Fox Hunting

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by bunnylover

In an ideal world nature could deal with itself but it doesn t it needs controlled predator species need controlling to prevent decimation of prey species,the introduction of alien species has added further to the need of pest control and when the over emotional and ill informed make up the majority then the eventual outcome will obviousely be a decline in prey species in our countryside.Oh and after a few years they ll say that the extinct or those on the brink was attributed to cruel hunters.

But the hunt actually encourage foxes so that they can hunt them. If they claim that they are doing it to keep the numbers down then why do they encourage them by providing artifical dens? Why have they caught foxes and released them specifically to be hunted?

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Kerry

But the hunt actually encourage foxes so that they can hunt them. If they claim that they are doing it to keep the numbers down then why do they encourage them by providing artifical dens? Why have they caught foxes and released them specifically to be hunted?

Mention of artificial earths has brought me out of lurkdom again. As I said before, I try to stick to facts as far as I can. So I don’t intend to be judged as a hunter or anti, because then only people who already see things my way will listen. But this is a thread full of intelligent posters!

A number of artificial earths are known to exist, possibly because they are on land used for cattle or arable farming where the landowner can tolerate more foxes for the sake of ‘sport’. I’ve never lived in such an area, so can’t comment further.

Hunting activities have always been planned with the consent of the landowner, so I believe that to understand this you have to look at it from the farmers’ point of view. If a farmer is trying to earn a living from sheep, and also has a flock of free-range chickens in the farmyard, it is pointless telling him that foxes control their own numbers according to the available food supply. It is obvious to him that the fox doesn’t know what food is off-limits, and chickens and lambs are vulnerable for reasons I‘ve already mentioned. Or, even if you think he’s wrong about that, the point is that if he believes foxes interfere with his livelihood, he is not going to tolerate extra foxes on his land.

Also I used to own a horse. I never hunted on her, so know how difficult it is to get permission to ride off-road because farmers dislike muddy hoofprints on the land they are trying to make a living from. So, if the assumption about artificial earths being common is correct, many farmers are enduring extra predation on chickens and lambs, plus lots of hoofprints and 4x4 tyre tracks all over their land at the muddiest time of year, yet they stand to gain nothing in the way of pest control! This sounds very unlikely to me. So artificial earths on neighbouring land could lead to friction between landowners, many of whom prefer a quiet life like the rest of us.

Also, farmers with woodland may gain extra income from shooting. Foxes in close proximity to a shoot are likely to be shot anyway, so artificial earths and pheasant shoots do not go well together! I’ve been told that the subscription that a rider pays to hunt on horseback for a whole season is about the same as the price of a single day’s shooting for one gun. So you can see where the money is.

Briefly, if the average hunt constructed an artificial earth, the average farmer where I live would be likely to go out with his gun and shoot the foxes dead, pretty **** quick, and also deny the hunt access to his land. So it seems hardly worth hunts going to the trouble. Also, if the farmer stood to gain pest control instead, he might even host a meet for them.

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Mention of artificial earths has brought me out of lurkdom again. As I said before, I try to stick to facts as far as I can. So I don’t intend to be judged as a hunter or anti, because then only people who already see things my way will listen. But this is a thread full of intelligent posters!

A number of artificial earths are known to exist, possibly because they are on land used for cattle or arable farming where the landowner can tolerate more foxes for the sake of ‘sport’. I’ve never lived in such an area, so can’t comment further.

Hunting activities have always been planned with the consent of the landowner, so I believe that to understand this you have to look at it from the farmers’ point of view. If a farmer is trying to earn a living from sheep, and also has a flock of free-range chickens in the farmyard, it is pointless telling him that foxes control their own numbers according to the available food supply. It is obvious to him that the fox doesn’t know what food is off-limits, and chickens and lambs are vulnerable for reasons I‘ve already mentioned. Or, even if you think he’s wrong about that, the point is that if he believes foxes interfere with his livelihood, he is not going to tolerate extra foxes on his land.

Also I used to own a horse. I never hunted on her, so know how difficult it is to get permission to ride off-road because farmers dislike muddy hoofprints on the land they are trying to make a living from. So, if the assumption about artificial earths being common is correct, many farmers are enduring extra predation on chickens and lambs, plus lots of hoofprints and 4x4 tyre tracks all over their land at the muddiest time of year, yet they stand to gain nothing in the way of pest control! This sounds very unlikely to me. So artificial earths on neighbouring land could lead to friction between landowners, many of whom prefer a quiet life like the rest of us.

Also, farmers with woodland may gain extra income from shooting. Foxes in close proximity to a shoot are likely to be shot anyway, so artificial earths and pheasant shoots do not go well together! I’ve been told that the subscription that a rider pays to hunt on horseback for a whole season is about the same as the price of a single day’s shooting for one gun. So you can see where the money is.

Briefly, if the average hunt constructed an artificial earth, the average farmer where I live would be likely to go out with his gun and shoot the foxes dead, pretty **** quick, and also deny the hunt access to his land. So it seems hardly worth hunts going to the trouble. Also, if the farmer stood to gain pest control instead, he might even host a meet for them.

