ban fox hunting? A resounding YES!

Fox hunters make all sorts of really lame excuses about keeping fox hunting;

It's traditional. Well, no, it's not. It was popularised by cavalry regiments as a way of training horsemen. Hence the rigid structure of the hunt and it's hierarchy, and the fact it appeals to the upper 'officer' classes.

It's pest control. No. Foxes are sometimes imported for hunts. Hunts take place in farming areas that are completely arable. Hunts aren't always successful. So if a fox has been in your chicken coup, you don't wait until a week next Sunday, for a bunch of toffs to dress up silly, and try and kill the first fox they come across. You want the fox that has a taste for chicken dealt with immediately.

It brings money to the rural areas. Arse. I spend money in rural areas and don't kill anything. I pay for horse riding lessons because I enjoy riding horses. People who loved the country way of life for real could still ride horses too. So it's the killing they are interested in, not livelyhoods.

They would have to destroy the hounds if hunting were banned. Oh, appeal the dog lovers that are the British public. Well, tough shit, destroy the dogs. I have two dogs, and would rehome a hound, if only they were suitable animals to keep as pets. But they aren't. They are bred to be vicious, and would be a danger to domestic dogs and children if let loose. They only work in the pack for four or five years anyway, and then, guess what? get put down anyway! So the pro-hunters show duplicity and dishonesty here. The hounds could be kept for drag hunts anyway, but again, it seems those that profess to love the country way of life need to kill something, and will abandon all support for their way of life else.

Fox populations would die out/overrun the are iof left unchecked. There's absolutely no evidence of either claim, both of which are made by pro hunt groups. Othe countries without this barbaric passtime don't have problems with their fox populations, and neither would we.

banning hunting is an infringment of the hunter's rights. No, it's a statement about the fox's rights, and how humanely we should treat animals. But a bunch of guys that mistreat hounds to keep them mean wouldn't understand ethics.

It's the tip of the iceberg, shooting and fishing will be next. Nope, I just want to ban foxhunting, because it's pointless and barbaric. Fishing is pretty boring and pointless, I don't want to fish personally, but if folks are the sort of dullard that thinks it's fun, carry on. Shooting. Well, I shoot, so no, I don't want to ban shooting. I only shoot at targets, and people (paintball). I don't understand why some people want to shoot small furry animals under the guise of 'pest control' that isn't performed in other countries where they have no problems, but until some research shows they are damaging the ecosystem, hunters can carry on. I prefer my prey to tooled up and able to shoot back however, so don't see the appeal of shooting dumb animals.

So, ban fox hunting. 50 years after the ban, people will wonder how we ever tolerated it in the first place. Also, I'd like to see ban on bull fighting. Not that it happens in the UK, of course.

And there should be a crack down on cock fighting.

GOOO Phlogistician!!!!!!!

Yes! Ban bull fighting too!!! It happens here, bastards!

We'll never get rid of cock fighting as long as the word "cock" is involved. I never knew what was funnier when I was a teenager, the fact that my skis were called Le Coq Sportif or the picture of the little chicken.

Of course, I dropped out of a college that had Donald Duck for its mascot, so the folks in South Carolina have nothing to worry about.

Stupid fox hunting bastards Thrill of the chase, eh? Lets chase them with APCs, helicopter gunships and then fire cruise missiles at them!

GOOO Phlogistician!!!!!!!

Yes! Ban bull fighting too!!! It happens here, bastards!

Actually, I'd just like to change the rules of bullfighting. It could continue if;

It was mano a torro, single combat.
Neither Mano nor torro wore clothes or carried weapons.

That would be a fair fight. I wonder how many heroes we'd get stepping up for it though ;-)

Ban it. Its extremely cruel . The bastards who do it need a good kicking. We are meant to be having a law banning hunting with dogs. The labour party got into power using this as one of their platforms.That was in 1997. I have seen hunts, and it is barbaric. the fox will run to ground (hide down a hole) after out running everything for hours. Then more often than not, a couple of "sportsmen" will dig it out. the poor fox then has to run again until caught and ripped to bits.

I think hunting for pleasure is fine if you do it with your bare hands. If you can run after a fox on foot for ten miles and then tear it apart with no tools i would have no problem with that.

As Oscar Wilde said,"The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". bastards,all of them

It was mano a torro, single combat.
Neither Mano nor torro wore clothes or carried weapons.



Yes; that I'd like! Los toros ganarán!

The only thing that the Eskimos have going for them is that it is for food and is not overly cruel it is done as efficiently as possible. My understanding of fox hunting and cock fighting etcetera is that they are needlessly cruel. I do not believe that it is right to torture living creatures even the most aberrant of criminals do not deserve torture.

not even weasels! :)

Well well well.

What a lot of uninformed prejudice I have just been reading. This looks like a place that could do with a little bit of straight talking from somebody who rides to hounds.

Lets start with the foxes. Why are they hunted? Because they're vermin, that's why. They damage farmers' livelihoods by taking lambs, poultry, game birds (yes, that's right: game birds. My hunt is in one of those "arable farming areas". Our farmers derive part of their incomes from game shoots. If old Reynard takes all their young birds, though, then no game shoot - no income from that source - not good). So farmers want the numbers of foxes running about on their land kept in control. They always have, and they always will.

Therefore they invite (yes - that's right, INVITE) the hunt to come onto their land a few times through the winter and hunt their foxes. The hunt gets its sport - the farmer gets his foxes controlled - and everyone is happy.

It's not the ONLY fox control measure that most farmers take, of course. It is only one of a range of measures which, all added up together, make for a total fox control package which keeps fox numbers at a level where the farmers do not perceive them to be a serious risk to their livelihoods.

(Which, of course, is why the opponents of foxhunting are able to produce statistics showing that fox predation levels are very low. Of course they are. They're low because fox numbers are kept low. The fox control effort is working!)

Now, if the fox population is to be kept down, which is better: that the surviving population should consist of fit, healthy examples, or that it should be riddled with mangey, sick and diseased animals? Anyone vote for the second option there? Nope, didn't think so. Right then - of all the fox control methods available, which is the ONLY one that is selective in the foxes it takes? Yup, you've got it - hunting. The fit healthy fox can usually (not invariably, but usually) outrun the hounds. The sick and the injured cannot. So the fox hunt helps to maintain a healthy fox population by selectively cullign the poorer breeding stock.

Isn't that rather undesirable, you might ask, if we're in it to control foxes? Not at all! The healthy, fit fox is likely to be the fox which can feed himself from teh hedgerows, without having to venture into man's domain to try to feed himself from the chicken coop. Coming into the farmyard is a high risk strategy for a fox. That in itself will deter all but the most desperate fox. But for the desperate fox, the payoff may justify the risk. And who are these desperate foxes? Why, they are the hungry foxes, of course. The sick, the weak and the injured, who cannot feed themselves from the hedgerows because they are outpaced by the hare.

Not only is the fox hunt selective, it is also the only means of killing foxes which doesn't leave a wounded fox to suffer. EVER. Hounds either catch the fox - in which case they kill him - or they do not. The marksman does not invariably kill. Especially not the marksman with a shotgun, which is the only weapon which it would be safe to deploy across the majority of the British Isles. Sometimes, they wound. And what becomes of the wounded fox? He slinks off and dies a long, agonising death of gangrene, perhaps. Or starves to death because he is no longer able to feed himself. Good news for the fox? I think not.

Snares and traps may leave a fox trapped and suffering in agony for hours - even days. Depending upon how often you check your traps. Is that desirable? I think not. There are also stories (although I have no first-hand experience so cannot confirm them) of foxes gnawing off the snared leg in order to escape. Hmmm ... not too keen on that one, either.

Poisons? Gas? Get real ...

Which leaves hunting with hounds. Foxhounds, not beagles ... beagle packs are harriers. They go after hares, not foxes.

So what happens on a fox hunt?

