Enforce the Hunting Ban

[DunkeryMunkery]

Originally Posted by dickybird

so eeyore---man is to be allowed to do as he likes.

he can be allowed to destroy habitats putting other species at risk but then also be allowed to kill those species that take advantage of his folly?

greed, money,cowardice,bloodlust--theyre all at the bottom of hunting.its a rare event when it is done for genuine conservation.

and no one is 'insulting' you-just stating things as they see them. perhaps youre feeling a little tetchy as youre struggling to defend your point of view and failing miserably to persuade those opposed to your view to think otherwise.
after all---noone has accused your posts as being so unintelligent they barely warrant reply!


dickybird

All Staghunting is done for conservation.

As for fox hunting that is done to control the numbers and for fun.

It is as simple as that.

Greed? I don't see how.

Money? I agree with that one as it saves me money.

Cowardice? Not at all. You ought to see some of our hedges!

Bloodlust. I don't see how! Or why!

[DunkeryMunkery]

Originally Posted by Stinky Bob

Another diatribe dickybird, its post like yours that gets discussions like these shut down. On the 2 threads that I have seen you post, I have noticed that you dont contribute to the discussion you just inject inflammatory remarks.

Eeyore has already said (in a number of posts) that he finds the hunt method repellent and pointless.

In my opinion to stop the culling of foxes would prove at the very least a short term disaster, being as you would have a few hundred thousand starving foxes targeting other wild species especially ground nesting birds which are already in dire trouble especially since the EU reduced set aside land to 0% in 2007. Like most discussion forums this thread has diversified and to me has evolved into two main questions.

A)Whether the ban on hunting of fox by hounds and dogs should be enforced

B)Is there a need to control fox population

As to A) then I think it is a barbaric and unnecessary as a method of control, and from what I have been reading on here the law should be re-written.

For B) then I believe localised culling with equal consideration (where appropriate) for non lethal fox control.

However, I would be the first to admit that I don’t know enough about all the ramifications and the subject is a lot more complex for it to be resolved on just people emotions.

Good post Stinky Bob !!!

[squeek]

Originally Posted by eeyore

its so unrealistic that it barely warrants intelligent comment but if you insist , i'll comment that the problems are thus:

a) to steralise an animal you first have to catch it - that means cage traps which are expensive and have to be checked regularly dart guns (which are often mentioned in this context by those not involved in such things) have significantly less range than a rifle and are not particularly accurate so are unrealistic for a small agile animal such as fox (also dart aneasthetic is not instantaneous so there would be significant risk of the fox escaping before it could be caught even if darting were succesful)

b) you would next need to transport it to a vet which would be extremly traumatic for the fox (arguably less humane than a clean kill), it would also be extremly expensive (steralising a dog costs arround 200 notes so that would be in the case i cited above 64x200 = £12,800 not counting the ancillary expense of capture, aftercare and release)

c) the chances of getting enough foxes to impact on the breeeding population would be minimal (see my comment above),meaning that you would just have a bunch of sterile foxes wandering arround eating ground nesting birds on top of the still fertile breeding population.

and

d) if by some miracle you did get them all or most of them, this approach would lead to fast declining population and eventually lead to extinction with much more certainty than the shooting regime

Overall the idea is as i said ridiculous - from a pro control perpective it is stupidly expensive and inefficient, and from a pro fox perspective it is inhumane, wasteful of resources, and if it were succesful worse for the fox population that the current situation.

your 1st answer mentions cost and im affraid that is what its all about in the end Money !
to me it seems if people wantto catch foxes for hunting they will go to any lengths eg now we have artificial earths. so why not catch them to steralize instead of to kill them. transport , well to ease stress sedate the animal.
again its down to cost ! no dont agree they would be exinct with this idea, i mean not steralizing every animal, i doubt if they could all be caught, but saying that there are none in my area so who knows how many there actually are out there.
speaking for the fox now, i think the fox would prefer to live and not be killed.
there is always an answer , there is no need to wipe these animals out.
how do you know this wouldnt work if it hasnt been tried !
btw i found your comment on intellegence rather insulting !

