Bring Back Fox Hunting

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not being patronising - I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in your position. You accept that trapping and releasing farmyard rats is impractical, but that simply underlines the inconsistency in your argument. How do you balance your compassion for animals feeling pain with that impracticality?

The argument is about fox hunting and not rats or fish! There currently isn't any real alternative in controlling rat populations, so I can't campaign for their use. I can campaign for more reasearch though.

There is no inconsistancy in my argument at all, although you have been deviating the subject somewhat with rats.

Why do you want to see foxes ripped to shreads by dogs by a load of people on horse-back baying for blood?

It may be a old tradition, but so was ducking "witches" in the mill pond and hanging.



Anyway... Happy new year for later, Chris and everyone in this thread!. Have a good one.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I am against fox hunting, but I am also against statements like and double standards.

I am fairly sure fish suffer when they are caught, but, not being fluffy and Disneyfied (except for Nemo), there appears to be less (if any) of an outcry about them.

Where are the double standards?

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

The argument is about fox hunting and not rats or fish! There currently isn't any real alternative in controlling rat populations, so I can't campaign for their use. I can campaign for more reasearch though.

There is no inconsistancy in my argument at all, although you have been deviating the subject somewhat with rats.

Complaining about 'deviation' is the last refuge of people who try to hold a logically inconsistent position on an issue.

Our society is not divided into silos. It is one great big overlapping whole. The values you claim to hold in one area, if they are sincere, should affect your view of everything else as well. If they do not translate away from the immediate topic of discussion, then it is reasonable in the context of a logical argument to question how sincerely held your views really are - especially if you claim to want to see other people adopt those views. After all, why should anyone else buy into your position if you haven't bought into it as completely as you first seemed?

Why do you want to see foxes ripped to shreads by dogs by a load of people on horse-back baying for blood?

I don't have any desire to take part in a fox hunt. Neither do I have any desire to see our parliamentary democracy so casually used to suddenly criminalise the behaviour of hundreds of thousands of people.

Anyway... Happy new year for later, Chris and everyone in this thread!. Have a good one.

Likewise

Originally Posted by Chris

The claim that hunting with dogs is 'inefficient' is an assertion that is frequently and loudly repeated by the anti-hunt lobby, and one which they seem to hope everyone will buy in to if they repeat it loudly and frequently enough.

It's an assertion that sadly doesn't get challenged often enough. So I think it's fair for me to re-post something I said in this thread back in March:



The link is well worth reading. I would be very grateful if some of the people who have been so passionate to assert that hunting with dogs is 'inefficient' and 'unnatural' and 'inhuman' could give a thoughtful, reasoned response to the expert opinion it contains.

Just finished having a look through the link Chris ,it does make interesting reading and does give good arguments in favour of traditional fox hunting although i can't help feeling it could be seen as a tad biased as all the evidence they put forward comes back to fox hunting being a good thing ,and coming from vets who earn a great deal of money from hunts could be seen as biased .Having said that it would be very hard to find a unbiased viewpoint in this debate ,every thing i find to counter the argument for fox hunting comes from animal rights groups which are equally as biased and one sided

I did find this little gem from the Research and library service of the northern Ireland assembly which since fox hunting is still legal in NI could be seen as the closest to being unbiased i feel

Introduction

The sport of foxhunting, which involves the tracking, the chase, and sometimes the killing of a fox by trained foxhounds or scent hounds, is a controversial topic, particularly in the UK. Bans were introduced for Scotland in 2002, and then for England and Wales in 2005 under the Hunting Act (2004)1. Proponents see it as an important part of the rural culture and economy, useful for conservation and pest control, while opponents argue it is cruel and unnecessary2.
This paper looks at the effects of the hunting ban in England, in terms of the numbers now participating in hunting, the rural economy and employment with reference to the horse industry, farmers, and tourism. Finally it considers the future of the ban in relation to the proposals to repeal the Hunting Act 2004.

full report here
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researc...2010/12310.pdf

[G UK]

I would say there is little in the NI report that supports the arguments of the hunters.

All quotes taken directly from http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researc...2010/12310.pdf as per previous post

Impact of hunts

Effects

There does not appear to have been a sharp decrease in the number of hunts in England since the ban.

