OT Fox Hunting (kind of)

Andy Hewitt says...

It could be argued that if this is the case, then why go to all the
bother of banning it if it is such a rare occurence. It's not like
there's a fox killed every time, or even caught. Most hunts don't even
find a fox.

 

I hope you wasted half an hour of his time with the trust "Thirty two
isn't old... He could have called me Dennis... This is an
anarcho-syndicalist regime" ad infinitum.

 

Does this not say something about the fox population?

 

A shotgun is the usual way to successfully control the fox population.

It says more about most foxhunters.

 

No.

<consults wife>

Ah.

 

LOL, you've just put an entirely new perspective to the argument

 

Bollocks, I have a right to an opinion, whether right or wrong, being an
expert is not relevant to an opinion.

Nice. Did they import the remaining 150,000 then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3929441.stm

 

It seems like most of those remainig 400,000 die on the road between here
and Newport - Shropshire. Not too bad if your in a car and you hit a
dead fox, but I've still stopped 3 times in the last month to move dead
foxes off the road.

They always seem to get hit in the middle of the road in the same place
on a blind bend/humpback bridge. Probably trying to pick up one of the
pheasants which have already been flattened. Still I suppose it's
quicker than being killed by the hunt, and that road kills a damn sight
more foxes per week than any hunt could

There's a lot of bikes come down that road, and everytime I pass a dead
fox I get a mega guilt trip unless I stop and move it just incase the
next thing over the bridge is a bike. I'm sure the locals think I'm a
nutter if they see me - them again I probably am. I can't shift the dead
badgers though - big heavy buggers.

 

This worries me too.

The media/government "presentation" of this bill is "to ban fox hunts".
A majority of non country people have a "class" issue with fox hunts.
So:
Let's ban fox hunting.
But:
The bill is hunting with dogs.

Within the definitions (I admit to only reading in full the 2003 and
skimmed the 2004 one)
Any dog owner with their dog off of a lead, who while not on their own
land allows that dog to chase a rabbit or put up a bird from cover
contravenes the proposed act.

More than two dogs cannot be walked together as this comes under the
definition of a pack even if all dogs are on a lead. They do not have to
chase anything for the owner to have committed an offence.

Either of the above can lead to:
Their vehicle if used to transport the dog can be confiscated and they
can be subject to a class 5 fine which I think is still up to £5000.

So no more walking the dog in the park or on the common and if so never
more than 2 at a time.
So if you are waking your dog and see some one walking 2 dogs, stay
clear of them or it's a £5000 fine for each of you.

I believe Tony Banks MP who is one of the MPs behind this bill want all
forms of hunting banded. This includes hunting for food and fishing for
food or sport by the private individual.

What else do they want band because they don't do it and it might win a
few vote?

 

Complete, unadulterated, utter fucking shite!

I expected a lot more from you, Mick

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

Mick Whittingham wrote

This is *not* about winning votes. Never was, never will be. This is
yer actual balance of power fight in the happening this is.

This, the right to roam, the abolition of the house of lords, separation
of church and state, nothing more than deep rooted Old School
fundamental them and us stuff this is. One of the reasons why, even if
they differ elsewhere, you won't be able to get a fag paper between any
of them on Her Loyal Majesties Government benches. Front or back.

 

Well I would quite happily hunt TB with dogs akcherly. He is a dangerous
twat of the highest order. Ex GLC and born in Belfast, nuff said.
There is very little this UK/EU govmint cannot foist upon you.

 

Touched an open nerve there did I
I'll still stick by what I said.
Reading the anti-s literature or that of the MPs who oppose fox hunting
is a good start.

I used to have the anti-s, sabs and local hunt surrounding me at my old
place with the local area sergeant having to act as referee (keeping out
of the way drinking tea in my kitchen).

I wouldn't let the hunt cross my land and they respected that request.
There was one cock-up when the hounds were driven over my land after
the hunt had lost control of them.

Asking sabs or anti-s not to cross my land was always met with abuse
litter and damaged fences. Apparently as I was a land owning rich snob
(actual wording was different) I had no right to my land or privacy and
they could do what they wanted and go where they wanted.

 

I have already expressed my reason for my opinion, and that opinion does
not have to be based on statistics, I based it on a personal repulsion
at the way hunting is conducted.

