Fox Hunting - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

John Henry · 06-10-2004, 03:04 AM

This is not a new issue, but it's one which does not yet seem to have been covered on this board.

A couple of elections ago, Labour got in on a number of broken promises, one of which was to ban fox hunting. Here's an article from the Beeb, just to give you a bit of background. Link

I haven't cut and pasted this one, because it's not practical, but here's some text from one of the links on the above page.

Quote:

Thursday, 16 September, 1999, 16:52 GMT 17:52 UK
Is fox hunting cruel?

"Effective and humane" say hunters

The crux of the whole fox hunting debate, for many people, is the issue of cruelty.
Is being chased for several hours to be killed by a pack of dogs cruel?

No, say hunt supporters, citing the top dog of the pack's natural instinct to administer a "quick nip" to the back of the fox's head, which they allege kills it outright.

They also point to research by Dr David McDonald at Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit which suggests that the average duration of a hunt is 17 minutes.

The fox does not anticipate death, they say, so is not unduly traumatised by the pursuit.

And the alternatives - shooting, gassing, snaring or poisoning - would all inflict much more pain and suffering on the foxes. Already, 10 times as many foxes are shot each year than are hunted to death, they say. That figure would only increase if hunting was banned.

Yes it is cruel, and it's unnecessary, say animal welfare groups, campaigners and acitivists.

They point to the fact that the fox has no natural predators except man, and is therefore not accustomed to being chased.

They say that if, and only if, there is a specific problem with a fox in one area, then shooting by a trained marksman is the only humane way to deal with the problem.

And they do not accept the country sport lobby's stance that foxes are pests, and need to be destroyed somehow.

The Countryside Alliance - the group representing many areas of countryside interests, including hunting - says that in order to answer the question, one must first define cruelty.

Foxes need to be controlled say country sportsmen and women

They refer to The Scott Henderson inquiry under the 1949 Labour government.

The Henderson Committee considered cruelty to be "an act causing unnecessary suffering", and went on to elaborate, "So far as general cruelty is concerned, we are satisfied that there is less cruelty in fox hunting than in most other methods of control."

The group's Website reads: "To this day, the Scott Henderson inquiry remains the most thorough and impartial investigation of hunting issues.

"And its report is still as refreshingly relevant as it was when it was written over 40 years ago. Generations may come and go, but the laws of nature and the countryside remain unchanged."

They say that because a foxhound weighs between 70-80lbs, roughly four or five times the fox's mass, and has a powerful jaw, a single bite is all that's required to kill the fox.

The website continues: "There is no doubt that the fox population has to be controlled, and hunting with hounds is not only effective, but it is also the method which involves the least cruelty."

"A popular myth is that the fox is killed by being torn apart by a pack of hounds when it is still alive. This is not true."

They also say that foxhunting is crucial to conservation of the species. Figures on the Foxman website show that during the Second World War, when fox hunting ceased, the fox population went into decline, because farmers took to shooting them all.

Hunting, they say, not only kills one fox, but disperses others.

The research of two British zoologists at Nottingham University, Chris Barnard and Jane Hurst, is also pointed to by hunt supporters.

"Cruel and unnecessary" say animal welfare groups

Their research lead them to believe that stress and fear in animals did not necessarily lead to suffering.

However, since the publication of their work in 1996, Professor Bateson's study for the National Trust indicated that average length of a stag hunt imposed physical stress to the extent that the animal suffered unduly. In other words, that stag hunting was cruel.

Literature published by the Hunt Saboteurs Association on their Website reads: "The quick, clean death of the fox, so joyfully spread by the hunting fraternity is, in the majority of cases a lie.

"They will say that a fox is always killed by hounds with a quick nip on the back of the neck, thus severing the spinal chord. It may finally die this way, but it is likely that it will suffer multiple agonising injuries before the final 'nip' is given.

"Fox is not a pest" says Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals

"Many foxes have been recovered with their innards torn out, but no sign of that fatal nip."

The RSPCA's Alex Ross, for the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, added: "We do not believe that foxes are a national pest or a national problem.

"We believe fox hunting is cruel and unnecessary. If there is a problem with a fox, then a skilled marksman is the only answer. But killing wild animals for pleasure should not be acceptable in this day and age."

Country sportsmen and women are at pains to point out, however, that they make no secret of enjoying the hunt.

Huntsman Jeremy Barnfield said: "It is a sport, and it is one that is very much enjoyed - but it's enjoyed for the chase rather than the kill.

"We are doing the farmer a service, we are getting rid of the fox that would kill his lambs or chickens - and we get a good day's riding out of it."