Well, first of all, we get up horribly early, and go and prepare our horses in the dark and the cold, box up and travel to the meet. Many members of the hunt can only attend the Saturday meets, because they have full time jobs. They are, indeed, drawn from all walks of life. Many of them are struggling to keep their horses on average incomes or less. It is NOT just a load of rich snobs and layabouts. If you don't believe me, go to a hunt meet and talk to a few of the people. They are publicised in Horse & Hound magazine, although only about a week in advance. We are NOT secret societies - although one or two hunts, which have been particularly affected by the lawless activities of some of the opponents of hunting have had to adopt a much more cautious approach. But for the most part, in the rural shires, there is no secrecy about the hunt meets, and visitors are welcome to come and see for themselves.

Refreshments are usually available - a couple of sausage rolls and a glass of mulled wine or port is about the norm - and then we move off. The huntsman - who is usually a paid employee of the hunt - controls the hounds, assisted by one or two "whippers in". The whippers in (or "whips") are responsible for enforcing discipline in the hounds. Making sure that they don't run off chasing things they are not supposed to chase. It is generally considered to be bad public relations if the hounds should chase and kill the vicar's cat; and for the most part they don't.

The huntsman takes the hounds to a covert - a piece of woodland - where it is considered likely that there may be a fox or foxes. Reliable members of the hunt will be sent out on "point" to watch the edges of the covert and "holloa" if a fox comes out. The hounds will then "draw" the covert - working through it seeking out a scent. Meanwhile, the field master, who is in charge of the mounted followers, will keep the followers out of the way of the hunt so they cannot distract the hounds. Typically they will wait a field or so away.

Sometimes the followers will take a more active part. The covert may be close to a village, for instance, and you don't want the fox and hounds runnign into a school playground (especially if it's a midweek hunt and the children are at school) so the followers will be instructed to "line off" and, if a fox shoudl come in that direction, they make as much noise as they can to turn it back the other way.

When the covert is drawn, one of four things might happen:

1. It is "drawn blank" - no fox, no scent. The huntsman gathers the hounds back together, and moves on to another covert.

2. A fox is seen to run from the covert. The person who saw this will "holloa". Hounds and huntsman will come to the sound of the holloa, and the person who gave it will point the line that the fox ran. The huntsman will put the hounds on that line. They will quickly pick up the scent because it is very fresh, and the chase will be on.

3. Hounds "mark to earth" - that is, they find a fox which has gone to ground, and they indicate his location. What happens next depends upon teh landowner's wishes. Either the fox will be dug out and shot, or he will be left. With my hunt, since the landowners are mostly farmers with game shoots to protect, foxes which go to ground are usually dug out and shot. There is, plainly, no "sporting aspect" to this part of the hunt. It is pure pest control. It is also, obviously, not selective. But a few of our landowners specify "no digging" - and if so, a fox which goes to ground on their land lives to fight another day. Under no circumstances, however, is a fox which has been dug out released and hunted again. Once he has been dug out, he is shot.

4. Hounds "speak" - indicating that they have found a scent - but no fox is seen. The fox HAS BEEN there - but now could be several fields away, or several miles away. Could even be in the next county by now. Hounds follow the scent, and we follow the hounds. Then one of two things happens. Either the scent gets stronger and hounds eventually catch up with the fox; or it gets weaker and hounds eventually lose it.

An important point to realise here is that, when you read of a fox being hunted for three quarters of an hour over 4 miles, that does NOT mean that the fox runs for 4 miles with hounds hard on his tail. That means that it is three quarters of an hour between hounds first speaking, and either killing or being called back. During the whoel of that time, they may not even SEE the fox. They may be follwoing his scent the whole time. And if so, the fox may not even be AWARE that he is being hunted.

Once the fox is in sight, it is usually over very quickly. Hounds are now hunting by sight. They are runnig flat out in pursuit of the fox. The fox is runnign flat out in order to escape. Horses are running flat out in the effort to keep up. If the fox is faster than the hounds, he will soon make good his escape. If not, he will soon be caught. Since hounds can run faster than horses, this phase cannot last too long because the huntsman cannot afford to let the hounds run too far on ahead of him, and MUST call them back if they do not catch quickly.

IF hounds catch a fox, what is his death like?

Quick, is the answer. The Burns inquiry heard evidence from all sides of the debate. Despite the claims of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and others liek them, Lord Burns did NOT accept that hunted foxes suffer long, agonising deaths being ripped apart. His finding was clear and unambiguous - although he found that death was not invariably by a "quick nip to the neck" he nevertheless found that "insensibility and death occur in a matter of seconds" once hounds caught up with a fox.

OK - so that's why foxes are hunted, and how they are hunted, and what goes on when they are caught.

What about the people who hunt. Why do they do it? Well, there are probably as many reasons as there are hunters. But I've yet to meet anybody who is motivated by bloodlust.

For one thing, it is a rare privilege to be there at the kill. Bear in mind that the field master has been keeping the "field" (the mounted followers) out of the way of the hounds. So they are already a field or two down when hounds start running. And then, once hounds are "coursing" (hunting by sight, rather than scent) they can outrun the followers' horses. It takes a combination of determination, fine horsemanship and luck to be in at the kill. I have managed it once. And then I wasn't even aware it had happened until somebody pointed it out to me, teh whole thing was over so quickly.

Was that typical? I cannot say for certain, only having had the one experience of it. But from listening to those who have been at many kills, it does not seem to be atypical.

I derive immense enjoyment from the challenge of unpredictable cross-country riding, from seeing hounds work, and from knowing that I am taking part in a worthwhile community activity. I see no issue over enjoying being part of an enterprise which is about killing foxes, ONCE I am satisfied of the need to kill foxes (which I am) and that it is not unnecessarily cruel by comparison with other available methods of killing foxes (which, also, I am). It cannot be right to say "It's OK to kill foxes, because they're vermin, but only if you promise that you will hate every moment of it". That would be absurd.

Judging from some of the previous posts on this poll, I suspect there will now be a great queue of people just waiting to shoot me down from a position of ignorance and prejudice. But I hope that those who frankly confessed to knowing little about the subject will have found these observations helpful.

Oh yes - and one last thing. The smearing with blood. "Blooding" is not commonly practised these days, although it does still occur in some hunts, including my own. It is certainly not an obligatory rite of initiation - you have to ask to be blooded. It is traditionally administered when a member of the hunt has been present at their first kill. That is when I was blooded. And it seems to me that it performs a useful function - obliging the hunt follower to confront the reality of the activity. Yes, it is great fun - but it is also about killing foxes. Can you cope with that idea?

I don't think any of us can say for certain how they will react when confronted by a newly killed fox, until it happens. I know I didn't, but I recall the occasion with great clarity. I looked down at the dead fox and I thought "That's a dead fox. That's what we're here to do." - and then I asked to be blooded.

This isn't true hunting, it is a rich persons idea of fun. A true hunter would track animals on foot and kill only if it was needed for food or survival. Why don't they use cameras instead, then they could relive the "chase" over and over again having their tea and crumpets!

In my book hunting to protect husbanded livestock and therefore enhance the available food supply is every bit as legitimate as hunting in order to eat the quarry, cosmic traveller.

And making use of the available resources (including, in this case, hounds and horses) is what man has always done best.

Does something that is otherwise justifiable cease to be justifiable if the person who is doing it enjoys doing it? If not, then the fact that we enjoy our hunting is as spurious a point as ever there was.

Does something that is otherwise justifiable cease to be justifiable when it is done by a rich person? If not, then the alleged fact that fox hunters are all rich people (which is patently untrue in any event - get out to a few hunt meets and open your eyes, if you don't believe me) is even more of a red herring.

If you want to go round with your fingers in your ears saying "La la la I can#t hear you" and forming your own views of matters totally uninformed by any consideration of the actual facts, that's up to you. But if that's what you want to do, you should at least have the grace to keep your prejudices to yourself rather than advancing them in support of a misconceived proposal to have my activities criminalised.

If you've something worthwhile to say, I'll happily discuss it with you. If not ...

