Should fox hunting be banned....

[spyro2000]

Well they should have a stronger panel then shouldnt they.

[Berberis]

Originally posted by MarkB

I have nothing against hunting but withgins or any other effective method that isn't barbaric. I will try and get a link to a page when i find it, its an article which describes the moments of a fox hunt. it is quite touching to read. Will find it and post it.

 

What is more barbaric? A fox being killed by another animal in the fastest possible method? or being shot and then to bleed to death or to suffer blood poisoning and die a few hours or days later?

[TimmyR]

I agree, I'm sure there are ways to stop foxes other than killing them.

[spyro2000]

Originally posted by serapis

What is more barbaric? A fox being killed by another animal in the fastest possible method? or being shot and then to bleed to death or to suffer blood poisoning and die a few hours or days later?

 

Thats like asking a person wether they would rather get shot or stabbed. Personally I would prefer neither.

[borninsheffield]

Hold on I can't fidn thsi afticle on the net so i will put it on a website. you read this and you will see!

[borninsheffield]

here we are, take time to read it. It is so moving to read this:

 

http://sheffieldlad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Hounded%20to%20Death.htm

 

After reading this I am sure everyone will really agree with me no matter what they say on here!

[Berberis]

This is part and parcel of the pro hunting argument. No anti-hunt person can give a credible alternative to hunting foxes with hounds.

 

Foxes need to be controlled, that has been agreed by both sides. What are we to do, introduce something like myxomatosis when their numbers get out of hand?

 

To be honest, I wish there was another method. I’m not pro hunting for the enjoyment of the sport, I’m pro hunting because I come from the country and have seen first hand the destruction a fox can cause. I have also been on fox hunts and can speak from a position of experience regarding them (it was a long time ago mind).

 

I’m also a firm believer that any form of cruelty to animals is wrong. But we have to be grown up here and realise that foxes are not the same as their children’s story representations.

[Cyclone]

Originally posted by TimmyR

I agree, I'm sure there are ways to stop foxes other than killing them.

 

they need controlling, there is no doubt or discussion about it.

 

it's just that now the control will be with poison and shooting.

[beautynbeast]

FOX FACTS

 

 

Why Fox Hunting should be Banned

We believe that Fox Hunting should be banned because it is cruel and unnecessary. Fox numbers do not need to be "controlled" - scientific studies have consistently shown that fox populations are self-regulating, already limited by available food and territory. Fox Hunting only takes place for the pleasure of the hunters - nothing else.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Some Common Myths About Fox Hunting

1. "Foxes are pests. They kill poultry and lambs and spread disease. Hunting is necessary to limit their numbers." This is completely wrong:

 

 

Hunting does not limit fox numbers. Like most animals, their numbers are regulated by the availability of food. If fox numbers in a particular area are too high and food is scarce, only the dominant vixens will breed and so the population will fall. If fox numbers are low, vixens will have large litters and the numbers will rise. A three year study by Aberdeen University showed that in the absence of any form of fox control, there was neither an increase in fox numbers or in the number of lambs taken. Hunting cannot affect the fox population.

 

 

Hunts encourage foxes to breed to provide sport. For example, foxes were introduced to the Isle of Wight solely for hunting. In other areas, artificial earths which have been built by the hunt to encourage foxes have been discovered, and some members of the hunting fraternity openly admit it goes on. For example, an account of a hunt by the Lanarkshire & Renfrewshire Foxhunt in "Horse and Hound" was ended with the words, "and after local hunting on Marshall Moor, a brace of foxes was evicted from an artificial earth near Bankbrae."

 

 

Foxes are not pests. In fact, they are very useful for controlling the numbers of pests on farmland. Their natural diet is rabbits, voles, mice and rats. When rabbits were first hit by myxamatosis in the 1950s, their numbers dropped by more than 99%. Soon however, the population will have completely recovered and according to a report from the Ministry of Agriculture, rabbits are causing £100 million worth of damage to crops and forestry each year.

 

 

The report says that the rapid recovery in numbers is partly due to the killing of their natural predators: fox, mink and stoats. And, of course, hunts themselves damage crops by leading packs of dogs and horses across fields. Many farmers do claim that foxes kill lambs and poultry, which explains why they are willing to let hunts onto their land. However, foxes are not hunters as such, but opportunists.

 

 

They will hang around sheep flocks and scavenge for dead animals and afterbirths. Most foxes would not try to take a new-born lamb as they would be attacked by the lamb's mother, who would instinctively defend her children and who is larger than a fox. A group of eleven sheep farmers carried out post-mortems on all dead sheep that had been attacked by foxes. In every case, the sheep had died before they had been mauled - the mothers died during childbirth and the lambs died of the cold, of disease or were stillborn.

