foo_fighter Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Deavon ...If they were easily found and shot, then we wouldn't have a fox problem. Have you read the whole of this thread, this argument has been debunked pages ago... ...the "hunt" is way too infrequent and ineffective (numerically) to be an effective control method... ...and shooting does work (and has done when the "hunt" was previously banned)... ...and will now that the "hunt" has been outlawed. Small question for you, why aren't foxes running amok in every other country where they aren't "hunted" by "chaps" in red coats with dogs and horses? The alternative methods seem to work fine there, or do you think we only have foxes in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulip Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by foo_fighter Have you read the whole of this thread, this argument has been debunked pages ago... ...the "hunt" is way too infrequent and ineffective (numerically) to be an effective control method... ...and shooting does work (and has done when the "hunt" was previously banned)... ...and will now that the "hunt" has been outlawed. Small question for you, why aren't foxes running amok in every other country where they aren't "hunted" by "chaps" in red coats with dogs and horses? The alternative methods seem to work fine there, or do you think we only have foxes in the UK? There are foxes here for sure but the farmers think our (ex) method of hunting was very odd and they are being polite! It was very peculiar when you think about it. Apart from it being cruel and barbaric, it is not the way to keep them under control. There are more foxes scavenging in bins around London, they live in fields next to railway lines but you never saw a hunt next to dirty old railway tracks. Can't imagine Charles and Camilla charging up the side of a railway line screaming "tally-ho" can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishpole Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by serapis If a fox gets away, i.e goes to ground Suggests that the only means of escape is by going to ground. They would have been very lucky given the practise by many Hunts to block their bolt holes prior to the hunt taking place. Originally posted by serapis then most hunts would give up. Some will then dig the fox out and shoot it if the land owner wishes. Usually if the fox has been a real pest. I don't think many people are under the illusion that this is a quiet event. If the fox is dug out, after its battle with the terrier men and their dogs, is anyone expected to believe that the hounds will sit patiently by whilst someone shoots it, particularly after they've chased it for so long and are geared up for the kill. It's a very outdated sport not so cleverly disguised by hunters as pest control. Hasn't the term "pest control" been replaced in recent campaigns by "conservation of the fox population"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 No serapis - I will stick with just my opinion. You can find a thousand reasons to maintain your barbaric sport, but the arguments against have much more merit. Horses will still be ridden; dogs will still be kept for show or as pets. All these people losing their jobs - well tough - it happens - re coal miners and steel workers - you train to do something else - if there really is a need for all the doom and gloom about industries collapsing due to hunting being banned. A marksman with a rifle can make a clean kill of an animal from a rabbit to a deer. Foxes are not continually on the move, and even if they are - it is still not that difficult. All I can say about fox hunting is that it is a cruel sport, and thank hades it has been banned. Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Originally posted by Dragon No serapis - I will stick with just my opinion. You can find a thousand reasons to maintain your barbaric sport, but the arguments against have much more merit. If you could back up your claims with facts I have on more than one occasion said I’m happy to take them onboard, but as like hundreds of people who supported this ban you are coming from a position of ignorance and there fore your views and ideals will never have any merit. As has been said many times both in campaigns and in the houses of parliament and the Lords, there is not a majority supporting this ban and no foxes will be saved. Originally posted by Dragon A marksman with a rifle can make a clean kill of an animal from a rabbit to a deer. Foxes are not continually on the move, and even if they are - it is still not that difficult. [/b] I have spoken to people who shoot or have shot foxes, I have seen interviews with marksman who are happy to say they cannot guarantee they will kill 100% of the foxes cleanly they shoot. It is widely known and agreed by both sides that more not less foxes will suffer under this new legislation! Dragon, regarding your comments on how it is not difficult to shoot a fox. You are making it pretty obvious you don’t shoot or have never shot animals in any quantity. I can only come to the conclusion you are making un-informed comments in a vane attempt to backup your argument. As long as people like yourself continue to ride ruff shot over other peoples views and dismiss any evidence to the contrary of your own argument, we are never going to have a just ruling regarding this or any other related issues. Especially when the vast majority of people who are campaigning for these decisions only real experience of a fox is through watching documentaries or reading biased material from suspect websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Originally posted by Fishpole Suggests that the only means of escape is by going to ground. They would have been very lucky given the practise by many Hunts to block their bolt holes prior to the hunt taking place. There is a distinct difference between hunting a fox that is causing major problems to local farmers and hunting to cull numbers of a local population. The prior would involve methods to guarantee the disposal of the fox, and so blocking escape routes could be used. Originally posted by Fishpole I don't think many people are under the illusion that this is a quiet event. If the fox is dug out, after its battle with the terrier men and their dogs, is anyone expected to believe that the hounds will sit patiently by whilst someone shoots it, particularly after they've chased it for so long and are geared up for the kill. It takes time to dig a fox out of its hole, and so by the time the fox is dug out the hounds would be on their way back to their kennels led by the houndsman. Fishpole, I assume as I don’t know otherwise you are fisherman. You do know the league against cruel sports next target is fishing don’t you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Originally posted by foo_fighter Again, I'd dispute just how "difficult" you allege it to be... ...and in my experience, it is the preferred method of control amongst the (non-"hunt" involved) farming/land management community. no ones disputes your ability, but according to the farmers themselves during the protests most are not capable of a single shot kill.particularly if they've just chased the fox from the coup. tenant farmers regularly allow "hunts" for vermin on their land so the killing of foxes would be no different if they could organise it. we have no hunts near us but most farmers allow foxes to be shot whilst clearing crows etc, they may not be able to ask for it but they do allow it. the foxes can be a nuisance,the worst case scenarios of hounds chasing are unpleasant, but they sre worst case & not every single time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Originally posted by Dragon No serapis - I will stick with just my opinion. You can find a thousand reasons to maintain your barbaric sport, but the arguments against have much more merit. Horses will still be ridden; dogs will still be kept for show or as pets. All these people losing their jobs - well tough - it happens - re coal miners and steel workers - you train to do something else - if there really is a need for all the doom and gloom about industries collapsing due to hunting being banned. A marksman with a rifle can make a clean kill of an animal from a rabbit to a deer. Foxes are not continually on the move, and even if they are - it is still not that difficult. All I can say about fox hunting is that it is a cruel sport, and thank hades it has been banned. Dragon pack hounds are unsuitable as pets - they are pack dogs that behave in a different manner to a lap dog. they will have to killed in many areas - fact. most farmers are not marksmen with scope's & high powered rifles, they would be using 12 bores with a limited range in most cases whch means the fox would need to wlak up & shake his hand before he was in danger of being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyspikey Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 id like to see those uper class p------s who hunt foxes get locked in a dark room and have a family of foxes let loose at them!!---perhaps then they would realise whats it like!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Originally posted by mikeyspikey id like to see those uper class p------s who hunt foxes get locked in a dark room and have a family of foxes let loose at them!!---perhaps then they would realise whats it like!! no class issues here at all, nothing to see, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.