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by squeek

your 1st answer mentions cost and im affraid that is what its all about in the end Money !
to me it seems if people wantto catch foxes for hunting they will go to any lengths eg now we have artificial earths. so why not catch them to steralize instead of to kill them. transport , well to ease stress sedate the animal.
again its down to cost ! no dont agree they would be exinct with this idea, i mean not steralizing every animal, i doubt if they could all be caught, but saying that there are none in my area so who knows how many there actually are out there.
speaking for the fox now, i think the fox would prefer to live and not be killed.
there is always an answer , there is no need to wipe these animals out.
how do you know this wouldnt work if it hasnt been tried !
btw i found your comment on intellegence rather insulting !

you are right that its down to cost - the money for supporting populations for hunting comes from the hunt - take the hunt away and the money goes too - so who is supposed to pay for the sterilisation - its a certainty that wildlife trust sites cant afford it and its doubtful that the average sheep farmer could either.

but it is also down to feasibility - either you catch enough to reduce the breeding population or you dont - one way makes it pointless and the otherway has a negative impact on the population - as sterile foxes will still be competing with their peers for food and living space - dead ones dont

Ive never tried to stop a train with my head either - but you dont need to try everything to know that somethings are a bad idea.

and fox control is never going to eradicate them - thats why bits called "control" !!!

and if you bothered to read the post properly rather than responding to what you think people are saying you would see that I never made any comment about your intelligence - I said that the idea was too unrealistic for people to spend time putting together an intelligent response. It was dicky that conflated that into a remark about your intelligence - and i imediately corrected that in the next post by saying that " it is perfectly possible for inteligent people to have an unworkable idea"

[dickybird]

au contraire,stinky bob-au contraire.........!
i think i have very much contributed to the debate!

i agree i may not have expressed my opinions in a mouse-like manner-because that is not me. when i feel very strongly about something,i will defend my opinion 'to the death'.

at what point have i directly accused either yourself or dunkery munkery of being driven by the reasons i gave for people hunting? maybe i have just touched a raw nerve......

if this thread is shut down-so be it. i hope that wasnt a thinly disguised threat on your part stinky bob.

we can all find evidence to back up our arguments as well!

i have stated how i feel and how i judge the situation according to evidence i believe----and no doubt you have too.

we must agree to disagree

dickybird

[Stinky Bob]

Originally Posted by dickybird

im still there with you,squeek!!!

dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

get in there,squeek!!! dont let the ol' gi--no,on second thoughts thats soooo last week! haha....!!!!

for the record-

i deplore any suffering caused to any animal,bird,insect-whatever.

i despise those who hide behind the banner''the (animal..) needs controlling and so take it upon themselves to go out and chase the terrified animal til it drops exhausted into submission.

i could cheerfully take the most sadistic revenge on those who torture or exploit any animal for pleasure or money.

i will not be voting labour in future because they have taken advantage of their position with this unenforceable,underhand,unscrupulous ban on hunting with dogs

and i certainly will not be voting for the conservatives who will NEVER introduce a proper,fair ban as it would rob the mainstay of their party funding

bring on the revolution!!!


dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

indeed,eeyore--if an animal IS suffering,a quick and quiet dispatch is preferable to a lingering death.

but.....how many hide behind this as an excuse to wantonly hunt and kill?

i have several farmer friends who tell me that the fox is very little threat to their animals. yes,a fox will take a sick or weak lamb;it will kill more fowl than it needs to IF the owner of the coup hasnt taken thorough measures to keep the fox out. but.....they all agree that the fox is undeniably helpful in keeping down the rodent population.

dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

mmmmm---enforced euthanasia. be interesting if we applied that logic to our own species!!


dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

wash your mouth out squeek!!!


how could you possibly suggest something that would deny many cowardly people the right to exercise their bloodlust.

really!!!

