Fox Hunting

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Brains

Thank you


So was hunting affecting fox numbers?

Brains,

IFAW set out to do reseach into this very point. Do you know about the project with the one-kilometer squares?

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Brains,

IFAW set out to do reseach into this very point. Do you know about the project with the one-kilometer squares?

Hi Xanadu

Yes, I know of the 1Km study that showed no correlation between fox numbers and hunting pressure and that fox numbers were unchanged during and following FMD. I'm usually wary of work funded by interest groups, but this works was published as a brief communication in Nature in 2002 (<topic>Ecology</topic>Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers : Article : Nature, for those who can access it), which lends it credence for me. A second study was conducted in commercial forests, which showed that even large scale culling using 'fox drives' did not dent the population, due to immigration from othere areas (SpringerLink - Journal Article). Given that hunting over ever accounted for a small percentage of overall fox mortality, the results are really not surprising!

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi Xanadu

Yes, I know of the 1Km study that showed no correlation between fox numbers and hunting pressure and that fox numbers were unchanged during and following FMD. I'm usually wary of work funded by interest groups, but this works was published as a brief communication in Nature in 2002 (<topic>Ecology</topic>Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers : Article : Nature, for those who can access it), which lends it credence for me. A second study was conducted in commercial forests, which showed that even large scale culling using 'fox drives' did not dent the population, due to immigration from othere areas (SpringerLink - Journal Article). Given that hunting over ever accounted for a small percentage of overall fox mortality, the results are really not surprising!

Thanks, Brains!

I've followed the first link, but haven't yet seen the best way of reading the article today, free of charge. Tonight I hope I have time to explain why I mentioned this research.

Xanadu.

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Thanks, Brains!

I've followed the first link, but haven't yet seen the best way of reading the article today, free of charge. Tonight I hope I have time to explain why I mentioned this research.

Xanadu.

I'll look forward to it - though it'll probably be late by the time I get to read it

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Fair point, but I thought that so long as they are trailhunting (with the occasional accident) they can otherwise behave as before.

What I was referring to was with regards the way that hunting is now portrayed as essential whereas in the past they were happy to admit that it was a sport and that it did little to control numbers. They were happy to admit that they encouraged breeding and would catch foxes and release them from the bag on the day of the hunt. Nothing has changed other than a complete turnaround on how they now portray hunting.

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Kerry

What I was referring to was with regards the way that hunting is now portrayed as essential whereas in the past they were happy to admit that it was a sport and that it did little to control numbers. They were happy to admit that they encouraged breeding and would catch foxes and release them from the bag on the day of the hunt. Nothing has changed other than a complete turnaround on how they now portray hunting.

Sorry I forgot exactly what you were referring to, but I'll go back and look. I always thought that with the exception of bagged foxes and artificial earths, hunts always did believe they were controlling foxes, but had no need to say so, because people were not as concerned about hunting in the past as they are now.

Also if there are still many bagged foxes and artificial earths, as I said before, I'm not quite sure why anyone needed to do a faecal count to try to establish fox numbers.

Thanks for posting the links, Brains. I’ve found what I had in mind on the hard drive of my computer. I saved it from the IFAW site.

Counting foxes before the last tally-ho (27th July 2004)

As the government promises an imminent ban on hunting, researchers have produced the first scientifically-based population estimate for foxes living in Britain. Their results show that the number of foxes has remained constant despite changes in culling methods.

The study, published in The Journal of Applied Ecology today (27th July 2004) and funded by the International Fund For Animal Welfare (IFAW), shows that at the end of winter there are 225,000 adult foxes living in rural Britain, with a further 33,000 in urban areas. This study has provided baseline data against which the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs can be measured. A team of scientists and volunteers led by Professor Stephen Harris, from the University of Bristol, counted fox faeces in more than 400 one-kilometre squares across Britain. This information was combined with estimates of the number of faeces a fox produces each day, and with the proportion of faeces that can be found during field surveys, to produce the final population numbers.

Previous attempts to estimate Britain's fox population, using far less precise methods, gave a figure of 252,000 adult foxes in 1981 and 240,000 in 1995, compared to the new figure of 258,000 in 1999/2000. This suggests that, contrary to claims made by the hunting lobby, there has been no change in fox numbers over the past quarter of a century.