Your pissing into the wind. It will be banned. Who gave you the right to kill for fun? A fox has as much right to live on this planet as you. Protect livestock my arse, when have you seen a fox take down a cow? What have you got to say about all of the cases seen in the media of obvious cruelty dished out by hunt supporters etc?

Aha!

So the test of morality is not whether something is right or wrong, but whether it will or will not happen? How very enlightening.

Cows are not the only livestock, and I do not recall saying that foxes took down cows. I seem to recall saying that they took lambs, poultry and game birds. I notice that you are not disputing that - presumably because you are aware that it is true?

And I happen to believe that those whose livelihood consists of raising livestock for food are perfectly entitled to protect that livestock by killing predators or - alternatively - by inviting others onto their land to kill their predators for them.

So far as media reports are concerned, it is a bit difficult to respond to a generic enquiry of that kind. Bring forward a specific example, and I will give you a specific response. I do not condone lawlessness, and where it exists than I would support the prosecution and punishment, according to law, of any offenders. That applies irrespective of whether the offenders be my friends, or people who in their eagerness to prevent animals from suffering seek to further their cause by stubbign cigarettes on my horse's rump.

However, do please bear in mind that many such press stories are fed by sensationalist press releases from the opponents of hunting. Many of these releases are subsequently, when the case comes to court and is duly thrown out, to have been hopelessly inaccurate. But the press doesn't report THAT bit. You don't sell newspapers with the headline "Hunt supporter didn't eviscerate saboteur's poodle after all".

So all the video tapes of hunters, and their supporters barbaric acts that we have seen, their all faked? Sensationalist some of them may be, but that does`nt mean that its not true. I`m not a "townie" ,some of my family farm. So i do understand your point of view. Your economic case for hunting is exceedingly weak, all costings for game birds take into account losses due to road deaths, foxs etc. When did you last see a field with 50,000 chickens in it? their pretty much all battery farmed indoors.Sheep are more likely to be savaged by an idiot walking his dog off the lead , and you know that the farmer will shoot the offending dog- not give you a call to stampede all over his crops to hunt it down. By all means enjoy riding cross country, drag hunting. But don`t try to defend the countryside alliance`s stance.( That has been shown to be utterly wrong by government report) Yes from the farmers point of view foxes are vermin, and as such shoot them. Sprouting about that is a cruel method does`nt wash either, if the farmer does`nt kill the fox outright they don`t give a toss. You know that if he`s winged it, he knows it will crawl off to die, and as far as the farmer is concerned it won`t be bothering his livestock again.
As to your morality statment, 70% of the UK think it is morally wrong. Now if you enjoy the hunting scene, tell me whats wrong with drag hunting? all the thrills but none of the kills. The public would have no trouble at all with that, but i don`t think you and your ilk would go for it. No barbarism eh?

Hmmm ... if you are untroubled by the idea of a fox which has been shot and winged crawling off to die a slow and agonising death, I have difficulty seeing what your objection is to death at the jaws of the hounds. Those who label hunting cruel generally do so on the grounds that they consider it causes the fox to suffer to a degree which, to them, is unacceptable.

It cannot seriously be argued that the fox who has been wounded by the shotgun and then dies slowly over the next week suffers LESS than the fox who dies at the jaws of the hounds, even if he first has to endure a pursuit as long as an hour or an hour and a half (and I have never known such a pursuit). So given your stated position on the shot fox, your objection to hunting cannot logically be based upon the extent of suffering involved. So it is based on ... what, exactly?

You seem to be prepared to accept that farmers should be entitled to kill foxes on their land - why are you unable to accept that they should be able to invite others onto their land to kill their foxes for them?

Economic case for hunting weak? How so? We provide a fox control function to farmers which is free at the point of delivery. We bear the cost in its entirety. Sure that cost to us exceeds the cost to the farmer of buying a few shells for his shotgun and investing a few hours of his time touring his hedges and coverts; but that is not the point, is it? From the farmers' point of view we are cheaper - more economically efficient - than going out with his gun. Why? Because the other aspects of hunting appeal to us sufficeintly that we are prepared to shoulder that cost. It is a complicated interaction of a number of different considerations.

Countryside Alliance stance shown to be wrogn by government report, eh? Which report is that, then? Chapter and verse, please. It's a bit difficult to respond to vague innuendo other than to say that I know of no government report that has shown the Countryside Alliance stance to be wrong. So, following the usual rule of civilised debate that he who alleges must prove - your allegation. Your proof, please?

Video clips .. hmm. Notoriously apt not to tell the whole story, and dangerous to form a judgment on the basis of them. But even assuming that the clips you have seen all tell an accurate story of unacceptable brutality by some people who support hunting - so what? It is a non-issue. How can you say that what I do when I follow my hunt is wrong, because of what somebody else may have doen following a different hunt? Let us put the same argument into the context of your farming background, shall we? Some farmers have been convicted of cruelty to animals - that doesn't make all farming wrong, does it?

70% of the British public think hunting is morally wrong, do they?

How many of those 70% are actually properly informed as to the issues? Tell me that.

I used to think hunting morally wrong, too, when I wasn't properly informed as to teh issues. I didn't favour a ban, mind you, because I am not so arrogant as to think that my views on such matters should be enshrined into law and forced upon other people. I am a tolerant individual, you see, and prepared to accept that there is room for more than one view on many an issue. But then people who tried to convince me that I ought to be in favour of banning it told me that I shoudln't take any position if I wasn't properly informed as to the issues. So I went out and got myself properly informed - and discovered, in the process, that in my ignorance I had been completely wrong.

But then it's easy to put together a simplistic argument such as "killing things is wrong - hunting is killing things - therefore hunting is wrong".

But just because an argument is easily constructed, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right, does it now?

Back to your 70%: how does that compare with capital punishment? What percentage of the UK population think that we should reintroduce hanging? If you count those who will say "Yes - but only for certain offences" then I imagine you're well over the 70% mark. Doesn't make it right though, does it? Capital punishment is morally wrong - no matter what the offence charged. And mere statistics of public opinion doesn't alter that one iota.

And then we have the delightful red herring of drag hunting.

We're discussing whether or not fox hunting should be banned. The cogent arguments in favour of a ban are based upon cruelty and cruelty alone. If they are well founded then they are well founded, irrespective of whether or not some or all of us could hunt drags instead of foxes.

The fact is, of course, that draghounds and bloodhounds need a much larger country and have to restrict their numbers in a way that fox hunts do not. In part this is because drag hunts do not confer any benefits on the farmers over whose land they hunt, but there are other aspects ot it as well. If you're interested in reading up on them, there's a very good article abotu it on the Masters of Draghounds & Bloodhounds website. But that fact is a red herring. If you are right - and if our activity is cruel - then it is not a sensibel response to say "But you must let us continue it anyway because there's nothing else we can do instead" is it? If you are right that (a) our activity is cruel, and (b) that all cruel activities must be turned into criminal offences, then the draghunting question is irrelevant. And if you are not right on both (a) and (b) then it doesn't help you, because you have already lost the argument.

I don't have a convenient drag hunt. If I did, I doubt I should follow it. But that's a personal preference. If that was ALL I was after - a hard run over a predetermined route - I could get that any time I wanted by joining UK Chasers and boxing out to any of their excellent cross-country routes.

But the attraction of fox hunting for me does not lie ONLY in that one element - as you will note if you refer back to my earlier posts on the subject.

You can try to "justify " fox hunting any way you want but it really comes down to believing what you do is somehow correct and the right thing or not. I don't think that fox hunting for sport or pleasure is right but do think foxes should be kept in check if they are killing farm animals. I just do not think that trying to kill something just for the "sport" of it is in any way a good thing society should put up with.

