Fox Hunting

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Thanks a lot! I'll have a look.

Harris ?

You might as well ask paul McCartney?

Or Tony Banks.

Maybe not.

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Harris ?

You might as well ask paul McCartney?

Or Tony Banks.

Maybe not.

Indeed! He needs to be impartial, not anti-hunt, to be sure of getting it right!

I have more points to make about this, but thoroughly understand where you are coming from in your previous post.

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Indeed! He needs to be impartial, not anti-hunt, to be sure of getting it right!

Hi Xanadu

Which is why I use published research in my arguments that has been peer reviewed and not things from directly from organisations that have a vested interest in one side of the argument or the other. When the personal stance of an individual is known, bias is closely monitored! There will be scientific and practical arguments over the data and what it means ... but there shouldn't be about the data itself.

In addition, I will use reports that I consider to be scientifically sound, such as the RBCT and some of the work of the RSPB and the GCT. And then there's the experience of the individual and how that experience fits into the overall picture. The big picture can inform the little one and vice versa.

I'll look forward to your next arguments on this

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Yes. Every lamb is significant. It may be a surprise but i do have some costs.

you have costs??? Wow - I never realised that .... I thought all that money you took home from market went straight into your pocket ....

Please DH, don't take me for a fluffy bunny hugger that doesn't know anything about the real world! I'm well aware you have costs .... and I'm well aware that that the price you could get for your lambs fluctuates year on year, week on week, day on day even. And in fact, that fluctuation has a far greater impact on the economic situation of your own farm than predation due to foxes - is that not the case? I would bet that the money you get from the EU has a greater impact. The potential for TB in your cattle certainly does! So whether you get £99,200 for your lambs or £100,000 is neither here nor there. That variation is less than 10p difference in what you get per animal to what you expected.

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Is it my turn to be patronising?

be my guest ... doesn't bother me

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

When the hunt go out, the hounds chase foxy woxy. Hound if good catch foxy woxy and kill foxy woxy.

Take a number and minus it by one.

And when foxy woxy is killed, another foxy woxy comes to take it's place ... a foxy woxy that would in all probablity be killed on the road if a territory wasn't available for it to take over - ironically due to the hunt killing the cute resident foxy woxy. Isn't that what happens? Isn't that why, in a commercial forrest, 56 foxes could be killed in a year when the resident population was estimated at only 32? And there were STILL foxes present? All you do by hunting and killing foxes is to increase the survival chances of that years' cubs - it had, and still has, no impact on the overall numbers.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Harris ?

You might as well ask paul McCartney?

Or Tony Banks.

Maybe not.

Steve Harris's work should not be dismissed so cheaply. He undertakes peer reviewed research and his work is well regarded amongst his peers.

Maybe, just maybe, his research findings have influenced his views on the validity of hunting, rather than the other way around?

Matt

[salukiwhippet]

We had artificials where I was keepering in Norfolk, and they were very useful indeed, as an aid to fox control.

Foxes, being clever, will expend as little energy as possible to achieve something. Therefore, if they want a nice warm hole to get into out of the snow, they'd rather use an established one than dig one right from scratch. Even if the established one is made of concrete. Therefore, the artificials were popular with our resident foxes. Come hard weather, we'd go round checking all the known earths, natural and other wise. If we found a natural with a a fox at home:

Collar on terrier, check its working,

Terrier in, wait for her to settle,

Get location and depth off collar,

Dig to fox and terrier (6' was the deepest we dug ),

Dispatch fox, remove terrier.

If we found an artificial with fox at home:

Collar on terrier, check its working

Terrier in, wait for her to settle,

Get location off collar,

Lift lid on appropriate chamber,

Dispatch fox, remove terrier.

Much quicker, safer for dog, easier and arguably more humane.

Just a thought,

James

[tufftie]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

So you think it is ok for someone to break the law to video someone breaking the law ??

I am pleased you have a similar stance to me. Laws I don't agree with I ignore !!

If I was busy burying a dead lamb and someone jumped up from behind a bush with a handycam I would probably be tempted to smack them in the face with a shovel.

I am glad we agree.

As you can imagine i know a few sabbers and the problem is if you mention it to the police they don't want to know - all you get is 'well with no evidence....'
Although i don't agree with breaking the law, if it is something that will stop animal cruelty and if, as I pointed out, it's done discretely without the hunt knowing and therefore no breach of the peace then it's fair game and the police have their evidence.

[tufftie]

Originally Posted by salukiwhippet

We had artificials where I was keepering in Norfolk, and they were very useful indeed, as an aid to fox control.

Foxes, being clever, will expend as little energy as possible to achieve something. Therefore, if they want a nice warm hole to get into out of the snow, they'd rather use an established one than dig one right from scratch. Even if the established one is made of concrete. Therefore, the artificials were popular with our resident foxes. Come hard weather, we'd go round checking all the known earths, natural and other wise. If we found a natural with a a fox at home:

Collar on terrier, check its working,

Terrier in, wait for her to settle,

Get location and depth off collar,

Dig to fox and terrier (6' was the deepest we dug ),

Dispatch fox, remove terrier.

If we found an artificial with fox at home:

Collar on terrier, check its working

Terrier in, wait for her to settle,

Get location off collar,

Lift lid on appropriate chamber,

Dispatch fox, remove terrier.

Much quicker, safer for dog, easier and arguably more humane.

Just a thought,

James

This is coming from an anti culler... if you do have to control fox numbers, which I don't agree with as they're self controlling, then why do it in such an inhumane way? A quick shot by a good marksman would be far more humane.

[mh68]

While on the face of it , it may sound inhumane, its probably the opposite - the dogs dont attack the fox, they simply locate it and contain it while its dug down to (correct me if i`m wrong),and being in direct close contact with the fox ensures a clean kill which cant be guaranteed using marksman tactics.
I dont agree with Fox control, but accept that others,rightly or wrongly,consider it necessary.

Mark H

[Paul mabbott]

Glad that you admit that you might be wrong. You are wrong, as you would know if you'd seen a kill!
Hunts bear no relationship to fox control (indeed, some practices actually encourage foxes so that they have a quarry to chase!). Fox-hunting with hounds is simply some people feeding their blood-lust. I suppose we should be grateful that they're not chasing humans ....
It is interesting, though, that people in UK are so angered by hunting with hounds whereas in other countries any form of hunting is considered matter-of-fact. So routine that in USA (and other places, probably) hunters are regarded as part of the 'wildlife and conservation movement' on the grounds that their licence fees pay to maintain some reserves!

Originally Posted by mh68

While on the face of it , it may sound inhumane, its probably the opposite - the dogs dont attack the fox, they simply locate it and contain it while its dug down to (correct me if i`m wrong),and being in direct close contact with the fox ensures a clean kill which cant be guaranteed using marksman tactics.
I dont agree with Fox control, but accept that others,rightly or wrongly,consider it necessary.

Mark H