Ban Fox Hunting?

I agree with you up to a point, Cosmic.

We do indeed live in a man-made world full of man-made problems.

And if you have a coherent ethos which rejects the benefits as well as the burdens of that situation then yours is a position that I respect.

But it is not one that I share.

And nor, I think, is it one that the overwhelming majority of our fellow men share. They actively WANT all the benefits of the oil-based economy; and must therefore be prepared to accept the concomitant pollution, wildlife destruction etc. as the price of those benefits.

They WANT cheap food in the shops - and must therefore be prepared to accept all the ecological costs of farming in a manner that provides it as the price they must pay. And must also - as it seems to me - refrain from trying to dictate to farmers how they should go about their business if they are unwilling to bear the consequential costs of any change in farming practices.

Of course, you may object that most of these folk are not informed consumers making intelligent choices. I would not disagree with you; and am all in favour of the provision of proper information on these and similar issues.

My own choice, with the benefit of such information as I have, is in favour of the continuation of a man-managed environment rather than any attempt to return to nature. And in that context, I think one must always start by considering the world as it actually IS, not as one might like it to be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cob Nut, on game birds. I'll try and find the link, but one group advocated adding certain birds of prey to the Defra license to protect game birds. Shooting birds, to protect some birds, so they themselves can be shot later. Farcical, it really is.

Especially considering I really enjoy clay pigeon shooting. I don't need to kill something to have a good time shooting, and think pretty lowly of people who do. We can all find ways of supporting our local farmers which don't require unneccessary cruelty. I pay to ride horses, and pay to shoot clays. I'll go so far to support the farming community, but being complicit in the ill treatment of animals is too far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree entirely, Phlogistician - being complicit to the ill-treatment of animals IS going too far.

The difference between us, however, is in whether or not we perceive ill-treatment of animals in the shooting of game brids and the hunting of foxes.

Let's start with the game birds. They end up on the table as food. That is what they are bred, reared and shot for. Their life, up to the point that they are shot, is about as close to a natural life as anything that ends up on my table is ever going to have. They have had a much better quality of life than most farmed livestock. And a much better quality of death, too. If they are taken out by a good shot then it will be as near as dammit instant, and they know nothing about it. MUCH better than a long journey in an overcramped cattle lorry to the abattoir followed by herding into the holding pens before being taken to the slaughterman. Far less suffering involved. Therefore I do not see that as ill-treatment of the game birds. And if the man who fires the shot that pulls the game bird down from the sky enjoys doing so - so much so that he is prepared to pay handsomely for the privilege of being allowed to do so - then I genuinely do not see that this alters the analysis one iota.

And so to fox hunting.

You may or may not be satisfied that foxes are pests. I am.

You may or may not accept that there is a need to keep their numbers in check, and that this inevitably means killing numbers of them. I do.

Having reached that stage, the only question that matters to me is whether or not there is a better way of killign foxes (i.e. one that causes less suffering to teh fox) than using a pack of hounds. And to date nobody has convinced me that there is. The Burns enquiry tentatively concluded that lamping with rifles MAY invovle fewer welfare issues. But lamping with rifles is not something that you can do in most parts of the British Isles. So it cannto sensibly be advanced as a more acceptable alternative to fox hunting because, for the most part, it is not an available alternative.

Contrast this to my attitude to coarse fishing.

That sport involves inducing a fish to bite on a hook, playing tug-of-war with it until it is exhausted by the combination of man's greater strength and engineering skills, pulling it out of its native element into one in which it cannot breathe, then finally unhookign it and releasing it to go on its way.

There is no purpose to it other than the gratification of the human participant. It causes suffering to the fish. And that suffering, ti seems to me, is entirely without justification. I am happy to describe THAT as ill-treatment of animals: and you will never find me doing it.