(your post suggesting other means of controlling populations of fox etc)

dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

so eeyore---man is to be allowed to do as he likes.

he can be allowed to destroy habitats putting other species at risk but then also be allowed to kill those species that take advantage of his folly?

greed, money,cowardice,bloodlust--theyre all at the bottom of hunting.its a rare event when it is done for genuine conservation.

and no one is 'insulting' you-just stating things as they see them. perhaps youre feeling a little tetchy as youre struggling to defend your point of view and failing miserably to persuade those opposed to your view to think otherwise.
after all---noone has accused your posts as being so unintelligent they barely warrant reply!


dickybird

Originally Posted by dickybird

au contraire,stinky bob-au contraire.........!
i think i have very much contributed to the debate!

i agree i may not have expressed my opinions in a mouse-like manner-because that is not me. when i feel very strongly about something,i will defend my opinion 'to the death'.

at what point have i directly accused either yourself or dunkery munkery of being driven by the reasons i gave for people hunting? maybe i have just touched a raw nerve......

if this thread is shut down-so be it. i hope that wasnt a thinly disguised threat on your part stinky bob.

we can all find evidence to back up our arguments as well!

dickybird

Not too much discussion there hey dicky, quite a lot of mouth frothing, some poor attempts at sarcasm and nil point for rhetoric.

To answer your last post though:
1) You haven't accused me or Dunkery but I didn't say you had, as I abhor hunting for sport and have posted to that effect I not sure what or where this raw nerve is that you mentioned.
2) I would rather this thread continued to be discussed as I find most of the posts to be interesting and thought provoking
3) Please do, provide evidence that is

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by squeek

i have a thread around here somewhere titled "where have all my foxes gone?"

i read on here someone took out 12 in one night, well now i have my answer, i dont have any foxes b/c some one has killed them.
we counted 9 in our garden once and now there are none !
one day there wont be any of them left, they will be extinct !

I think that is highly unlikely - I never saw a live fox until I was in my twenties and now it is an unusual week when we do not see one. I think you will find that history proves the fox to be a resourceful and sucessfull species.

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by squeek

yeah how could I

it seems no one else is going to comment on that thought
(steralize instead of killing to control animal population)

We actually rouched on this in another thread a while back, it is something that is often mentioned.

The first problem is one of logistics - how do you trap and sterilise sufficient females to achieve any form of population control and who pays for the trapping and sterilisation?

Secondly I for one have a problem in describing the trapping, transport and aenesthesia followed by a surgical procedure and subsequent incarceration for recovery prior to further transport and release of a wild animal which will now serve no useful function for its species as a whole, as being in any way a humane operation or one that is in the best interests of the animal.

I would regard a rifle round as being altogether more humane and practical

There is also ongoing work in the fields of developing an injectable or oral contraceptive for use on deer but again the practical difficulties are very considerable.

Regards
mac

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by squeek

your 1st answer mentions cost and im affraid that is what its all about in the end Money !

I don't think it is "all about money" but it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask how the proposal for sterilisation as opposed to euthanasia in one form or another will be funded. In general fox control is carried out by those who have a vested financial interest in seeing foxes controlled.

to me it seems if people wantto catch foxes for hunting they will go to any lengths eg now we have artificial earths. so why not catch them to steralize instead of to kill them. transport , well to ease stress sedate the animal.
again its down to cost ! no dont agree they would be exinct with this idea, i mean not steralizing every animal, i doubt if they could all be caught,but saying that there are none in my area so who knows how many there actually are out there.

Forgive me if my memory is at fault but from another thread I seem to recall that you are based in N.E England in an area of active game shooting and exstensive sheep farming - you should not be surprised that foxes are kept under pressure in such an area.

speaking for the fox now, i think the fox would prefer to live and not be killed.
there is always an answer , there is no need to wipe these animals out.
how do you know this wouldnt work if it hasnt been tried !

On an individual basis sure, but a fox that makes the mistake of standing still looking at a lamp will feel no pain at all, any that are missed will not make the same mistake again! I really do not see any prospect of wiping them out and since the population of foxes is generally in rude good health despite all the various efforts at control I don't think that the costs of attempting a "sterilisation trial" are justifiable by any great prospect of success

Cheers
mac

[squeek]

Originally Posted by muldonach

I think that is highly unlikely - I never saw a live fox until I was in my twenties and now it is an unusual week when we do not see one. I think you will find that history proves the fox to be a resourceful and sucessfull species.

i do hope your right.
we have always had foxes here(11yrs) but we have only seen one over the past year and he hasnt been here for 5 months now.
but what we have noticed is that there are now sheep in nearby fields.
so we're thinking is it the farmer getting rid of them ?