This is the main issue I'd like to hear your opinions on. Is fox hunting cruel? And if so, does that warrant it being banned? Should we change to chasing the fox into a hole like in the States? Or is that still cruel?

homerhop · 06-11-2004, 02:58 AM

Well I am going to come at this from a hunter’s point of view.
I have been involved in hunting of game for the past 15 years. We have a small club but manage to rear 1200 pheasant’s and over 500 ducks a year.
At any stage of rearing these birds a fox gets into the release pins that these birds are kept in, the results would be disastrous.
Now the bloodspots lobby will tell you that the fox is only killing to eat and survive. This is not so. A fox will get into a pin and kill for sport. When we started first releasing birds into the wild, we had the misfortune of a fox killing over 20 birds out of a hundred. This was a major blow to us at the time because we were only starting to rear birds. This is not an isolated example. If you ever talk to any gamekeeper they will all tell you of this happening to them at some stage of their career.

Now from a humane point of view, there are not many people involved in hunting who enjoy seeing an animal suffer, and those who do should have no part in the sport.
The majority of hunters will tell you it is the chase not the kill that they enjoy. This I can understand.

I use a lamp to hunt foxes. It is an effective way to hunt foxes but no means easy.
Foxes are by no means a dumb animal. They are very good at evading and once a fox has come into contact with a lamp they sure as hell know the next time what it means and will not hang about.

Anyone hunting with hounds or involved with hounds will know that you will hear them long before the hunt begins; they are a noisy lot and tend to bark a lot.
Again any fox with a single brain cell will be on the move or gone to ground at the very sound of the hounds.
I will rely on personal experience on this. I have on more than once seen foxes head to ground long before the hounds have even been taken out from their transport trailers.
A few years ago while watching the hunt go through my uncles lands we heard the hunts men laughing their heads off. When we looked to see what was so funny, we saw a fox trotting up through the horses with not a care in the world. Where were the hounds???? They were half a mile the other direction.

Sure all blood sports are cruel be it from shooting to fishing.
Should it be banned, definitely not .
When it comes to the anti blood sports lobby I would take what they say lightly, a lot of these people hold animal welfare above human welfare.

Superbelt · 06-11-2004, 04:13 AM

Nah. If they have to be controlled in an area, then you shoot them. Pack dogs tearing them apart is just obscene.

llama8 · 06-11-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Henry
A couple of elections ago, Labour got in on a number of broken promises, one of which was to ban fox hunting.

Maybe you should add here that the Bill was passed up to the House of Lords where it was defeated and time had run out before it could be handed back to the Commons.

The interesting thing is that the Bill disappeared for this Parliament sitting where it would only require to be voted once again through the Commons and no matter what the outcome in the Lords it could still be introduced as Law by the Parliament Act.

Seems to me it may of been convieniently forgot but Labour did try to pass the bill. I'm interested to see what the election manifesto will hold and also if it is mentioned this November in the Queen's Speech.

Tophat665 · 06-11-2004, 01:53 PM

Pursuit of the indeible by the unspeakable? Key to this is inedible. If you ain't going to eat it, don't shoot it. I know the kind of damage a fox can do to a bird pen (my dad used to take me along to the game club from time to time). Build stronger pens. If one is still nosing about, then shoot it, but the whole horses, tight pants, not really bright dogs, and helmets thing is a waste of everyone's time and money.

Locobot · 09-15-2004, 03:46 AM

It seems that the House of Commons is about to act on this issue again so it may be appropriate to resurrect this thread. Apparently the House of Commons is planning to invoke the rarely used Parliment Act in order to override the House of Lords.

As a non-hunter leftist American I oppose the ban on Fox hunting. This thread was started with the question whether we feel that fox hunting is cruel or not. I agree that it's cruel, but guess what, mother nature's a cruel-ass bitch. I approach hunting issues understanding that hunting is necessary to maintain species' populations when the natural predators have been killed off. This is how I gauge hunting issues in my country, I typically oppose hunting in ecosystems where populations of predators are present or could feasibly be revived. Such areas exist in the U.S., but there are very few in the UK.

The Fox's natural predator, the wolf, has been eradicated from the isles for over 300 years. Previous to human encroachment Foxes were hunted by packs of dogs and torn apart in a very cruel fashion. Wild Wolves and other predators exhibit the same type of gaming attitude as domesticated dogs. By "gaming attitude" I refer to the playfulness that the dogs show in hunting, baiting, and killing their prey. The dogs enjoy exercising their natural instincts to hunt and kill. "Cruelty," lets remember, is a human invention and doesn't exist in the natural world.

I see this issue as an extension of the town and country dynamic that shapes internal British politics. The hunts are opposed for being cruel by non-hunting, city-dwelling, and middle class people. The hunts are championed by the country aristocracy who see the need to both maintain the Fox population and preserve a cultural tradition. In this case, country is right.

Animal husbandry and domestication exist in every civilization, but were perfected on the British Isles in the form of dog hunts. No use of animals is as complex as the multiple dog breeds and horses used in a traditional Fox hunt. The way British ancestors bred and trained different animals for this specific task is, to me, amazing and something that needs to be preserved. Dog hunts are part of that "dead white culture" that it isn't politically correct to say should be maintained. Political correctness be damned when it comes to dog hunts, I say.