Oddly, however, the Labour Government which is so committed to ending perceived cruelty to animals refuses to lift a finger against angling. Indeed, it made a manifesto commitment NOT to touch fishing. And when pressed in Parliament to explain why, if cruelty and utility were the correct tests to apply to fox hunting, it was not equally appropriate to apply them to angling, all he could say in response was that there was no proposal on the table to ban angling and nor would there be because of their manifesto commitment.

So there you have it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cob Nut, I have appreciated your input on this issue. Prior to this discussion I was undecided as to whether or not fox hunting with dogs/horses should be banned, simply for the fact that once a ban is placed under a guise of "cruelty" it often avalanches into a ban on all things deemed harmful... I liked having your input as one who participates in this hunt. I wanted to know why.

So I searched for more information, knowing that alot of predators were killed under the guise of protecting farmers livelyhoods here in the states. After studies were completed, it was often found that the commonly perceived notions held in the farming community did not reflect the reality of the losses suffered by farmers. It took me a while but I did manage to find a uk.gov document that shows simular findings. Farmers perceptions of their losses often are misguided. I would suggest you read this article.

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/oralevidence/oral10aprilsess1.htm <P>

From this link:<P> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmstand/b/st010213/pm/pt1/10213s03.htm

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research commissioned by the RSPCA as part of the Burns report, based on work carried out by David Macdonald of Oxford university, on the potential contribution of foxes through their predation of rabbits? The final report appears to have overlooked that work. It concluded that there was a case for a plausible cost-benefit analysis which would reveal that killing foxes was counter-productive for farmers who were concerned about mammalian herbivores causing crop damage. It was estimated that, given that half of the fox diet is rabbit, each fox may prevent between £26 and £145 worth of damage a year overall, and that, due to growth of the rabbit population, that would have the knock-on effect of preventing damage worth between £49 and £608 per fox a year. In addition, a follow-up study by Roger Trout and colleagues, which was written up in the ``Journal of Zoology'', pointed out that the total saving to farmers may be in the region of £100 million a year. The concession that the hon. Gentleman seeks may occur in nature—if we allow it to take its course.
<p> and one more link:
http://www.nfws.org.uk/pro/pests.htm

 

I'm only 12, but i agree that fox hunting is bad. For every fox that dies, 4 generations down the line 16 are gone

 

Well said arky, and welcome to sciforums

 

I used to live in a pretty agricultural area, and so I know a number of people who participate in hunts. However, even in such a rural area, at least 90% of the people I heard express an opinion were against it. However, where I lived, fox hunting was not the worst 'sport' but instead hare coursing was. For those that don't know, hare coursing is when you take a number of greyhounds into a field, wait for them to find a hare and bet on which dog will kill the hare first. Most of this was done illegally in the fields around where I lived, but for a long time, the police wouldn't even bother to show up if you reported it.
My overall point bereft of the rambling is: hunting with dogs = bad

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3953129.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3034704.stm

on bbc news today

 

Same with me mate, out the back of my sisters house they used to do it. All the farmers put down trip wires now. High enough to trip the dog but allow room for the hare to escape.

 

Fox hunting is evil. They don't have any defence, and just because they eat chickens, we think we have a right to kill them. but face the facts, we can eat other things than chicken or meat, but they don't realy have a choice. if anything people should tame them or just give them meat that isn't needed

 

They are doing that, theyre called urban foxes. Said urban foxes are now being caught attacking cats and dogs and make a mess when they rummage around in bins. Should we now control the urban foxes with guns? Or poison? WE're dealing with an ecosystem here, not a computer simulation.

 

Attacking cats and dogs? Could you provide a link to anything that confirms this?

 

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1016862004
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=823802004

"COUNCIL chiefs have been urged to investigate fox control methods after it emerged dozens of pets across the Capital have been attacked.

The Evening News has been flooded with calls from distraught animal lovers whose pets have been set upon by the predators.

So far, readers have reported that 11 rabbits, ten cats, three guinea pigs and a peacock have been killed by urban foxes, while a dog, four cats and a tortoise have been attacked."