How about preventing foxes from killing farm animals in the first place? Farmers do bugger all to prevent any killings and then when something dies call in the cavalry to chase the thing down, what do you expect a fox to do? It is a predator, if chickens are easy pray it will kill the damn chickens, it aint rocket science.
It is barbaric to make the animal suffer, whether you shoot it and leave it for dead or chase it, its cruel, i tell you what cob nut, we'll chase you with some dogs and horses and see if you like it, or perhaps we'll shoot you and leave you for dead, think thats fair? You think your above everything else because your 'civilized' which is total bullshit because you dont even hunt it to survive, you do it for sport, the fox is trying to survive, you survive anyways, and dont use your arguement about foxes running wild if you dont keep them in check, they have a limited food supply in the wild that could only sustain a limited number of foxes, get the farmers to protect their land better and you wont have any problems will you? Apart from of course you lose your barbaric sport, and you want everyone to feel sorry for you because of it.

Well said Lemming, off to football now, laters folks

Again I suggest a change, to take photographs or video the fox but do not actually run the fox down and kill the fox. See how great your videos are instead of the fox dying. That way you can trot after the fox (without dogs) on horses then video the fox running into its burrow where its babies are.

Cob Nut you seem to want to do something so why not start a POLO club and get your friends to play with their horses in a game you can all enjoy and afterwards you can gloat about all the scores you made.

Lemming - you may be too young to remember this, but farmers used to try your solution.

They shut up all their chickens in intensive rearing units.

And people like you shouted "that's cruel - let them run free". And there was a big backlash against factory farmerd chicken. And of course, it was compeltely tasteless anyway, so nobody in their right mind would want to eat it anyway.

So - free range chickens are the thing these days. The fashionable thing. The things your sophisticated urbanites who pull all the economic levers of power but actually know bugger all about the reality of the industry which puts their nice, neatly packed free-range chicken carcass on the shelves of their Tesco Metro week in, week out choose to eat.

So what exactly do you propose the farmers do to keep the predators at bay from their free-range poultry? Do you have any ideas? And are they both effective and cost-effective? Or are they both hopelessly impractical and guaranteed to drive the farmers out of business?

Cos you see, the farmers I know (shrewd business men all, who know what they're talking about) are very clear about the best way to stop predators taking their poultry. It's easy really. You have an ongoing cull of predators, to keep their numbers down at a level where they are not going to cause you major problems.

And no, they don't wait until the foxes are actually taking their poultry and then "call in the cavalry". They take active steps to prevent it, all year round. If they're out with their gun and they see a fox, they shoot it. A couple of times a year they invite the hunt to cross their land and clear the coverts. It all adds up to one thing - prevention of predation before it takes place. That's what it is all about, so far as the farmers are concerned. Like I said, it's a complicated activity which you need to understand fully before you condemn it. The farmers want us there to control their pests. We want to be there because it is fun. If you pretend that it is ONLY happening because it is fun - then you are mistaken. If you deliberately turn a blind eye to this fact havign had it explained to you, then you are willfully misrepresenting the truth. But then, I'm sure you'd never do that, woudl you now? Perish the thought!

And yes - this control of pests involves killing animals. Some of you seem to recoil from that thought. I don't understand why.

Every time I put down poison for ants or rats, or slug pellets to protect my lettuces, or spray my fruit trees with aphicide, or set a trap for the mouse which has been defacating in my larder, or hang a fly paper, or call in Rentokill to deal with a cockroach infestation, I am killing animals. I have yet to meet anybody who has a problem with this. Every piece of meat I eat comes from an animal that has been killed. I don't have a problem with this. The poultry I eat has reached my table because it has been protected from predators. Some of those predators have been killed. I don't have a problem with that.

Mankind as a whole has claimed the right to kill animals for his own ends. I don't have a problem with that guys - but if we as a species claim that as a right, who the hell are any of you, as other members of the species, to tell me that as an individual member of the species I do not have that right.

OK - back to the hunting. I go hunting because I enjoy it. But the hunt isn't there solely for the enjoyment of the participants, the way the drag hunt is. It is there to fulfil a useful rural function - the control of predators. That's why there's a whole load of farmers will let a fox hunt cross their land which would never let a drag hunt cross their land. 40 or 50 horses don't cross your land in winter without causing it a certain amount of damage. If they're doing you a favour, you tolerate that damage. If they're not, why should you?

Back to the Rentokill man who kills cockroaches, is that OK? If so, does it make any difference to how OK it is if he actually ENJOYS killing cockroaches? Is it a job which should only be done by somebody who hates every moment of his job?

Of course it's not.

We accept the utility of killing cockroaches. Therefore we are content that Rentokil is killing cockroaches - and don't give a hoot whether or not the man who does the killing derives enjoyment from his job.

Now tell me what's different about hunting?

The rural community - the community that is actually engaged in the day-to-day task of making a living off the land and putting food onto the shelves of urban supermarkets accepts the utility of killing foxes. They don't give a hoot whether or not the hounds who kill the foxes and their professional handlers are followed by a field of followers who enjoy being there for the occasion and the ride (but seldom actually see any killing taking place). But your sophisticated urbanites have suddenly decided that there IS a problem with it.

And so they've looked about for arguments against it, and are hell bent on turning it into a criminal offence, even though for the most part they haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

A certain lack of coherence in their arguments is the inevitable result.

"It's cruel" they say.

What's cruel? The fact of killing, or the method?

The fact - say some. An argument that I will take from a committed vegetarian, but not from somebody who happily includes dead animals which SOMEBODY has killed in his diet, and doesn't condemn THAT as cruel. And even then I'd expect my committed vegetarian to eschew insecticides and other things that might protect the vegetable crop - because if a vegetarian thinks it's OK to kill animals to protect his vegetable crop, who the hell is he to lecture us on the morality of killing animals to protect our meat crop?

The method - say others. But most of them don't actually have the first idea how the method actually works (see me earlier posts if in doubt); and in any event they are unable to suggest any adequate, less cruel alternative method of killing. So they fall back on "why kill foxes at all" - but we've already covered that, have we not?

Then others at all just spit venom about us being rich (I'm not), privileged (what does that mean to somebody who has no chip on his shoulder then??), or making fatuous comments about red coats (which seem quite popular in the context of other British institutions such as the Brigade of Guards and the Tower Warders - so plainly there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a red coat).

Now, Lemming dear - do me a favour will you and stop trying to tell me what I think. You do not have some telepathetic ability to read my mind. If you want to know what I'm thinking, then ask. But to present your own prejudices about me as though they were fact and refuse to listen to what I actually say about the matter is not the way to carry on civilised debate, is it? And I thought these forums were about civilised debate?

No of course I wouldn't like to be hunted myself. But come to that, I wouldn't like to be farmed, transported to an abattoir in a cattle lorry, killed, cut into pieces and sold as steaks in Tesco. And nor, I imagine, would the vast majority of the population.

But I'm happy to buy a steak in Tesco and eat it, even though I wouldn't personally like to have been through the process that that steak has been through to get onto my plate. And so, dear boy, are the vast majority of the Great British public - including those urban sophisticates who are baying for the criminalisation of my healthy outdoor winter recreation (and probably bemoaning the couch potato tendencies of their own uncouth offspring in much the same breath).

But the great difference between them and me is that I am no hypocrite. I do not apply a different standard to the two things. If the charge is that I think I am above animals, and the fact that I am prepared to kill or be responsible for the death of animals is sufficient proof of that charge, then yes I'll plead guilty to that - as should every other meat-eating bug-blatting rat-poisoning Rentokill-hiring member of our society. And that is most of them. So don't pretend that it is some great failing on my part - it is the normal condition of the human race. It's just many of them haven't the moral courage to recognise it in themselves, nor the honesty to recognise that this makes it hypocrisy in them to condemn it in others.

Cosmictraveller - I'm not overlooking your point, honest.

It's just in your case I think the answer is very simple.

First - it is simply factually incorrect to say that we are hunting foxes "just for sport". We are not. The followers are there for the sport of following the hounds. The huntsman and the hounds and the whips are there to control predators for the farmers over whose land they hunt. Hunts which do not kill foxes soon lose their permission to hunt their territory. It is a complicated balance - and the job of the Masters is to ensure that teh farmers get their foxes killed and the followers get their sport and that everyone is happy (which, by and large, they are).