As described in the report this is due to the increase in trail hunting and other artificial hunts.

An important fact highlighted by the articles is that no hunt has gone out of business, instead 34% report an increase in subscribers; while 10% say their numbers have decreased.

Economy

Information supplied by the Council of Hunting Associations conveyed that there has been a minimal loss of jobs which is due more to a number of hunts giving up picking up dead stock from farms because of the expense and bureaucracy of the service.

The evidence from BETA on the numbers of horses and riders in the UK, suggest that the horse industry did not drop into decline since the ban, that other factors clearly kept it in the increase.

There is then a discussion of the Pro's and Con's of a repeal of the Ban.

--------

So No Cultural and No Economic impacts of the ban as they have already moved to artificial hunts. In fact there has been an overall increase in hunt take up since the move to artificial hunts!!!

Originally Posted by G UK

I would say there is little in the NI report that supports the arguments of the hunters.

All quotes taken directly from http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researc...2010/12310.pdf as per previous post

Impact of hunts

Effects



As described in the report this is due to the increase in trail hunting and other artificial hunts.



Economy





There is then a discussion of the Pro's and Con's of a repeal of the Ban.

--------

So No Cultural and No Economic impacts of the ban as they have already moved to artificial hunts. In fact there has been an overall increase in hunt take up since the move to artificial hunts!!!

A question sprung to mind whilst i was reading that and you also have picked up on the point that hunt membership has increased since the ban .Does this mean that people who were put off joining a hunt because it meant they would be involved in killing a fox have now decided to join because no killing is involved ..in theory .

What i feel this report and the one that Chris linked to has highlighted is that the regulations introduced where ill thought out for the purpose they were intended for ,it's full of loop holes and very few prosecutions have resulted .Also the report seems to rubbish claims that the ban will/has resulted in mass culling of fox hounds ,slaughter of horses and mass unemployment ,indeed the report seems to suggest that the hunting industry is thriving .As far as i can tell the ban did the hunting industry a favour

[G UK]

Sorry, I've just had a read through the link that Chris provided and all I can say is its nicely worded and submitted excrement that is highly biased to the single point of view through emphasis and omission neither of which is scientifically incorrect (just frowned upon).

It's a loaded paper, highlighting the word Natural on all the Natural Fight & Flight phrases was nice but the same could have been typed for somebody tracking human quarry. Also the nicely highlighted fragments supporting his standpoint a lot of which I have quoted below was also nice.

Intro/Rationale

The submission starts with the premise that there is an accepted need to control the rural fox population,

Fair enough.

The natural death of such a wild animal will occur by starvation, disease or injury, none of which can be described as humane.

True

Secondly, if fox numbers are not controlled there will be progressive and increasing predation on vulnerable farm animals and wildlife.

True, except farm animals can and should be protected from predation.

Natural biological control of fox numbers and the other quarry species will not occur until lack of nutrition, due to overpopulation, and probably disease are so extreme as to suppress reproductive activity.

True. This is a fact of life and happens daily to the human population as well as all animals. Replace "fox numbers and the other quarry species" with "any species" and you still get a true and factual statement

Fox hunting may be conveniently considered under three headings:

Autumn hunting, sometimes known as cub hunting
Full season or winter hunting
Terrier culling or digging out

Ding Ding Ding the report has just cocked up. This report details these types of hunting only which incidentally means it only touches on other methods of fox control

Autumn Hunting

...some of which may have been injured by the less attractive methods of culling listed below. Approximately 50% of foxes killed by a hunt during the calendar year will be during the period of autumn hunting.

See later for the "less attractive" apparently

the hunt rarely lasts more than 10 minutes and often is shorter.

No evidence given, I will leave this as a given for further quotes of this type.

For the fox the first, longer pursuit phase of the hunt, is a period of heightened activity in which all the natural responses of fight or flight are brought into operation. The animals cannot therefore be considered to be under any unnatural stress at this time.

So the fox running for its life is natural and therefore is humane

Decision on the Kill is deferred to a "See Below"

Winter Hunting

Winter hunting, a day long activity, contributes to the control of the fox population throughout the season,

The average time for the hunt is around 20 minutes but clearly this will vary depending on: the nature of the terrain, the scent on the day, the vigour and cunning of the quarry and the skill and training of the hounds and huntsmen. Longer hunts may occur but they often involve a sequence of different foxes. The majority of foxes (up to 85%) will evade capture by the hounds. Some of these will go to ground and, if requested by the farmer or landowner, they will be dug out and shot by the licensed hunt terrier men (see below).