 

 

Domestic dogs are responsible for killing 5000 sheep a year, far more than foxes can be blamed for. If dogs do kill a sheep, a farmer may blame it on the fox because of the latter's reputation. Fox hunts can also be responsible, as the hounds sometimes riot, killing sheep, poultry, deer and pet cats and dogs

 

 

. Foxes will attack poultry, but mostly they are kept in inhumane factory farms. To protect them against predators, it is only necessary to build a fence around the farm, buried a short distance into the ground. When foxes have entered these enclosures they have only been able to get in due to the farmer's neglect of the upkeep of the fence.

 

 

An important thing to remember is that sheep and poultry are kept solely for the purpose of producing food for humans - they have been bred to be killed. The only reason farmers want to protect their livestock is to protect their profits. If the animals are going to be killed, they may as well provide food for a fox as for a human.

 

 

Hunters claim that killing foxes helps stop the spread of rabies. However, if a pack were to kill a rabid fox, the whole pack would then be infected.

 

 

Also, killing foxes in one area means that living space becomes available which will be occupied by foxes moving in from neighbouring regions. This means that the fox population becomes more mobile, which can only encourage the spread of disease.

 

 

More to the point, fox hunting involves taking a pack of dogs to many different areas of the countryside, so it is more likely that the hounds themselves will spread disease. Foot and Mouth disease can be spread through mud carried on the foot of an animal - if a foxhunt pack visited an infected area, they could spread it over a whole county.

 

 

2. "It's a tradition, a marvellous spectacle." Or, as Walter Ellis wrote in the Sunday Telegraph magazine, "The gain to civilisation would be a loss to culture." This is hardly a defence - many 'traditional' bloodsports have been banned for their cruelty. There is no reason why the remaining bloodsports should not follow.

 

 

3. "We enjoy the chance to have a good gallop." Banning hunting would not stop people from riding their horses when they wanted to. They can attend draghunts, where false trails are hunted - the only difference being that no animal has to die. In fact, draghunts guarantee that a scent is going to be found, whereas much of foxhunting involves waiting for the pack to discover a fox. Also, draghunting means the hunt can avoid fields containing livestock and fences that are dangerous for horses to jump.

 

 

4. "1,000,000 horses would have to be killed if it was banned." Bit of a wild one, this. Since there are only 750,000 horses in this country, its difficult to see why they would import a quarter of a million just to kill them if hunting was stopped. Once again, this is born from the assumption that all horse-riding would stop if hunts were banned. To put it in perspective, less than 7% of horses in this country are used for hunting, and almost none of these 7% are used exclusively for hunting.

 

 

5. "Hunters are vital for conserving the countryside." In the past, hunters defended their activities just by saying that they enjoyed it - they did not try to claim a conservation role. The idea that bloodsports are good for the countryside is arrant nonsense.

 

 

Conservation should not be left to groups with such a vested interest. Any commitment to the environment is very shallow. Ian Coghill, Conservation officer of the British Field Sports Society, has been photographed cutting down an old willow tree in order to catch a mink that had taken refuge in its roots.

 

 

The master of the Beaufort Hunt was convicted of interference with badger setts on National Trust land and had to pay £4000 costs.

 

 

Grouse shooters claim that the moors would not survive without their "management". However, the moors have been stripped of any vegetation except the heather that grouse feed on, turning them into barren plains. The hunts burn the heather in order to stimulate its growth. These fires kill off small animals and any other vegetation.

 

 

Otter hunting was banned in England and Wales because the hunters had killed so many that their survival was at risk. They now hunt mink along the same rivers, causing disruption to the otters' habitat.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Job Losses? - The Real Truth

Pro-hunting organisations such as the Countryside Alliance have often claimed that 16,000 jobs would be lost if hunting were banned, but this figure is pure conjecture according to independent research, and has been rejected by the recent Burns Report.

 

 

Research carried out by Dr Neil Ward of Newcastle University and published in the Journal of Rural Studies shows that the actual number of job losses would only be about 900 - and this figure would be reduced to zero if hunts simply switched to drag-hunting. The report states:

 

 

"Any claims that large numbers of jobs will automatically be lost following a ban cannot be sustained by a reference to evidence. Such claims are pure conjecture and are wrongly based on a static view of how the economy works."

 

 

The report also says that claims by hunt supporters of related job losses in pubs, shops, garages etc. are grossly misleading

[Berberis]

Originally posted by MarkB

here we are, take time to read it. It is so moving to read this:

 

http://sheffieldlad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Hounded%20to%20Death.htm

 

After reading this I am sure everyone will really agree with me no matter what they say on here!

 

This article is written from the point of view of an Anti-fox hunting view point.

 

First of all it tries to make an emotional connection with the fox by calling it the Mother fox, suggesting she has a litter of small cubs. That’s a farce, as far as I’m aware you cannot hunt a fox with a litter and for this purpose many fox hunts did not hunt at certain times fo the year!

 

Seventy-three percent of British people want foxhunting and other bloodsports banned, says a 1996 MORI poll.

This is nearly 10 years out of date. The last poles suggest an almost 50/50 split between pro and anti-fox hunting.

 

Not finished reading it yet so I will comment more it a little while.