Therefore, as I say, it is simply factually inaccurate to describe fox hunting as killing foxes "just for sport".

But if, despite that, your position remains that you can accept the need to control predators but not that it be done by foxhunting, I will ask you two questions:

1. Would you agree that, if predators have to be controlled, the use of the least cruel method available must by definition be entirely unobjectionable under all circumstances? and

2. What method of controlling foxes do you believe there is, that is safe and practical to use in these overcrowded islands of ours, which involves a lesser degree fo cruelty than hunting them with hounds?

In my humble opinion I'd still look at the way you hunt foxes is for sport since you are not the ones affected by the foxes doings. There are other ways to dissuade foxes from eating ones livestock, one being having the livestock protected by dogs or other animals that foxes don't like. That means the dogs are on your property and set free to protect the livestock by chasing the foxes away.Another idea would be to enclose the animals that you want protected better so that foxes won't get into to their cages. Another way is to feed the foxes something that keeps them full so that they need not kill your livestock. I will still say that to shoot a fox you catch in your livestockes area would be just as good if that is what happens.

Lemming - you may be too young to remember this, but farmers used to try your solution.
They shut up all their chickens in intensive rearing units.
And people like you shouted "that's cruel - let them run free". And there was a big backlash against factory farmerd chicken. And of course, it was compeltely tasteless anyway, so nobody in their right mind would want to eat it anyway.
To my knowledge intensive rearing units were cramped, and thats why they were called cruel, that was far from what i suggested.
The things your sophisticated urbanites
I would hope your not grouping me in that, i live in the countryside and foxes are beautiful in the wild, and it is very cruel to hunt them.
So what exactly do you propose the farmers do to keep the predators at bay from their free-range poultry? Do you have any ideas? And are they both effective and cost-effective? Or are they both hopelessly impractical and guaranteed to drive the farmers out of business?
How stupid do you have to be not to realise that placing a solid wooden fence will keep foxes out and free range chickens in, no need for cruelty to anything then.
the best way to stop predators taking their poultry. It's easy really. You have an ongoing cull of predators, to keep their numbers down at a level where they are not going to cause you major problems.
The predators come back, again and again, try keeping them out then they wont come back as they cant get anything, and get it through your head their numbers wont go sky high, the population can only go as high as the availability of their prey, which as it is must be pretty high if these chickens are such easy prey for them. :rolleyes:
And no, they don't wait until the foxes are actually taking their poultry and then "call in the cavalry". They take active steps to prevent it, all year round. If they're out with their gun and they see a fox, they shoot it.
I disagree with that practice aswel, and this isnt helping your case, they shoot foxes without them doing anything, thats even worse.
prevention of predation before it takes place
And its not the only way so dont use this arguement.
The farmers want us there to control their pests.
You said yourself its prevention, their not even pests yet and your still killing them, they havnt done anything you just go out and 'prevent' them from doing anything, by your logic i can kill you to 'prevent' you from killing a human(which you may or may not do, see the problem here?).
We want to be there because it is fun.
Tell me something i dont know.
If you pretend that it is ONLY happening because it is fun - then you are mistaken. If you deliberately turn a blind eye to this fact havign had it explained to you, then you are willfully misrepresenting the truth. But then, I'm sure you'd never do that, woudl you now? Perish the thought!You wont consider any alternatives, because it would prevent your sport and fun, your just cruel and a poor excuse for a human.
Every piece of meat I eat comes from an animal that has been killed. I don't have a problem with this.
When you eat the fox maybe i'll let you kill it, you dont, you do it for fun.
It is there to fulfil a useful rural function - the control of predators.
Its not the only method, its just the most fun method for you, and thats why you do it no matter what you claim.
40 or 50 horses don't cross your land in winter without causing it a certain amount of damage. If they're doing you a favour, you tolerate that damage. If they're not, why should you?
They wouldnt have the damage if they kept the foxes out in the first place.
Back to the Rentokill man who kills cockroaches, is that OK? If so, does it make any difference to how OK it is if he actually ENJOYS killing cockroaches? Is it a job which should only be done by somebody who hates every moment of his job?
Of course it's not.
If you can come up with a way to keep them away i'd prefer that to killing them, same goes with foxes and there is a way to keep them out, you just wont look for it.
But your sophisticated urbanites have suddenly decided that there IS a problem with it.
Again with that word, use it on someone else please.
What's cruel? The fact of killing, or the method?
Killing when theres a reasonable alternative without killing, the fact its done for sport only, and the method is very cruel, you dont hunt the cockroaches do you? Your not content to shoot foxes you must hunt them, that says something about you.
An argument that I will take from a committed vegetarian, but not from somebody who happily includes dead animals which SOMEBODY has killed in his diet, and doesn't condemn THAT as cruel.
You dont kill the fox for food, you do it for fun, nice try.
because if a vegetarian thinks it's OK to kill animals to protect his vegetable crop
I'd hope the vegetarian would be smart enough to protect his crops without the need for shooting innocent creatures before they even touch his crop.
So they fall back on "why kill foxes at all" - but we've already covered that, have we not?
Yes and you confirmed you do it for fun, before the fox has even done anything.
Then others at all just spit venom about us being rich (I'm not), privileged (what does that mean to somebody who has no chip on his shoulder then??), or making fatuous comments about red coats (which seem quite popular in the context of other British institutions such as the Brigade of Guards and the Tower Warders - so plainly there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a red coat).
Never heard the red coat arguement, cant say i agree with it, and its mostly undertaken by rich people but i dont give a shit if your rich or poor your still barbarically cruel.
Now, Lemming dear - do me a favour will you and stop trying to tell me what I think.
You admitted all you needed to, and i never said what you think, i said what i think about your practice that you admit is for fun.
But to present your own prejudices about me as though they were fact and refuse to listen to what I actually say about the matter is not the way to carry on civilised debate, is it? And I thought these forums were about civilised debate?
If i wasnt listening i wouldnt be responding to you, i'd be saying im right your wrong nanana, did i do that? I think not.
But I'm happy to buy a steak in Tesco and eat it
Again you eat the steak not the fox, and you dont hunt the steak for fun.
including those urban sophisticates who are baying for the criminalisation of my healthy outdoor winter recreation (and probably bemoaning the couch potato tendencies of their own uncouth offspring in much the same breath).
Again with those words that dont always apply, and theres a large difference between not being a couch potato and being a hunter for fun, just because its an active 'sport' doesnt give it anymore credit.
If the charge is that I think I am above animals, and the fact that I am prepared to kill or be responsible for the death of animals is sufficient proof of that charge, then yes I'll plead guilty to that
Actually i think the charge is you kill for fun and ignore alternatives that dont involve killing and so wouldnt satisfy your bloodlust, if you wish to raise a fox for the sole purpose of food and kill it please do, but dont find a wild one and hunt it for fun and no other purpose, it is cruel no matter what you claim, there are alternatives but you dont wish to explore them, or even look for any because you like the way it is. Theres a difference between raising cattle for steak and hunting a creature for fun, the problem is you fail to see it, you are not defending anyones livestock as you said earlier you do it for prevention aswel, the fox doesnt have to do anything to incur your wrath except be living, if people are reincarnated i hope you come back as a fox.

Very well - lets clear the air of a few misconceptions shall we?

The actual killing is no part of the fun of hunting. There is no "bloodlust" involved. I have heard claims such as that many a time, and they're all a load of baloney. Go out and follow a few hunts. See what goes on. Then see whether you still think it's all about "bloodlust" and "killing for fun". (Oh - and just so you don't go getting the wrong idea, a "holloa" is nothing to do with bloodlust - it is a means of communication.)

The killing is about pest control; and it is done at the behest of and for the benefit of the people whose livelihoods will suffer if predators are not kept in check. Virtually the only people who get to witness the kill are the professionals who are employed to work the hounds.