So a number of the majority of these foxes go to ground and if the farmer wants are shot anyway. Anybody think of tracking dogs with scent hounds and a shotgun in the first place!?!

Again, it cannot be considered to be a period of unnatural stress to the fox. An indication of the degree of control that the fox exerts on the situation, during this first phase is evidenced by the wide variety of evasion tactics it will employ to avoid capture, many of which are carried out at a leisurely pace after the initial flight. Hunted foxes may also perform a variety of natural functions such as urination and defaecation during the pursuit phase of a hunt, some have even been observed to kill the occasional chicken

All animals have a flight reflex so hunting all animals is good? If I came hunting you I would think that you would display all of these points. Saying something does something to avoid dieing when you try and kill it is not a defence that it is not cruel.

the short final phase of the hunt, usually less than 2 minutes, will involve stress but this, in physiological terms, will be no more than that experienced by the extended athlete or racehorse. The animal is not hunted to the point of exhaustion rather to the point when still running hard it is overhauled by the fitter and more durable hounds and again often because the fox makes a tactical mistake.

So, being killed is no more than being knackered after a run, care to test that?

Next its not hunted to exhaustion, only until the endurance trained hounds can over-run it. How exactly do they know its not exhausted - No Evidence Given

The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox. The powerful exercise-induced analgesic actions of centrally released endorphins and encephalins, generated during the hunt, will mitigate or eliminate any pain.

So evidence of quick death is nothing but apparently if a fox is knackered it does not feel pain.

The kill and cause of death

Neither wild nor domestic animals appear to have any premonition of death.

Heavily debatable. No Evidence is given in the paper.

What follows is an extensive description of how other animals behave in a slaughterhouse!?! How exactly has what is going to happen to the animals made it back to the fields? Telepathy?. Also do they know what the blood means?

Post mortem evidence submitted to the Inquiry included 2 cases commissioned by the Inquiry and a further 13 submitted by two veterinary practitioners, one from mid Wales (Jones 2000) and the other from Buckinghamshire (Baskerville 2000). Cause of death in 10 of the 15 cases was diagnosed as cervical dislocation and fracture while the remaining 5 foxes died from massive trauma to the thorax and abdomen. In either event one may conclude, as did the Committee of Inquiry, that death was almost instantaneous.

So admitted to only two vets submitting cases. In 2/3 cases by cervical dislocation which takes how long? (No Evidence) versus 1/3 having there throats/abdomens ripped out which is almost instantaneous apparently.

Further have been excluded because hounds have been stopped from mking a quick kill apparently.

Terrier culling or Digging

While the fox is underground, where it was born and raised, there is no reason to presume it suffers any more distress than that of the heightened activity of the hunt. Indeed having gained the sanctuary of the earth, the heightened activity may even subside. And while the entry of the terrier may act to maintain the state of heightened activity the confrontation between the two equally sized animals is not one of aggression but rather a stand off, holding situation.

Not suprising.

Even when the fox is located by digging and the terrier extracted, the fox does not show signs of severe distress or fear as might be evidenced by involuntary urination or defaecation. Rather it appears remarkably calm and secure in its partially exposed hole where it is immediately killed humanely by a close range shot to the head.

So a fox that had gone to ground and was being dug out and would know it was being dug out still was more calm than a normally hunted fox.

Other methods only appear to have had passing analysis

Shooting

The government’s preferred method for fox control, is also widely used for culling deer and hare. However, shooting is intrinsically unsafe and inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. Shooting can only be as certain and quick as death by hounds when a close or point blank shot is applied directly to the cranium,

No Evidence. What is the Percentage? What is it with other animals? A gun will miss just as do hounds minus the trauma (See Winter Hunting)

. But, in considering the humane aspects of wildlife management, it is important to have in mind that wild animals are at their most distressed when trapped or harassed in an environment that is strange and alien to them. Thus, whereas a domestic animal might accept the confinement of a cage, for a wild animal it can be a cause of acute distress even physiological shock, particularly when approached by man (Wise 1999).