The best reply to your post is to quote from the hunts themselves:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs : in other words, for breeding purposes. Another advantage of artificial earths is that in grass countries where the coverts tend to be small and scattered it is useful to have snug earths judiciously placed at regular intervals, thus persuading foxes to take a good line. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.........In this book I only wish to touch on the subject, and to tell you what my grandfather had to say. He felt that artificial earths should be primarily intended as breeding establishments, and so among the chief points to be borne in mind should be the aspect, position, soil, drainage and materials used for their construction.” (Fox-Hunting. The Duke of Beaufort. Pub. David & Charles. 1980. Page 141)

"Barry drew again down Lansdale Fell, found, and hunted over to Mill Beck, marking to ground in “Porter’s Parlour”. Now I would have attempted the short climb to where they were digging, but a very interesting Mr John Gregg came and spoke to me and told me the history of "Porters Parlour". It is the largest man-made borran ever known, built about 30 years ago by Ronnie Porter. A maze of pipes and entrances exists..........The fox in Porters Parlour was accounted for, making a total of four foxes that day. On returning to the kennels, they were a terrier short, so went back to Porters Parlour, where a terrier was heard baying. It was then dug to, and the fifth fox of the day was added to the tally” (Article by The Gaffer, “Spring Hunting In the Cumbrian Fells” Hounds magazine. Vol. 10 No. 1. November 1993. Page 28. [Refers to meet of the Blencathra Foxhounds, a Fell pack, Huntsman Barry Todhunter] )

“.....there are artificial earths in almost every hunting county in England.” (Jeffrey Olstead, British Field Sports Society spokesman for Cumberland Foxhounds, in the ‘Sunday News & Star’, Carlisle. 17/3/1996)

[Kerry]

Here is a further point with regards hunting controlling fox numbers:

"This column, and quite rightly so, has often praised the efforts of the R.S.P.C.A. in various field but the attitude of the Society towards field sports has been equivocal to a degree which almost beggars belief. It professes to support foxhunting on the grounds that there is no more humane way of controlling foxes, when anybody who knows anything about the matter at all must be aware of the fact that foxhunting does not control foxes. The fact that foxes are flourishing as well as they are is due, in no small measure, to our hunts and, if you are a genuine conservationist, you should acknowledge their existence with thanks." (Jack Snipe article "Notes & Comments", Shooting Times & Country Magazine. 23/2/1967. Page 231)

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Kerry

Here is a further point with regards hunting controlling fox numbers:

"This column, and quite rightly so, has often praised the efforts of the R.S.P.C.A. in various field but the attitude of the Society towards field sports has been equivocal to a degree which almost beggars belief. It professes to support foxhunting on the grounds that there is no more humane way of controlling foxes, when anybody who knows anything about the matter at all must be aware of the fact that foxhunting does not control foxes. The fact that foxes are flourishing as well as they are is due, in no small measure, to our hunts and, if you are a genuine conservationist, you should acknowledge their existence with thanks." (Jack Snipe article "Notes & Comments", Shooting Times & Country Magazine. 23/2/1967. Page 231)

Are there any artificial earths on Exmoor ?

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

So if they need controlling why not just shoot them with a skilled marksman and get it over with, rather than chase them for miles across the countryside?

Ukwildlifeo, are you familiar with the research of the Parliamentary Middle Way group? They set out to study this very point. The results might surprise you.

Deerhound, your points about the relationship of predators and prey are absolutely spot-on, and I wish to goodness that every cat owner in Britain who says: ‘That’s nature!’, whenever Tiddles brings in a bird of a declining species in a road overrun with cats, was made to read, mark and learn this point until they thoroughly understand it!

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Kerry

Here is a further point with regards hunting controlling fox numbers:

"This column, and quite rightly so, has often praised the efforts of the R.S.P.C.A. in various field but the attitude of the Society towards field sports has been equivocal to a degree which almost beggars belief. It professes to support foxhunting on the grounds that there is no more humane way of controlling foxes, when anybody who knows anything about the matter at all must be aware of the fact that foxhunting does not control foxes. The fact that foxes are flourishing as well as they are is due, in no small measure, to our hunts and, if you are a genuine conservationist, you should acknowledge their existence with thanks." (Jack Snipe article "Notes & Comments", Shooting Times & Country Magazine. 23/2/1967. Page 231)

When I made my posts I was already aware of those very quotes and I'm sure I know exactly where you got them from. Even if they are orginally from hunters, I still cannot understand how every farmer with a living to make is tolerating all those extra foxes.

I suspect that this does in fact refer to some hunting countries but not others. Note the Beaufort hunt. Money? Extra foxes are not such a burden for sheep farmers there, are they?

There are also plenty of gun clubs round here.

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Are there any artificial earths on Exmoor ?

I shall try to find out for you.