If you do not believe this, then explain what you think is going on when the fox goes to ground, and the hounds and the mounted followers go off somewhere else, and the terriermen stay behind to dig the fox out and shoot it. Fun? Bloodlust? Or part of a fox control operation for the benefit of the landowners who have told the hunt that they want any fox that goes to ground dug out and shot?

If, as you allege, hunting was a case of killing solely for the pleasure of the hunt followers, there would be no digging out. But there is. And that fact alone is sufficient to prove that you are mistaken.

Solid wooden fences to keep foxes out? Don't make me laugh! Have you any idea of the economics of food production in this country? The low margins that most farmers work on? And the cost of solid wooden fencing? The only way most hill farmers will be able to keep their lambs enclosed by a solid wooden fence is if some kind, altruistic person goes and builds it for them. Are you volunteering for the task? No - I thought not.

It's easy to sit with your head in the clouds - whether thye be urban clouds or rural clouds - and tell other people that what they do is wrong, they must do it some other way, or they must not do it at all. But before you attempot to meddle in other people's lives you really ought to make sure that first of all you understand what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

Banning hunting will not save one single fox - and arguments about whether farmers shoudl be killing foxes on their land or not have no place in teh hunting debate. The fact that farmers are going to want foxes killed is a given, whether you like it or not.

There is no more numane way of killing a fox than hunting it with hounds - with the possible exception of "lamping" with rifles. That was the conclusion of the Burns enquiry, commissioned by a government which was considering legislating on fox hunting. But the use of rifles over most of Britian is ruled out by simpel consideratiosn of safety and population density. Therefore, in most of Britain there is no more humane way to kill foxes than to hunt them with hounds.

I do not see you arguing otherwise.

You say you do not like the farmers shooting foxes. Ban hunting, Lemming, and there will be a lot more of THAT.

We never leave a wounded fox to suffer. We either catch it - in which case it is killed - or it gets away. No crawling off with a shattered leg to die in a ditch of starvation or gangrene after three agonising weeks of suffering. Does that count for nothing with you?

You purport to care about animal suffering. If so, then given that you cannot stop farmers from killing foxes (and that is a given - you cannot and you never will) can you not see that the most beneficial thing you can do is ensure that as few foxes as possible are shot, and that as much of the fox cull as possible takes place by more humane methods?

Oh - except you claim that hunting is barbaric and inhumane. You haven't explained why you think that yet. indeed, you haven't even defined what you mean by "barbaric" and "inhumane" - have you?

And no - we don't eat the foxes we catch. But I cannot see that there is a moral difference between killing a lamb to eat it, and killing a fox to stop it killing and eating a lamb which we want to kill and eat. If it is acceptable to kill for food, then that must encompass both the killing of the actual animal that you will eat, and the killing of a predator that would otherwise take the animal from you before you can eat it. Both are properly described as killing "for food".

Similarly, your suggestion that farmers must wait until a fox has actually taken their stock before killing it because it is only then that it becomes "a predator" is spurious. Foxes are a predatory species. Left unchecked they WILL take livestock - lambs, poultry, and game birds. There is no speclation involved there. It is not a question of "if" - but only of when, and where.

It's back to the slugs and the lettuces really. Do you say to teh gardener that he must wait until the slugs have eaten his lettuces, and that only then may he put down the slug pellets? Or are you content for him to put down slug pellets to protect his lettuces even before any of them have been attacked.

Most gardeners I know would think you more than a little deranged if you were to try to tell them that they must not put down slug pellets until AFTER their lettuces had been attacked. Why do you suppose that a different rule should apply to farmers who are raising lambs, poultry, game birds or other stock which is at risk of fox predation?

For myself, I can see no meaningful distinction between the two scenarios. If we as a society are prepared to tolerate gardeners killing slugs to protect their lettuces, we must equally be prepared to tolerate farmers killing foxes to protect their stock.

And I go further and say that we should be prepared to tolerate both. If you don't like killign slugs or foxes - that's fine by me. Nobody's saying that you have to do it if you don't want to. But I do not think we as a society should be turning gardeners or those acting on their behalf into criminals if they kill slugs, nor farmers or those acting on their behalf into criminals if they kill foxes.

The actual killing is no part of the fun of hunting.
Then why dont you chase one of your own dogs or just not kill the fox? Did you think of that? Perhaps now you see why everyone feels you only want to kill.
The killing is about pest control; and it is done at the behest of and for the benefit of the people whose livelihoods will suffer if predators are not kept in check. Virtually the only people who get to witness the kill are the professionals who are employed to work the hounds.
Again with the same arguement, we already covered this, theres no need to keep predators in check if you keep them out, nature will keep them in check, and your idea of pest control is to go out and kill something even if its not on your land, thats like me walking 2 miles to kill a cockroach because its a pest, its far from sound logic.
If, as you allege, hunting was a case of killing solely for the pleasure of the hunt followers, there would be no digging out. But there is. And that fact alone is sufficient to prove that you are mistaken.
Hold on, why do you dig it out? To kill it. Now read your sentance again and see your mistake, if you was not going to kill it there would be no digging out, but there is, and that fact alone proves you dont have a clue what your saying.
Solid wooden fences to keep foxes out? Don't make me laugh! Have you any idea of the economics of food production in this country? The low margins that most farmers work on? And the cost of solid wooden fencing? The only way most hill farmers will be able to keep their lambs enclosed by a solid wooden fence is if some kind, altruistic person goes and builds it for them. Are you volunteering for the task? No - I thought not.
That was a solution off the top of my head, took all of 10 seconds, how many months/years have you spent hunting instead of trying to think of alternatives? And you claim its not bloodlust. Since my idea might work, why dont you propose it to everyone in the country that opposes the killing of foxes on condition hunts are banned along with shooting foxes and get your own response to the question, instead of making up your own response without asking everyone. Or better yet why dont you do it? If you really dont have a bloodlust for killing foxes and want their land protected? Since I wont answer for you, would you be willing to do it?
you really ought to make sure that first of all you understand what they are doing, and why they are doing it.
Your explaining it for the 3rd time and i answered it the first time, so you keep playing the 'you dont understand us' card as long as you want, you wont get anything new.
and arguments about whether farmers shoudl be killing foxes on their land or not have no place in teh hunting debate. The fact that farmers are going to want foxes killed is a given, whether you like it or not.
So if they are kept off their land its a given they will still want them killed? Now THATS just cruel, and slightly sick(though i doubt they'd care).
There is no more numane way of killing a fox than hunting it with hounds......I do not see you arguing otherwise.
Thats because these kind of arguements have no place here im against their killing when there are alternatives, that includes shooting and hunting(for at least the third time of saying it).
You say you do not like the farmers shooting foxes. Ban hunting, Lemming, and there will be a lot more of THAT.
Of course, if you ignore any alternatives.
We never leave a wounded fox to suffer. We either catch it - in which case it is killed - or it gets away. No crawling off with a shattered leg to die in a ditch of starvation or gangrene after three agonising weeks of suffering. Does that count for nothing with you?
Since i never used that arguement against you i wonder why you suddenly bring it up, and no it counts for nothing since you still kill it.
can you not see that the most beneficial thing you can do is ensure that as few foxes as possible are shot, and that as much of the fox cull as possible takes place by more humane methods?
Theres no need for a cull, can you not see that?
Oh - except you claim that hunting is barbaric and inhumane. You haven't explained why you think that yet
Actually i thought i did, but for you benefit its cruel to chase a creature when it hasnt done anything just to kill it, at least if all you did is shoot it when its on the farmers land its likely at the least you'd wound it and could finish the job without the need for chasing the thing.
And no - we don't eat the foxes we catch. But I cannot see that there is a moral difference between killing a lamb to eat it, and killing a fox to stop it killing and eating a lamb which we want to kill and eat.
And this may be where the problem lies, the lamb is specifically raised for food, thats its purpose, the fox is not, it is a hunter, and catches many more voles, shrews and mice than lambs, it may or may not want to kill the farmers lamb, but you kill it regardless because it might decide to.
Similarly, your suggestion that farmers must wait until a fox has actually taken their stock before killing it because it is only then that it becomes "a predator" is spurious.
Dunno where you got that from, perhaps you could quote it?(thats if i actually said it), a fox is a predator, but you act like all it eats is lambs and chickens, like it lives off a farmers livestock, which as everyone who knows anything about foxes is aware is bullshit.
Left unchecked they WILL take livestock - lambs, poultry, and game birds. There is no speclation involved there. It is not a question of "if" - but only of when, and where.
Prove that every fox takes something from a farmer. If you can.
It's back to the slugs and the lettuces really. Do you say to teh gardener that he must wait until the slugs have eaten his lettuces, and that only then may he put down the slug pellets? Or are you content for him to put down slug pellets to protect his lettuces even before any of them have been attacked.
And its back to my exact same arguement then, Im all for any method that stops their killing if you have one, like with the foxes.
Why do you suppose that a different rule should apply to farmers who are raising lambs, poultry, game birds or other stock which is at risk of fox predation?
Who said a different rule? Theres an alternative to fox hunting, if you know how to keep slugs away from lettuces without killing them please share it.
I believe if animal rights stretch to endangered species, and domestic creatures why shouldnt they extend to everything else we dont eat for food? Foxes and slugs shouldnt be excluded from that, if theres an alternative method than killing then it should be welcomed by all with open arms, unless of course they enjoy the killing, the test of whether you enjoy it or not is if your open to alternatives, the ones who arnt are the ones who enjoy the kill, the ones open to alternatives do it for the fun of the chase, which are you?