Professor Harris said: "This study found that fox numbers were more heavily influenced by habitat features than by the number of foxes killed by people. This suggests that there is no reason to expect fox numbers to rise when hunting is banned."

By itself, the survey does not show whether fox numbers would increase if people stopped hunting them. However another study, funded by IFAW and the RSPCA and published in Nature, showed that there was no change in fox numbers when hunting was suspended for nearly a year during the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001. IFAW campaigner Josey Sharrad, said: "This research demolishes arguments by the hunting lobby that foxes need to be killed to prevent a population explosision. It will also allow us to monitor the impact of a ban on this cruel sport."

Foxes emerged as the nation's favourite land mammal in an NOP poll conducted in 2000. It has been estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs in Britain every year, with some 100,000 dying on our roads.

-Ends- Notes to editors: 1. The research is published in Journal of Applied Ecology, 41 768-779 - Webbon CC, Baker PJ, & Harris S (2004) Faecal density counts for monitoring changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. 2. Research on red fox numbers in Britain before and after the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 was published in Nature 419, page 34 - Baker PJ, Harris S, & Webbon CC (2002) Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers. 3. The Journal of Applied Ecology is published by Blackwell Publishing for the British Ecological Society. The British Ecological Society is a learned society, a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. Established in 1913 by academics to promote and foster the study of ecology in its widest sense, the Society has 5,000 members in the UK and abroad. Further information is available at Welcome to the British Ecological Society.

For media-related inquiries, contact:Gill Sandersemail: gsanders@ifaw.orgphone: 020 7587 6714fax: 020 7587 6718

[Xanadu2]

Hi Folks,

I stopped for a moment because of something interesting on the box.

There are several points I’d like to know more about, and maybe someone has the answer.

Firstly, how many people took part in this research? Although plenty of people can’t see why anyone should want to hunt, Gelert has explained the attraction very eloquently. On the other hand I believe fox droppings are exceptionally smelly, far more off-putting than horse droppings for example, so I wonder how many people actually volunteer to spend time collecting them?

Secondly, how do you find them all? The coverts where huntsmen used to send the hounds to look for foxes are very dense, and I don’t see how anyone can possibly claim never to miss droppings in so much vegetation. Surely foxes squat when they are in cover during the day, as well as when they leave dense thickets to go hunting at night? Yet if the foxes are feeding on pheasants or other woodland creatures, they may not go into the open, where droppings are more easily found, at all.

Thirdly, did the well-intentioned people who deal with urban foxes by catching and releasing them in the wild liase with the researchers? A van-load of urban foxes in the wrong place could really skew the results!

Does anyone know exactly how the researchers could be sure their results were correct, please?

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Xanadu2

Hi Folks,

I stopped for a moment because of something interesting on the box.

There are several points I’d like to know more about, and maybe someone has the answer.

Firstly, how many people took part in this research?

Secondly, how do you find them all?

Thirdly, did the well-intentioned people who deal with urban foxes by catching and releasing them in the wild liase with the researchers? A van-load of urban foxes in the wrong place could really skew the results!

Does anyone know exactly how the researchers could be sure their results were correct, please?

Hi Xanadu

Webbon, Baker & Harris (2004) J. App. Ecol. 41; 768-779

All the answers to your questions are there in the paper!

[Xanadu2]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi Xanadu

Webbon, Baker & Harris (2004) J. App. Ecol. 41; 768-779

All the answers to your questions are there in the paper!

Thanks a lot! I'll have a look.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Brains

Thank you


Didn't think you would record how many lambs are lost. But you estimate 80 over the last 5 years ... or 16 a year ... which represents £800 from the £100,000. Is that significant? And you didn't lose any more in 2002 and maybe snared one fox ... and this in the year following the year of no hunting. So was hunting affecting fox numbers?

Yes. Every lamb is significant. It may be a surprise but i do have some costs.
This year it cost me £4000 to shear my sheep. That is a bill for 3 days.


Is it my turn to be patronising?

I may have snared more than one fox, I really don't keep count. I have about 25 pheasants hanging in the shed. I am afraid they won't be recorded in a way that befits them.

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.