These are from the evening news website, in Edinburgh, Scotland. Unfortunately they went over to wanting (free) registration to view stuff earlier this year, but its my local newspaper and so thats where I'd read about this.

If you want another point of view, theres this:
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=828582004
"Most urban foxes fail to reach their second birthday and are killed on the roads. So it is silly to allege that foxes have no predator. In fact, 60 per cent of the urban fox population is killed annually. ............. There is no doubt whatsoever, that if Edinburgh adopts a policy of killing foxes, not only will it cause animal suffering, but will also prove to be the expensive failure it was in London four to five decades ago. "

 

Interesting links. Seems a few factors are involved. The switch to wheelie bins, and the dates of the attacks (as I understand them) along with the types of cages used for the rabbits can all be pieces of the problem. Sounds like the majority of the "attacks" are at a time when the fox family is at its most stressed. The kits are making huge demands on the parents for food at this time.

Another piece of it with the wheelie bins. I would have to believe there was more than fox benefiting from the food supply. I would assume mice also feasted at night on the "bags of delicious refuse". Another piece of the decline in natural food?

The lady was putting food out when the incident occured. "The fox pounced as the pensioner went to lay out a saucer of milk for her cat at 11.30pm".

I would agree that people should be able to be protected from attack by wild animals, but people have a responsiblity also. No more feeding pets such as dogs and cats outside. And pet owners leaving cats roaming around at night, best be prepared to lose those animals. I have little pity for cat owners who think its ok for tabby to roam the neighborhood at night and expect nothing bad to happen. *note the time granny was feeding her cat*

If a fox is threatening to people in their own homes, as one report stated, well, those fox need to go. I doubt the fox were after the three year old. I wonder if she had just finished cooking something in the house, and that is what the fox were wanting. And I also wonder if the fox were actually snarling at her as stated. 3 fox together on a porch sounds more to me like they were establishing whos boss among themselves and she just overheard the fox debate.

My neighbor lost alot of chickens from her hen house at night. They would go out in the morn and find headless chickens in the coop. Finally they hired in a professional trapper to rid them of the pest. Fox, mink, weasles all fell under the "professional trapper". We found traps on our property, which were confiscated and destroyed (this is a mile from the hen house). Still the hens died. Months later they found an owl in the hen house. It was coming thru a very small window near the peak. It could not get the hens out. They plugged up the window and never lost another hen. Lots of carnage for nothing. The tale of the headless rabbit reminded me of that incident. Plus the fact it was found laying in the yard. Fox tend to take their prey away to a sheltered area, rather than being out in the open unless the prey is too big to carry. And as far as seeing a fox later in the yard means nothing. A fox could have never been in that yard before, but the scent of the dead rabbit, blood and all would have lingered and that is enough for a fox to explore for food. They are opportunistic. There also seems to be alot of road carnage in that area and I wouldnt doubt a bit that the particular fox seen in the yard near the scene of the "crime" had feasted more than once on an easy meal found dead along the roadway.

Lots can be done here to avoid such incidents by people being more responsible for their own actions, rather than blame nature for being, well, nature.
<br>&nbsp;

 

I agree that the foxe in the house was undoubtedly not after the child, but as for the responsibility of the owners to keep their pets safe, well, what I find interesting is taht it looks at the moment like theres been an increase in fox activity. Which could be due to their food supply being threatened, but before their food supply was being threatened, why did they not expand to their limits and therefore run out of food via overpopulation?
As for mice at the bins, there have certainly been rats at bins in other cities anyway, I am not sure about Edinburgh.
Do you think that with mroe wheelie bins and care taken to remove all food supplies, the "natural" level of foxes in the urban environment will drop? I would think so, but there will be a messy period of adjustment as the excess foxes die off, or get killed. But again the problem arises, how do you cull foxes reliably in an urban environment?

