53 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

That's just one of many ways the fox dies.

[SteveT]

An individual fox can only die once, but thinking every one dies from the neck bite is naive.

[Marty]

The fox population has to be kept in check so you have to consider the alternative options to fox hunting. You could set a trap which might kill the fox immediately or might just catch its leg and then it bleeds to death or starves. You could hire a marksman to shoot the foxes. If he's good the fox will die with one shot. If he isn't the fox will again only be wounded and die over a few days. At least with the hounds its quick, regardless of wether or not they do the neck bite.

The only thing that annoys me about fox hunting is the amount of time spent in the commons arguing over it. There are a lot more important things to discuss that actually affect the majority of us.

[Marty]

Fox hunting has been going on for a very long time. If it was in anyway damaging the effects would have been evident by now. The hunt actually helps the ecosystem because they take away dead carcasses to prevent the spread of disease. They also have the permission of the farmers whose land the hunt will take place on, so they don't just waltz in. Also, its the farmers who consider the foxes pests and the farmers will continue to have the foxes killed with or without the hunt.

[Showsni]

I'm against fox hunting myself. I don't think killing things is right, especially not for sport. As for keeping pests down, I don't think hunting amounts for a large percentage of foxes killed. But if there is a ban, farmers might engage in killing more foxes than would have been killed by the hunts. This website seems quite helpful: http://www.archive.o...763/4763-05.htm

[Marty]

Veggist, I was only referring to the hunters when I said no damage had been caused. I'm well aware of what humans have done but your examples are irrelevant to the issue of fox hunting. And yes, nature has a way of dealing with dead animals. But that point is also mute because we're talking about farmland, which is a manmade ecology. If the carcasses aren't removed then it will endanger the rest of the livestock. The hunters merely do the farmer a favour since it would normally cost him/her money to remove it.

Question - where would you have the farmers farm? The city? Wherever they go there will be foxes or something else to bother their livestock.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Originally posted by Marty@Sep 19 2004, 08:16 PM
Veggist, I was only referring to the hunters when I said no damage had been caused. I'm well aware of what humans have done but your examples are irrelevant to the issue of fox hunting. And yes, nature has a way of dealing with dead animals. But that point is also mute because we're talking about farmland, which is a manmade ecology. If the carcasses aren't removed then it will endanger the rest of the livestock. The hunters merely do the farmer a favour since it would normally cost him/her money to remove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, you've confused me. Why the Heck would people be hunting dead animals?

(Don't tell me the Countryside Alliance knows something that we don't - that the countryside is awash with zombie foxes! Resident Evil Fox with Sir Leon Kennedy Esquire and his pack of zombie fox hounds.)

Foxes hunt and kill sick animals. So by your logic, the foxes are actually doing the farmers a favour by taking a sick and possibly infectious animal away from the livestock. Hunting foxes decreases the fox population (but not very much), not leading to an increase in mouse population but an increase in rabbit population and they're every bit a pest as foxes are supposed to be.

Hunting in its current form with hounds is cruel and will never be able to eradicate a fox population. Will it be able to control the fox population? I guess it does, but nature can do that just as well.

[Marty]

The hunters take the dead carcasses with them to feed to the hounds later. Its done during the slow part of the hunt while they are tracking down a fox and so there is plenty of time.

Wolf - Its not about eradicating since there would be no hunt if you did that.

Basically the way I see it is if fox hunting (which I don't see as being cruel) is banned then we are affecting the way of life for a lot of people just for our own ideals and ease of mind.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Originally posted by Marty@Sep 19 2004, 08:50 PM
The hunters take the dead carcasses with them to feed to the hounds later. Its done during the slow part of the hunt while they are tracking down a fox and so there is plenty of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but the way you said it earlier, you made it sound as if the countryside were littered with dead carcasses (or zombie foxes) and that these hunters were hunting these dead carcasses (or zombie foxes) down. Let's face it. These carcasses wouldn't be there if the hunters weren't chasing them down to kill them.