If you Britons are so keen on ditching part of your cultural heritage how about you start by scraping your worthless royalty

jwoody · 09-15-2004, 04:16 AM

Quote:

originally posted by jwoody
To the casual observer it seems absoltutely ludicrous that our politicians are wasting time on this. In reality this is more about a power struggle between the house of lords (toffs) and the house of commons (parasites). I have nothing but contempt for both parties.

This is where our useless queen should step in and tell them the way it is going to be. Fuck democracy, it doesn't work.

*Change of mind*

I'm not too keen on having my right kill foxes with dogs taken away from me but I just can't find it in my heart to support the fox hunters and their red-jacketed ways.

06-11-2004, 02:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	Well I am going to come at this from a hunter’s point of view. I have been involved in hunting of game for the past 15 years. We have a small club but manage to rear 1200 pheasant’s and over 500 ducks a year. At any stage of rearing these birds a fox gets into the release pins that these birds are kept in, the results would be disastrous. Now the bloodspots lobby will tell you that the fox is only killing to eat and survive. This is not so. A fox will get into a pin and kill for sport. When we started first releasing birds into the wild, we had the misfortune of a fox killing over 20 birds out of a hundred. This was a major blow to us at the time because we were only starting to rear birds. This is not an isolated example. If you ever talk to any gamekeeper they will all tell you of this happening to them at some stage of their career. Now from a humane point of view, there are not many people involved in hunting who enjoy seeing an animal suffer, and those who do should have no part in the sport. The majority of hunters will tell you it is the chase not the kill that they enjoy. This I can understand. I use a lamp to hunt foxes. It is an effective way to hunt foxes but no means easy. Foxes are by no means a dumb animal. They are very good at evading and once a fox has come into contact with a lamp they sure as hell know the next time what it means and will not hang about. Anyone hunting with hounds or involved with hounds will know that you will hear them long before the hunt begins; they are a noisy lot and tend to bark a lot. Again any fox with a single brain cell will be on the move or gone to ground at the very sound of the hounds. I will rely on personal experience on this. I have on more than once seen foxes head to ground long before the hounds have even been taken out from their transport trailers. A few years ago while watching the hunt go through my uncles lands we heard the hunts men laughing their heads off. When we looked to see what was so funny, we saw a fox trotting up through the horses with not a care in the world. Where were the hounds???? They were half a mile the other direction. Sure all blood sports are cruel be it from shooting to fishing. Should it be banned, definitely not . When it comes to the anti blood sports lobby I would take what they say lightly, a lot of these people hold animal welfare above human welfare. __________________ its evolution baby

06-11-2004, 01:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Pursuit of the indeible by the unspeakable? Key to this is inedible. If you ain't going to eat it, don't shoot it. I know the kind of damage a fox can do to a bird pen (my dad used to take me along to the game club from time to time). Build stronger pens. If one is still nosing about, then shoot it, but the whole horses, tight pants, not really bright dogs, and helmets thing is a waste of everyone's time and money. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

09-15-2004, 03:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	It seems that the House of Commons is about to act on this issue again so it may be appropriate to resurrect this thread. Apparently the House of Commons is planning to invoke the rarely used Parliment Act in order to override the House of Lords. As a non-hunter leftist American I oppose the ban on Fox hunting. This thread was started with the question whether we feel that fox hunting is cruel or not. I agree that it's cruel, but guess what, mother nature's a cruel-ass bitch. I approach hunting issues understanding that hunting is necessary to maintain species' populations when the natural predators have been killed off. This is how I gauge hunting issues in my country, I typically oppose hunting in ecosystems where populations of predators are present or could feasibly be revived. Such areas exist in the U.S., but there are very few in the UK. The Fox's natural predator, the wolf, has been eradicated from the isles for over 300 years. Previous to human encroachment Foxes were hunted by packs of dogs and torn apart in a very cruel fashion. Wild Wolves and other predators exhibit the same type of gaming attitude as domesticated dogs. By "gaming attitude" I refer to the playfulness that the dogs show in hunting, baiting, and killing their prey. The dogs enjoy exercising their natural instincts to hunt and kill. "Cruelty," lets remember, is a human invention and doesn't exist in the natural world. I see this issue as an extension of the town and country dynamic that shapes internal British politics. The hunts are opposed for being cruel by non-hunting, city-dwelling, and middle class people. The hunts are championed by the country aristocracy who see the need to both maintain the Fox population and preserve a cultural tradition. In this case, country is right. Animal husbandry and domestication exist in every civilization, but were perfected on the British Isles in the form of dog hunts. No use of animals is as complex as the multiple dog breeds and horses used in a traditional Fox hunt. The way British ancestors bred and trained different animals for this specific task is, to me, amazing and something that needs to be preserved. Dog hunts are part of that "dead white culture" that it isn't politically correct to say should be maintained. Political correctness be damned when it comes to dog hunts, I say. If you Britons are so keen on ditching part of your cultural heritage how about you start by scraping your worthless royalty Last edited by Locobot; 09-15-2004 at 03:52 AM..

06-11-2004, 04:13 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Nah. If they have to be controlled in an area, then you shoot them. Pack dogs tearing them apart is just obscene.