Berberis Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Swan_Vesta This is why foxes are vermin and why they need to be controlled be that through hunting or through shooting them. Either way the end result is the same. Swan_Vesta, I know you can vouch for my credentials and I likewise for you, having grown up not 10 miles away from each other and been in the same year group at school. beautynbeast, When you get back, tell us what are your credentials in the debate? what gives you such an insightful viewpoint other than that oh so pretty dog-fox that visits your back garden every so often for tip bits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 I'm anti-foxhunting, but to be fair most people on this forum are city-based, so whatever the outcome it can't really be considered to be a fair reflection of the rest of the UK. However, I have lived in the country for the majority of my life and I have never agreed with fox hunting, even though my parents do and many of the people I live around do. It's a sensitive subject where I live and have to avoid the subject if anyone brings it up as I can become very frustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by serapis Swan_Vesta, I know you can vouch for my credentials and I likewise for you, having grown up not 10 miles away from each other and been in the same year group at school. Consider yourself vouched for. So darned bona fide you can brush your teeth with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 If foxes are such prevalent pests, requiring control through hunting: How many foxes were killed by non hunting methods annually, compared to "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" (fox hunting)? Why did hunts, like the beaufort hunt, feel the need to rear foxes for hunting? Why do other hunts require a bagman? (Someone who traps (or rears) a fox in order to release it for hunting) Why do the hunts not hunt in urban areas, where foxes are equally numerous? Why, during the cessation of hunting caused by foot and mouth (12 months) was there not a significant increase in the numbers of foxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Hi Phan, During the days of the farm, we only dispatched foxes through shooting them - I think that the farm record was held by Oz at 4 in one night but over a site of 2000 acres. I know hunts can go all day and never get a single one. Lord alone knows why the beaufort hunt would rear foxes to kill but I suspect the logic is the same as rearing pheasants and other game for shooting. However, game enhances the countryside and ensures continuance of certain species whereas I find rearing vermin for the same purpose quite a strange concept. I have a similar sentiments to the bagman. To run a hunt through a city/urban area would be unworkable, the hounds'd not be able to get a scent and also I suspect that the sight of a hunt galloping through streets may well be met with incredulity. It'd not be safe as it is in the country where there are fewer folk. I would imagine that during the 12 month ban through foot and mouth that the fox population wouldn't have had time to boom, if memory serves the fox has a similar gestation period to a dog. So 12 months factoring in that info would not really give the population a massive leap. Hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Phanerothyme If foxes are such prevalent pests, requiring control through hunting: How many foxes were killed by non hunting methods annually, compared to "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" (fox hunting)? Good question, I heard that many more foxes are killed on our roads than where killed by hounds. Should we ban the car for this reason too? Originally posted by Phanerothyme Why did hunts, like the beaufort hunt, feel the need to rear foxes for hunting? I don’t agree with this form of hunting. I only agree if the hunt is in response to a specific problem caused by the fox, i.e. killing live stock. Foxes also kill lambs too. My aunt has spoken about the nights she has spent lying in bed listening to foxes ripping apart a one or two day old lambs. You can’t stop them because by the time you're out there they are gone. Just the spattered remains as evidence. Originally posted by Phanerothyme Why do other hunts require a bagman? (Someone who traps (or rears) a fox in order to release it for hunting) Again I don’t agree with this sort of thing (see above) I also dont believe this is as common occurrence as reported by the likes of the League against cruel sports. I for one have never seen this happen. Originally posted by Phanerothyme Why do the hunts not hunt in urban areas, where foxes are equally numerous? Simple, you cant run a horse on tarmac for long without the horse getting into trouble, plus I think there is even a law against bringing horses into cities now. The police are obviuosuly exempt for purposes of crowd control. Originally posted by Phanerothyme Why, during the cessation of hunting caused by foot and mouth (12 months) was there not a significant increase in the numbers of foxes? Any vet or breeder of animals will tell you 12 months is not long enough for any significant change in fox numbers. It would take at least 5 years for any change to become apparent. Plus farmers resorted to trapping and shooting in this time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautynbeast Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 When you get back, tell us what are your credentials in the debate? what gives you such an insightful viewpoint other than that oh so pretty dog-fox that visits your back garden every so often for tip bits? now that was a tad bit judgemental, wouldnt you agree? there could be no other reason i disagree with killing foxs! other than the fact i have a pretty dog fox in my back garden. Hmmm, because you would know. what next? name calling and pulling hair?. i shall not bother to explain to you seen as you know me so well!!!! carry on makin judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Swan_Vesta Hi Phan, Lord alone knows why the beaufort hunt would rear foxes to kill but I suspect the logic is the same as rearing pheasants and other game for shooting. However, game enhances the countryside and ensures continuance of certain species whereas I find rearing vermin for the same purpose quite a strange concept. I have a similar sentiments to the bagman. ... I would imagine that during the 12 month ban through foot and mouth that the fox population wouldn't have had time to boom, if memory serves the fox has a similar gestation period to a dog. So 12 months factoring in that info would not really give the population a massive leap. The CA and a few others tried to claim that, because of FMD, fox numbers had rocketed, and that this somehow justified hunting foxes with hounds. Wrong!. - University of Aberdeen Study here - http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi775/fox_hunting_report.htm It is very hard to take the pest control argument for Hunting foxes with hounds seriously, when they have no effect on the overall rural population. So what you are left with are people who enjoy a good gallop. I'm not naive enough to believe that the animal welfare argument against fox hunting carries any weight, when more foxes are killled by cars than any other method, not to mention our appalling cruelty to animals in the name of meat, fur and milk production. But there's no denying that hunting foxes with hounds, in the traditional manner, is a highly exclusive pasttime, regardless of your 'class'. So the question is, should an animal suffer for the purposes of human entertainment restricted to a select few? And the answer is no. To watch animals suffer for entertainment for the masses is fine - we call that Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by beautynbeast now that was a tad bit judgemental, wouldnt you agree? there could be no other reason i disagree with killing foxs! other than the fact i have a pretty dog fox in my back garden. Hmmm, because you would know. what next? name calling and pulling hair?. i shall not bother to explain to you seen as you know me so well!!!! carry on makin judgement. I apologies if you feel my previous comments where judgemental. I'm merely reacting as you seem unable to back up any argument with facts. I have, the ball is in your court now. Convince the people reading this thread that your view is not just your personal view only. Give us some reason why you have such strong feelings and how you came to your conclusions. What experiences are you drawing your conclusions from? I'm more than prepared to hear you out and to agree with anything born from fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Originally posted by Phanerothyme The CA and a few others tried to claim that, because of FMD, fox numbers had rocketed, and that this somehow justified hunting foxes with hounds. I do believe both Swan_vesta and myself argued to the contrary of what you claim the countryside alliance said. I would however be interested to read where you are getting this statement from as it does seem (to me) obserb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.