Yes, that was something I also considered. I also checked a few other
sites on the matter as well, they all confirm the figure of 250,000 as a
steady population, and the 20,000 killed in hunts - or at least some do.

Most of the figures though are not necessarily accurate, as they do not
have a true count of the fox population. Having a look at the statistics
for a fox suggests that there is a possibility of 500,000 cubs per year
- assuming 125,000 females, and an average of 4 cubs. If we can also
assume that many of these will not survive from natural causes, and we
don't know if there's any bias towards lower than 4 or higher (their
brood ranging from 2-6 cubs). One web site suggests that shooting around
game reserves kills 150,000.

Many of the sites also suggest that the hunting of foxes by hound and
horse rider makes an insignificant difference, and that any fox killed
is very soon replaced by another in that area anyway - they will find
any food source.

There is also the other argument that foxes help the arable farmers too,
as they kill the pests - naturally I might add - that destroy crops.
This accounts for about 50% of the farming.

In truth, nobody knows what is going to happen to the fox population if
we stop hunting. There are no accurate figures available, certainly all
the sites I've checked cannot supply a constistant set of figures.
However, many university studies seem to be showing that the fox
population will not change much, if at all, if hunting is banned.

Certainly culling is a necessary job, but only because man has
unbalanced nature in the first place. If left, nature will take over,
and the population of predators will self regulate to the availability
of food.

This does not just apply to foxes, but to all predators. Nobody tries to
cull magpies, as they don't affect any commercial food source. We do
cull seals though, as they eat the fish we catch [1], and because we
over fish, there isn't enough to go round.

[1] and sickeningly throw back into the sea as waste when quotas are
exceeded.

 

Yeh, but that's hardly "a majority" is it? Vociferous minority, more
like.

 

So why are you then?

Actually, as this argument has progressed I have managed to look into
the subject more, and I do have an opinion based on what I have read so
far, and that is still to change the law. However......... see below....

Which might suggest we are hunting the wrong animal? I think I'd rather
have a fox around than a few thousand rats - which are a natural prey of
the fox of course, so killing the fox allows the rats to propogate at an
alarming rate.

Indeed, fox hunting isn't the only blood sport, and the others also need
to be addressed in due course.

Yes, I have to agree there, I am NOT of the anti-fox hunting lobby
personally, and I don't even go and actively protest, It is indeed any
form of animal cruelty I detest. It's only that fox hunting was
specifically the subject matter in this thread.

For sure, a hunt is something in our makeup, but you can excercise the
need to a lesser degree.

 

Ah, I see, well yes, that is something I need to develop

They're not, I am opposed to that too. Indeed, any kind of non-organic
farming is something I don't like.

No, but I am in the main a vegetarian. I eat some meat, as I feel the
desire, but I do try to choose foods that have been more naturally
grown. However, my choice of diet is forced by health issues, rather
than moral pressure.

I have no objection to people carrying out inherently dangerous sports,
but in the main they are their own choice, and aren't likely to affect
anybody, or anything, else.

What concerns me is that neither side of the argument appears to have
any really accurate facts. We don't know exactly how many foxes there
are, or how many naturally survive childhood - except by counting fox
poo anyway. We don't really know what will happen to fox numbers, unless
we have an opportunity to find out?

It could take nature a long while to stabilise if any kind of blood
sport was stopped. We have too many rabbits, foxes, rats, and raptors.
However, all are influenced by man. Why not try leaving them to it for a
while and see what happens?

Indeed, having farmers blasting shotguns around the countryside is even
scarier. As I say, nature already has this all sorted, if it could be
left to its own devices.

For sure the fact that they are only picking on foxhunters is
disappointing.

Of course the other problem we get with outlawed sports is that they
tend to go underground, and become uncontrolled. But that's a policing
problem then.

 

Using plain English is another matter of course.

I have no objection to off-road motor sports, or horse riding, if they
are organised events, or on recognised routes.

Why? It's a gamble for sure, but it could prove the argument either way,
so could benefit both sides equally.

 

I see, misunderstood there. Yes, I agree with you for sure, we shouldn't
be putting everything into one catergory, but each sport needs to be
assessed and dealt with on its own merits.

Indeed, but we're not talking about bull fighting in another country, I
don;t have a right to question that, but as a UK voter I have a right to
decide on fox hunting in the UK.

Fair enough, but as I say, and other web sites too, it's possibly only
one group of farmers that may suffer, others may benefit.