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

When I made my posts I was already aware of those very quotes and I'm sure I know exactly where you got them from. Even if they are orginally from hunters, I still cannot understand how every farmer with a living to make is tolerating all those extra foxes.

I suspect that this does in fact refer to some hunting countries but not others. Note the Beaufort hunt. Money? Extra foxes are not such a burden for sheep farmers there, are they?

There are also plenty of gun clubs round here.

The quotes speak for themselves and I would hardly call fell country, money country especially as hill sheep farmers say they are the hardest hit. And perhaps the reason that they are tolerating them is because they aren't the pest that it is now being claimed, see quotes below:

"As regards foxes killing lambs, there is a great deal of nonsense talked and of misconception about it. That a fox will undoubtedly kill one, if it is very weak, or sometimes, when a ewe has two, will nip up one whilst she is defending the other, is a fact; but it is only when they are very small. The ewe is quite capable of defending her lamb.....In almost every case where a fox is found eating a lamb, it has been killed by a dog, and generally by a sheep dog; more often than not by the lamb’s own shepherd’s dog.....I do not say that foxes never kill lambs, but I say that such an occurrence is very rare.....We make a rule that no poultry shall be paid for that are not shut up at night......I have had claims for calves and cows killed by foxes, but they are too ridiculous to require any remarks from me." (The Badminton Library. Hunting. The Duke of Beaufort & Mowbray Morris. Pub. Longmans, Green, and Co., 1885. Pages 154-156)

"If here and there a fox does kill lambs the owner or his shepherd is often much to blame. A farmer generally establishes a lambing pen in the fields, and all the pregnant ewes are collected therein. As soon as lambs begin to appear foxes are attracted to the spot~and how? Why, simply by the cleanings or afterbirths of the ewes being merely thrown outside the pen instead of buried deeply out of the way. Either fox or dog will go miles for such fare as this, and the odour, which savours strongly of newborn lamb, attracts them from over a long distance. If a fox is encouraged in this way, is it to be wondered at that a lamb is stolen when afterbirths are no longer to be had? Were these disposed of properly, a fox would not consider it worth his while to visit the lambing fold.

The same remarks apply to the dead lambs of tender age, which the shepherd is too lazy to bury, for these, too, are generally thrown into some convenient ditch, or covert, where a fox can feed on them. In this way a liking for such food is engendered, and when dead lamb is no longer available, that alive has to pay the penalty. A farmer who permits his shepherd to leave dead lambs lying about is deserving of little sympathy should foxes attack his young flock.

Foxes are frequently blamed for killing almost mature mutton, when dogs are the real culprits; the latter feed on their victim and leave it, and a fox passing near is attracted to the spot and also enjoys a meal. The tracks of one or several foxes soon obliterate those of the dogs, and, as the footmarks of the former only are to be seen in the morning, foxes are at once condemned without further inquiry. A vixen, too, is sometimes considered guilty because a dead lamb is found near her earth, but it may be one she has found which a shepherd had neglected to bury." (Game And Foxes. F.W. Millard, (Secretary to the Gamekeepers’ Association). Pub. Horace Cox. 1906. Pages 117-119)

"The question of lambs cannot be ignored, and there can be no doubt that at times a fox will kill and eat a lamb; one wonders why more do not go this way because it must be a comparatively easy way of obtaining a good meal. I feel that ravens and rooks do much more harm, while we all know that the domestic dog constitutes almost the greatest menace. However, it is fun to have a grievance, and bad luck, or bad management, must be put down to something." (Fox and Hare in Leicestershire. Eric Morrison, (Ex-Master, Westerby Basset Hounds, Joint-Master, Atherstone Foxhounds). Pub. Eyre & Spottiswoode 1954. Page 23)

And with regards to what poses the biggest threat to lambs: fox or poor care:

"Down on the farms of our traditionally animal-caring society about three million piglets, two million lambs and a million calves die unnecessarily each year.....On farms not 150, but well over 16,000 large animals die unnecessarily each day....The round figures for deaths in millions are widely agreed to be reasonable estimates of actual losses, are accepted by the farming industry, by the Government and the professions involved in animal care, but are not often discussed in public. They indicate, not some massive cruelty, but a state of animal husbandry ~ of animal public health down on the farm if you like ~ which is comparable with human public health in Europe in the eighteenth century.

For these are animals dying within 48 hours of birth, through cold and privation, through inadequate support, perhaps inadequate prenatal care." (The Guardian report, page 8, September 30th 1982, of the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Liverpool, 1982)


As a poultry keeper myself the only times that I have had a problem with the fox is in the two weeks AFTER the hunt has been through and disturbed the natural balance in my area. I have had more stock killed by out of control farm dogs than I have had by foxes.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Ukwildlifeo, are you familiar with the research of the Parliamentary Middle Way group? They set out to study this very point. The results might surprise you.

Ah yes the group of MPs and members of the house of lords including the publicity seeking Lembit Opik that tried to stop the ban being passed. Being that the house of lords has many pro hunt/countryside alliance members I dont think it ever was a neutral as it made out to be