Cob Nut, you make a fairly eloquent, if flawed case.

Firstly, I grew up in arable farmland, there was still a hunt. It was therefore about hunting and killing for pleasure. nothing more.

I wondered if you would mention game birds. Interestingly, it's not just foxes that have to be killed to protect the game bird population is it? There was a movement to add certain birds of prey to the Defra approved quarry list, to protect a bunch of stupid non-viable game birds that are going to get shot anyway. Do you understand how false this sitation is? How many of different species do you have to kill, to preserve game long enough to be slain for pleasure.

Shooting is far more humane than using hounds. A .223 through the brain is pretty damn quick. OK you have to get the land approved for that type of round, but it's no big deal.

You mention pest control, this is the single most flawed argument ever made wrt fox hunting. A single fox could decimate your game bird population, so having any around is still a risk. So it certainly isn't about population management. All farming has losses, whether it's rain battering your wheat, pigeons crapping in your grain silo, or frost getting to your sprouts. Foxes are just another loss. Deal with it.

Few other countries hunt foxes on horseback, and they are not overrun with them, nor do they have major problems with losing livestock.

Simply, if the public think it's cruel, it will be banned. After that time, _if_ anything you have said proves to be true (and I doubt it) you'll be able to gather the evidence that the ban was wrong, and demostrate scientific proof for it to be re-instated, to cure our Fox epidemic.

You also seem to forget, that we got on just fine farming before fox hunting on horseback. We'll be fine afterwards too.

Fox Hunting will get banned hopefully, and that will be that. Maybe farmers should get more involved in the big farming issues, like the common agricultural policy, rather than bleating about 'tradition', and their 'right' to hunt.

Phlogistician - thank you for that gracious compliment.

Thank you also for not suggesting anything so crass as that it is possible to keep foxes out altogether. You and I know that it isn't.

Yes, just one fox CAN destroy a whole flock of poultry - especially if it manages to get INTO a coop, run or whatever designed to keep it OUT (wily buggers, ain't they?). But it's about risk management, isn't it? If you've got fifty foxes loose on your farm, there's a much greater risk that ONE of them is going to achieve this feat of livelihood destruction than there would be if there were only five or ten.

Yes, it IS just one of those losses - and farmers must just deal with it if it happens. BUT they are also, I think, entitled to try to see that it doesn't happen. Either you believe that they are entitled to do this by killing the predators, or you are not. I happen to think they are. I think they are entitled to shoot crows, rats, foxes, whatever. And if they are entitled to shoot, they are also equally entitled to have somebody else come in and kill their pests by any other method which causes no more suffering.

And I do not consider that hunting foxes causes more suffering, in the round, than shooting them, for reasons which I have set out but will happily repeat.

Game birds - yes, they are eventually going to be shot. And eaten. So what? They are part of the diversified farmer's livelihood, and surely he is just as entitled to protect them as he is entitled to protect his lambs, ducks, geese ... I mean, when I go to my game butcher and pay £5 for a brace of pheasant, and when I go to Tesco and pay £5 for a pound of lamb, they are both food that I am going to eat, and that the farmer has made a living by raising to the point of slaughter. Is there really any great deeper significance to the fact that the economics of pheasant production include somebody paying the farmer £100 for the privilege of shooting a dozen brace of pheasant, one of which he gets to keep, and the rest of which the farmer sells on to the game butcher? I think not. It is all food production; and the fact that one part of it involves somebody whose motive might be something other than the production of food, whether for himself or anybody else, is irrelevant in exactly the same way that the shooting of foxes and the hunting of foxes is all pest control, despite the fact that one of them involves somebody whose motive might be something other than to control pests.

Doubtless hunting did take place in pure arable areas in the past. Nowadays, however, with diversification there is scarcely such a thing as a purely arable area. And moreover, even if a particular farmer is purely arable, he understands that foxes move about and that if his stock-rearing neighbour clears his land of foxes that is of little use to him if his farm is immediately repopulated by foxes moving off the arable farm. Therefore, even pure arable farmers are often prepared to allow the hunt to control their foxes (no skin off their nose: it costs them nothing) out of consideration for their stock-rearing neighbours.

You will recall that country folk tend to stick together in this sort of way. And maybe some time in the future, the stock farmer will be able to scratch the arable farmer's back, too ...

The worst problem makers that create the most terrible problems are humans themselves. Foxes play a key role in taking care of other problems in nature but humans don't give about what they screw up in nature.

ahhhh crap i accidentally chose 'no'. how absent-minded.

I really meant 'yes'.

I agree with you up to a point, Cosmic.

We do indeed live in a man-made world full of man-made problems.

And if you have a coherent ethos which rejects the benefits as well as the burdens of that situation then yours is a position that I respect.

But it is not one that I share.

And nor, I think, is it one that the overwhelming majority of our fellow men share. They actively WANT all the benefits of the oil-based economy; and must therefore be prepared to accept the concomitant pollution, wildlife destruction etc. as the price of those benefits.

They WANT cheap food in the shops - and must therefore be prepared to accept all the ecological costs of farming in a manner that provides it as the price they must pay. And must also - as it seems to me - refrain from trying to dictate to farmers how they should go about their business if they are unwilling to bear the consequential costs of any change in farming practices.

Of course, you may object that most of these folk are not informed consumers making intelligent choices. I would not disagree with you; and am all in favour of the provision of proper information on these and similar issues.

My own choice, with the benefit of such information as I have, is in favour of the continuation of a man-managed environment rather than any attempt to return to nature. And in that context, I think one must always start by considering the world as it actually IS, not as one might like it to be.

Cob Nut, on game birds. I'll try and find the link, but one group advocated adding certain birds of prey to the Defra license to protect game birds. Shooting birds, to protect some birds, so they themselves can be shot later. Farcical, it really is.

Especially considering I really enjoy clay pigeon shooting. I don't need to kill something to have a good time shooting, and think pretty lowly of people who do. We can all find ways of supporting our local farmers which don't require unneccessary cruelty. I pay to ride horses, and pay to shoot clays. I'll go so far to support the farming community, but being complicit in the ill treatment of animals is too far.

I agree entirely, Phlogistician - being complicit to the ill-treatment of animals IS going too far.

The difference between us, however, is in whether or not we perceive ill-treatment of animals in the shooting of game brids and the hunting of foxes.