Basically the way I see it is if fox hunting (which I don't see as being cruel) is banned then we are affecting the way of life for a lot of people just for our own ideals and ease of mind.

Meh, it's not cruel in the sense that it happens regularly in nature... or does it? I can't remember instances of animals being torn to death (because let's face it, the fox hounds don't necessarily break the fox's neck and normally in nature, prey of the size of a fox aren't normally hunted down by packs of animals bigger than them).

Hunts would be far less cruel if you didn't use a pack of dogs, because that's basically overkill. All you need is the one to break the neck, surely.

[SteveT]

I think there's more humane ways to keep the population of things down than by setting packs of dogs on them.

By that logic, the US should keep deer population in check by sending lion prides after individual deer, because that's supposedly more human than shooting them. The difference is, lions actually DO kill with a bite to the neck (well, throat for lions), unlike dogs.

[Showsni]

Even in the very few cases where the fox isn't instantly killed by a bite to the neck, it still dies a lot faster than from a trap.

Apparently, fox traps don't kill at all - they are basically running knots which hold tight before the fox is strangled, pinning it in one place until someone comes along to kill it. Still not nice to be trapped in one place for hours, though.

As for potential harms of a ban, a ban could see a rise in the number of foxes killed by farmers. Apparently farmers perceive that more foxes are killed by hunts than actually are, so if there was a ban then they might overkill foxes.

However, foxes do work to keep things like rabbits down. Rabbits are certainly a greater pest to farmers than foxes. Most chickens are secure from foxes, though if one does get in it will kill more than it needs. I think their preying on lambs is another thing farmers don't like foxes doing.

What actually keeps fox numbers down other than humans? Large birds? Lots of foxes are killed on roads - perhaps as traffic increases, the need for hunts will decrease.

Foxes also seem to be being driven into towns. We get noisy ones around here sometimes which knock bins over, etc. Perhaps this wouldn't happen if hunters and farmers didn't kill them... Or maybe it's just lack of food and land for them to live on.

I suppose we can't really tell what would happen if we stopped trying to regulate fox numbers unless we do it, and no one's going to do that just in case.

[Zythe]

Foxes don't need to be controlled. The natural order would have them grow as much as need be. Humanity has been corrupted by something or someone.

There is no need for any population controll in anywhere except overpacked Developing Country cities

[Ganondorf]

People are just sadistic and stupid. Why would anyone want to kill animals for sport. If only we could put these people in a maze with wolves and see the animals have their sport. Muahahaha!

PS. To control population we should put a limit on the maximum number of children in a family or you have to pay extra taxes if you exceed the limit. Or maybe condoms should be free.

[Marty]

If I'm not mistaken, China does penalize families who have more than one child.

This is going to sound harsh to people who love cute little creatures, but we are at the top of the food chain and so we have a natural right to hunt. But we also have a responsibility at the top of the food chain to make sure that we don't overdue it (Lion King anyone?), which is why we have laws and regulations. Proper fox hunting doesn't break those laws, so I don't see why it should be stopped.

[Meep]

As soon as the toffs start eating the Foxes I'll consider it justified. Until then it's barbaric and pointless. Hunting doesn't keep the population down, it accounts for less than 1% of the total killed each year.

And a point on traps: If a fox is caught in one by say, the leg it would gnaw it's leg off escape, or try to bite through the cable and more than likely break it's teeth.

[SteveT]

This is going to sound harsh to people who love cute little creatures, but we are at the top of the food chain and so we have a natural right to hunt.

It's called food chain for a reason, and I dont' think the foxes are being eaten. We have no natural right to kill for sport, only for survival.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Originally posted by lordofthemorning@Sep 21 2004, 07:51 PM
Harms:

Massive waste of police resources. You're going to have to divert police time and money away from more important things to enforce, on top of which the Countryside Alliance has promised a huge programme of civil disobedience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But aren't these police being involved in keeping protestors away from fox hunters in the first place?

[Alakhriveion]

If I'm not mistaken, China does penalize families who have more than one child.

Yeah, with punative taxes.