Conservatives vow to bring back hunting with dogs

[Agent Orange]

Its very dependent on the local area and the fox population. Contrary to belief one fox can decimate an entire chicken coop or can night after night whip out 10s to 100's of lambs. This kind of destruction of livestock can put a farmer out of business.

 

Disease kills more livestock and is much more of a threat to the livelihood of any farmer than any Fox.

[Treatment]

I was once out hunting when I came across a naked Blonde. I asked if she was game, she replied Yes.

 

So I shot her.

[Agent Orange]

This is not tha case in the majority of fox hunts what so ever. You're talking out of your backside.

 

Thanks for your constructive contribution Did I say majority?! I said, it happens and is known to happen in areas where the Fox population is little or doesn't exist.

[boyfriday]

Killing any animal while it cares for a litter wrong, be it a pest or a game animal.

 

That's a morality jugdement, which is what this whole thread is about. If the fox is a pest then eradicating it and its young would be an effective means of controlling the problem.

 

But of course, that wouldn't be beneficial to the 'sport' which requires a plentiful supply of live quarry. There are also recorded instances of hunts breeding foxes for that very purpose:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/17/hunting.ruralaffairs

[Berlin]

Yes. Ducks, badgers, hares, stags, does, venison, boars. Amonst others. Man has been hunting with dog for millennia. In that context, a dog is a tool used to locate and/or chase and/or retrieve (depending on the game). For hunting dogs, the important variations in breeds correspond essentially to further specialisation in the type of game. E.g. dachshunds specifically 'designed' for burrowing game (badgers originally), sub-varieties bred for boar hunting (in packs).

 

In the case of fox hunts as discussed in this thread, I think you want to define the hunting form itself, rather than the fact that it is conducted with dogs.

 

Just being picky here............venison is a meat, not an animal.

[L00b]

That's a morality jugdement, which is what this whole thread is about. If the fox is a pest then eradicating it and its young would be an effective means of controlling the problem.

Not quite, because happenstance dictates whether eradication is required (particularly once a fox has "been at" a coop / lambing field...to which it will return time and again, therefore becomes a permanent problem until eliminated), but population control is more important (ensuring that sufficient fauna of the type remains in an area, to maintain biological diversity/equilibrium in that area).

 

Just being picky here............venison is a meat, not an animal.

My bad, I meant fallow deer (or whatever it is Brits call them)

[boyfriday]

They do tent to come out of their hole when a dog is coming in through the back door, but of course you knew that and were just being stupid.

 

Forgive me, my ignorance remains.

 

Presumably, if the foxes are in their holes at night, and the hunters know where the holes are by tracking the foxes trail, it would be quite possible to send a dog down the hole and await the imminent arrival of the fox via net covered exit holes?

 

Ps: If you're going to accuse another poster of being stupid, it would be sensible to double check your spelling before pressing the submit button, just an observation.

[boyfriday]

Not quite, because happenstance dictates whether eradication is required (particularly once a fox has "been at" a coop / lambing field...to which it will return time and again, therefore becomes a permanent problem until eliminated), but population control is more important (ensuring that sufficient fauna of the type remains in an area, to maintain biological diversity/equilibrium in that area).

 

I understand that argument, but I doubt foxes significantly affect the biological diversity in rural areas, which is already artificially controlled by farmers who are breeding the livestock that the fox is accused of taking.

[L00b]

I understand that argument, but I doubt foxes significantly affect the biological diversity in rural areas, which is already artificially controlled by farmers who are breeding the livestock that the fox is accused of taking.

You'd be amazed. In the UK, foxes are pretty much apex predators within their territory and farmers and their livestock form but one small part of any given local ecosystem. Take out the fox, and witness a transient demographic explosion in the fox's habitual preys (rabbits, birds, rats, etc). Which in turn impacts the farmer again (more rabbits, more rats etc.)

 

But then which is less costly for the farmer: letting the fox have the hens, or trapping and treating for diseases its preys carry?

 

Still further down the line: not regulating the fox population? Then fox population eventually becomes too big for an area, too many have at local coops or lambing fields (e.g.), and mass cull becomes required. And around it goes.

 

It's all about balance. Same as it's always been (and it doesn't make a cogent argument in support of horse-mounted hunts either. But, again, I'm not bothered either way about it )

[boyfriday]

You'd be amazed. In the UK, foxes are pretty much apex predators within their territory and farmers and their livestock form but one small part of any given local ecosystem. Take out the fox, and witness a transient demographic explosion in the fox's habitual preys (rabbits, birds, rats, etc). Which in turn impacts the farmer again (more rabbits, more rats etc.)

 

But then which is less costly for the farmer: letting the fox have the hens, or trapping and treating for diseases its preys carry?

 

Still further down the line: not regulating the fox population? Then fox population eventually becomes too big for an area, too many have at local coops or lambing fields (e.g.), and mass cull becomes required. And around it goes.

 

It's all about balance. Same as it's always been (and it doesn't make a cogent argument in support of horse-mounted hunts either. But, again, I'm not bothered either way about it )

 

But the argument is about foxhunting and their motives for engaging in it. I've said previously that I acknowledge the reasons for controlling the fox population, it's how we go about it that I'm concerned with.

 

It's already been demonstrated that fox hunting isn't a particularly effective way of doing it and indeed some hunts introduce foxes to the biological demographic so they can engage in their sport.

 

serapis said earlier that foxes can often be found with their litters, if that's the case and I'm sure foxes are easy to track, there should be a disciplined strategy of limiting fox numbers by dealing with them humanely in that environment.