Let's start with the game birds. They end up on the table as food. That is what they are bred, reared and shot for. Their life, up to the point that they are shot, is about as close to a natural life as anything that ends up on my table is ever going to have. They have had a much better quality of life than most farmed livestock. And a much better quality of death, too. If they are taken out by a good shot then it will be as near as dammit instant, and they know nothing about it. MUCH better than a long journey in an overcramped cattle lorry to the abattoir followed by herding into the holding pens before being taken to the slaughterman. Far less suffering involved. Therefore I do not see that as ill-treatment of the game birds. And if the man who fires the shot that pulls the game bird down from the sky enjoys doing so - so much so that he is prepared to pay handsomely for the privilege of being allowed to do so - then I genuinely do not see that this alters the analysis one iota.

And so to fox hunting.

You may or may not be satisfied that foxes are pests. I am.

You may or may not accept that there is a need to keep their numbers in check, and that this inevitably means killing numbers of them. I do.

Having reached that stage, the only question that matters to me is whether or not there is a better way of killign foxes (i.e. one that causes less suffering to teh fox) than using a pack of hounds. And to date nobody has convinced me that there is. The Burns enquiry tentatively concluded that lamping with rifles MAY invovle fewer welfare issues. But lamping with rifles is not something that you can do in most parts of the British Isles. So it cannto sensibly be advanced as a more acceptable alternative to fox hunting because, for the most part, it is not an available alternative.

Contrast this to my attitude to coarse fishing.

That sport involves inducing a fish to bite on a hook, playing tug-of-war with it until it is exhausted by the combination of man's greater strength and engineering skills, pulling it out of its native element into one in which it cannot breathe, then finally unhookign it and releasing it to go on its way.

There is no purpose to it other than the gratification of the human participant. It causes suffering to the fish. And that suffering, ti seems to me, is entirely without justification. I am happy to describe THAT as ill-treatment of animals: and you will never find me doing it.

Oddly, however, the Labour Government which is so committed to ending perceived cruelty to animals refuses to lift a finger against angling. Indeed, it made a manifesto commitment NOT to touch fishing. And when pressed in Parliament to explain why, if cruelty and utility were the correct tests to apply to fox hunting, it was not equally appropriate to apply them to angling, all he could say in response was that there was no proposal on the table to ban angling and nor would there be because of their manifesto commitment.

So there you have it.

Cob Nut, I have appreciated your input on this issue. Prior to this discussion I was undecided as to whether or not fox hunting with dogs/horses should be banned, simply for the fact that once a ban is placed under a guise of "cruelty" it often avalanches into a ban on all things deemed harmful... I liked having your input as one who participates in this hunt. I wanted to know why.

And so to fox hunting.

You may or may not be satisfied that foxes are pests. I am.

You may or may not accept that there is a need to keep their numbers in check, and that this inevitably means killing numbers of them. I do.

Having reached that stage, the only question that matters to me is whether or not there is a better way of killign foxes (i.e. one that causes less suffering to teh fox) than using a pack of hounds. And to date nobody has convinced me that there is.

So there you have it.

So I searched for more information, knowing that alot of predators were killed under the guise of protecting farmers livelyhoods here in the states. After studies were completed, it was often found that the commonly perceived notions held in the farming community did not reflect the reality of the losses suffered by farmers. It took me a while but I did manage to find a uk.gov document that shows simular findings. Farmers perceptions of their losses often are misguided. I would suggest you read this article.

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/oralevidence/oral10aprilsess1.htm <P>

From this link:<P> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmstand/b/st010213/pm/pt1/10213s03.htm

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research commissioned by the RSPCA as part of the Burns report, based on work carried out by David Macdonald of Oxford university, on the potential contribution of foxes through their predation of rabbits? The final report appears to have overlooked that work. It concluded that there was a case for a plausible cost-benefit analysis which would reveal that killing foxes was counter-productive for farmers who were concerned about mammalian herbivores causing crop damage. It was estimated that, given that half of the fox diet is rabbit, each fox may prevent between £26 and £145 worth of damage a year overall, and that, due to growth of the rabbit population, that would have the knock-on effect of preventing damage worth between £49 and £608 per fox a year. In addition, a follow-up study by Roger Trout and colleagues, which was written up in the ``Journal of Zoology'', pointed out that the total saving to farmers may be in the region of £100 million a year. The concession that the hon. Gentleman seeks may occur in nature—if we allow it to take its course.
<p> and one more link:
http://www.nfws.org.uk/pro/pests.htm

I'm only 12, but i agree that fox hunting is bad. For every fox that dies, 4 generations down the line 16 are gone

Well said arky, and welcome to sciforums

I used to live in a pretty agricultural area, and so I know a number of people who participate in hunts. However, even in such a rural area, at least 90% of the people I heard express an opinion were against it. However, where I lived, fox hunting was not the worst 'sport' but instead hare coursing was. For those that don't know, hare coursing is when you take a number of greyhounds into a field, wait for them to find a hare and bet on which dog will kill the hare first. Most of this was done illegally in the fields around where I lived, but for a long time, the police wouldn't even bother to show up if you reported it.
My overall point bereft of the rambling is: hunting with dogs = bad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3953129.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3034704.stm

on bbc news today

I used to live in a pretty agricultural area, and so I know a number of people who participate in hunts. However, even in such a rural area, at least 90% of the people I heard express an opinion were against it. However, where I lived, fox hunting was not the worst 'sport' but instead hare coursing was. For those that don't know, hare coursing is when you take a number of greyhounds into a field, wait for them to find a hare and bet on which dog will kill the hare first. Most of this was done illegally in the fields around where I lived, but for a long time, the police wouldn't even bother to show up if you reported it.
My overall point bereft of the rambling is: hunting with dogs = bad


Same with me mate, out the back of my sisters house they used to do it. All the farmers put down trip wires now. High enough to trip the dog but allow room for the hare to escape.

Fox hunting is evil. They don't have any defence, and just because they eat chickens, we think we have a right to kill them. but face the facts, we can eat other things than chicken or meat, but they don't realy have a choice. if anything people should tame them or just give them meat that isn't needed

They are doing that, theyre called urban foxes. Said urban foxes are now being caught attacking cats and dogs and make a mess when they rummage around in bins. Should we now control the urban foxes with guns? Or poison? WE're dealing with an ecosystem here, not a computer simulation.

They are doing that, theyre called urban foxes. Said urban foxes are now being caught attacking cats and dogs and make a mess when they rummage around in bins. Should we now control the urban foxes with guns? Or poison? WE're dealing with an ecosystem here, not a computer simulation.

Attacking cats and dogs? Could you provide a link to anything that confirms this?

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1016862004
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=823802004

"COUNCIL chiefs have been urged to investigate fox control methods after it emerged dozens of pets across the Capital have been attacked.

The Evening News has been flooded with calls from distraught animal lovers whose pets have been set upon by the predators.

So far, readers have reported that 11 rabbits, ten cats, three guinea pigs and a peacock have been killed by urban foxes, while a dog, four cats and a tortoise have been attacked."

These are from the evening news website, in Edinburgh, Scotland. Unfortunately they went over to wanting (free) registration to view stuff earlier this year, but its my local newspaper and so thats where I'd read about this.

If you want another point of view, theres this:
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=828582004
"Most urban foxes fail to reach their second birthday and are killed on the roads. So it is silly to allege that foxes have no predator. In fact, 60 per cent of the urban fox population is killed annually. ............. There is no doubt whatsoever, that if Edinburgh adopts a policy of killing foxes, not only will it cause animal suffering, but will also prove to be the expensive failure it was in London four to five decades ago. "

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1016862004
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=823802004

If you want another point of view, theres this:
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=828582004


Interesting links. Seems a few factors are involved. The switch to wheelie bins, and the dates of the attacks (as I understand them) along with the types of cages used for the rabbits can all be pieces of the problem. Sounds like the majority of the "attacks" are at a time when the fox family is at its most stressed. The kits are making huge demands on the parents for food at this time.

Another piece of it with the wheelie bins. I would have to believe there was more than fox b