(I've also been walking in the hills and come across bits of rabbits and the legs and beaks of birds, and would assume that the only thing that could leave that kind of stuff would be foxes.)

 

An increase in fox activity indicates a drop in their natural or usual food supply (or ability to obtain natural foods and/or new territory due to age). I know in the states, there are cycles for rabbits and those cycles also increase the number of fox. The rabbit populations drop before the fox populations drop. One leads to another.

The way I understood the wheelie bins is its been a progression towards it, and not a mandated, by June 1 everyone switch. So as whole neighborhoods slowly switch, the garbage availabilty drops and the fox (who is confined to its territory by other fox territory) becomes more aggressive due to hunger. Additional factors include expanding cities/housing that intrudes on once viable hunting grounds (and territory), which was not indicated in any articles but not excluded either (maybe not explored). For me, one nearby farm not planting corn this year increased raccoon activity in my yard this last year.

Yes, I think people being more careful would allow for a natural balance to be obtained. And it sounds like this is the messy period of adjustment. Culling may be needed. Live traps in places of repeated loss would probably produce the best results. That way, you dont cripple/kill an unintended target (like grannys tabby). Plus you may find it was not fox, but something else.

I saw a small hawk take a robin in my yard. I watched from the window as the bird fed. After the hawk left I went out to see. There was a beak and one leg left. Some (remarkably few) feathers off the direction the wind blew. I had expected to find more pieces. Without actually seeing the predator, or other signs, I would not try to guess as to whether or not this was fox leavings or other predators (or a combination).
<br>&nbsp;

 

"Without actually seeing the predator, or other signs, I would not try to guess as to whether or not this was fox leavings or other predators (or a combination)."

FAir point. Though I have trouble imagining what predator in Scotland would be doing all that eating, and dont recall seeing any feathers nearby, even though in my experience the small inner ones will catch on grass quite easily. (This was a managed estate, I found at least 3 traps for small mammals whilst on my walk, so I suspect there was a variety of animal activity.)

"Yes, I think people being more careful would allow for a natural balance to be obtained. "

Part of my point is that, though its hard to say from newspaper articles, which are by their nature seasonal and unrepresentative, that there may well have been a natural balance of less foxes at some point. There have certainly been reports over the past decade or two of the growth of the urban fox population, which would suggest that there had been less in the past, therefore how can we reduce the urban fox levels back to how it was before?

 

I suppose the big difference here is, I saw the predator, and watched it occur. You came upon the event later (and we dont know how long after).

So no one really knows what is a "normal" number of fox kills?

Being as:
Edinburgh (population, 450,000)
vs
1 bite on a human
1 tussle vs lady on porch (no injury to person or property in article)
So far, readers have reported that 11 rabbits, ten cats, three guinea pigs and a peacock have been killed by urban foxes, (which may or may not be accurate AND may or may not be fox)
while a dog, four cats and a tortoise have been attacked. *a tortoise?!*

I am not sure that reduction is needed. People taking responsiblity for protecting their pets would do more to prevent these problems as I see it. As I suggested in the previous post, placing a live trap in problem areas would be one solution that really attempts to solve problems with as little impact as possible. I havent a quarrel with people protecting themselves from an obvious problem. I do wonder what an appropriate response to an infrequent occurance is.
<br>&nbsp;

 

That is indeed the problem (if one wants to take a scintific numerical approach to it) that we dont have long term fox numbers and attacks info. On the other hand, it may well be that this does represent an increase in fox activity, which would require addressing. I guess we'll have to agree that there is not enough evidence, and descend merely to personal slagging and imputations of the other party.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

one thing no one so far has said. evolution. the more people harm foxes the more aggressive they get. before long we could be dealing with foxes turned wolves!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

it does sound a bit far-fetched but, say dogs. we became kinder tothem, trained them and cherished them. they evolved to ecome trained pets, when at first they were agressive beasts! Imagine the opposite of that. If we killed foxes, would they strike back???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(not the dead ones of course!)