As opposed to the pursuit? It could be argued that being trapped reactions are just as "natural" as the pursuit reactions.

Partly because of the expense of the equipment and partly due to the extreme wariness of the rural fox for man made contraptions, cage trapping is not a practical method of catching foxes or hares but it is used for mink. And although the law requires that cage traps are inspected every 24 hours, this is clearly open to error and abuse, with consequent suffering of the trapped animal, particularly if the frequency of success may be as low as 1 catch per 100 days.

So down side has been heavily reported reported (not done for hunting with dogs). Cost and the fact people will not follow the rules are the major concerns with this type of hunting.

Rest of the paper is covered in my previous post on this subject.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

A question sprung to mind whilst i was reading that and you also have picked up on the point that hunt membership has increased since the ban .Does this mean that people who were put off joining a hunt because it meant they would be involved in killing a fox have now decided to join because no killing is involved ..in theory .

No because they are twice as likely to be on a hunt where a fox is killed, in fact I am sure I remember hearing one hunt killed as many foxes on its first day of hunting once the ban was brought in than it did in the entire previous year...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No because they are twice as likely to be on a hunt where a fox is killed, in fact I am sure I remember hearing one hunt killed as many foxes on its first day of hunting once the ban was brought in than it did in the entire previous year...

Thats a pretty old report " Saturday 20 November 2004 " wonder if that's the same now ?.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No because they are twice as likely to be on a hunt where a fox is killed, in fact I am sure I remember hearing one hunt killed as many foxes on its first day of hunting once the ban was brought in than it did in the entire previous year...

That's not killing with dogs ,it's a different type of hunt, killling the fox with a gun is different to killing with a dog .Most of the objections to fox hunting were because of the use of dogs to carry out the kill

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

.Most of the objections to fox hunting were because of the use of dogs to carry out the kill

Correct. I have no objection to the control of the fox population, I have a problem when its done for the sole gratification and pleasure of those on horses. If you have seen the way some of these so called human beings act at the kill you would be sick.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Correct. I have no objection to the control of the fox population, I have a problem when its done for the sole gratification and pleasure of those on horses. If you have seen the way these so called human beings act at the kill you would be sick. There are videos on YouTube but i will not link to them on a family forum.

Exactly it is barbaric and distasteful to say the least and not the way people in a modern society should act getting their kicks from bloodlust on such a low level.

I also find it pathetic that people who support this so called sport try to be emotive and say it will cause loss of employment for people, they could find other employment as hunting wild animals in this way is wrong on so many levels.

If you support fox hunting then give a realistic explanation why an animal should be torn apart for someones gratification and why you should be smeared with its blood on your first hunt, explain it in a way that a normal person can understand as most arguments in support are surreal to say the least

Originally Posted by Sirius

Correct. I have no objection to the control of the fox population, I have a problem when its done for the sole gratification and pleasure of those on horses. If you have seen the way these so called human beings act at the kill you would be sick.

Interesting turn of phrase from the master of hounds in Daddy's link

"

It's pest control now. It's not hunting as it used to be."

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

Exactly it is barbaric and distasteful to say the least and not the way people in a modern society should act getting their kicks from bloodlust on such a low level.

I also find it pathetic that people who support this so called sport try to be emotive and say it will cause loss of employment for people, they could find other employment as hunting wild animals in this way is wrong on so many levels.

If you support fox hunting then give a realistic explanation why an animal should be torn apart for someones gratification and why you should be smeared with its blood on your first hunt, explain it in a way that a normal person can understand as most arguments in support are surreal to say the least

Most of those claims have have been blown out of the water as evidenced in my previous link to the NIA report on the effects of hunting

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

Interesting turn of phrase from the master of hounds in Daddy's link

"

They will use any means to try and make this sick spectacle in some way respectable and its smacks of desperation.

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Most of those claims have have been blown out of the water as evidenced in my previous link to the NIA report on the effects of hunting

They will always try and use employment as a reason as they think it appeals to people on an emotive level.

The title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer as I think any chance of it being reintroduced is very slight.

Surely a thread entitled No to Fox Hunting would be a more positive start to the New Year and a new decade.