Woman saves fox from hounds

[koolpc]

Sure you have.....just how many hunts have you actually participated in. And why didn't you do something to help the fox, how did it escape from a hound pack with three legs and only one eye and obviously with major blood loss and in no fit state to run?

The evidence shows the exact opposite to what you have said, with the fox being killed outright within seconds of being cornered, and there is a reason why there is a marksman present in hunts that still use packs.

Never 'participated' in any but seen quite a few.

It was on my uncles farm. Fox escaped through the hedge as my uncle waved off the hounds. Have you ever seen an animal in shock react?

I once saw a cat get smacked by a car, back leg hanging by a thread, it still manages to dart across the road and round the corner!!

 

[Castiel]

It was on my uncles farm. Fox escaped through the hedge as my uncle waved off the hounds.

So the hounds were stopped from finishing the fox and the hunts markmen stopped from killing the fox and then you and your Uncle (great animal welfare proponents that you are) decided to leave the fox to slope of somewhere to die (although how it managed to do so in such a state is unclear) instead of putting out of its misery....

The lesson there is to leave the hunt to do its job and the fox would not have suffered anywhere near as much as it did when you decided to interfere.

What kind of farm does your uncle own?

 

[koolpc]

So the hounds were stopped from finishing the fox and the hunts markmen stopped from killing the fox and then you and your Uncle (great animal welfare proponents that you are) decided to leave the fox to slope of somewhere to die (although how it managed to do so in such a state is unclear) instead of putting out of its misery....

The lesson there is to leave the hunt to do its job and the fox would not have suffered anywhere near as much as it did when you decided to interfere.

What kind of farm does your uncle own?

Reason my uncle stepped in is because one of the hounds was going for his dog! He scared them off, thus letting the fox escape.

He owned a cattle farm with lots of other animals like geese, chickens, some sheep, horses etc, why? Have you been on a working farm or have you lived your 'life' behind your keyboard?

 

[muon]

So the hounds were stopped from finishing the fox and the hunts markmen stopped from killing the fox and then you and your Uncle (great animal welfare proponents that you are) decided to leave the fox to slope of somewhere to die (although how it managed to do so in such a state is unclear) instead of putting out of its misery....

The lesson there is to leave the hunt to do its job and the fox would not have suffered anywhere near as much as it did when you decided to interfere.

What kind of farm does your uncle own?

Who said it was hurt? Why did they hurt the fox in the first place?

They've already hurt it, may as well let them finish the job is hardly sound logic either.

 

[muon]

I think that communities should be able to decide what happens in their communities for themselves, and not by those outwith those communities who do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. As I said and you keep trying to misrepresent, I support devolution of power to the local communities wherever possible, that is not the same as what you are trying to imply.

You genuinely would be in favour of that for most issues? In a nation the law should be uniform as otherwise the consequences can be very perverse.

Should animal welfare laws be unique to different regions? Let's leave aside fox hunting to one side. Environmental laws? Labour laws?

 

[Tom_ed1987]

Bring back foxhunting imo.

Since the ban, we have had foxes spread to near where we live, and they have attacked my cat.

 

[Xordium]

I think that communities should be able to decide what happens in their communities for themselves, and not by those outwith those communities who do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. As I said and you keep trying to misrepresent, I support devolution of power to the local communities wherever possible, that is not the same as what you are trying to imply.

I am not implying anything I am saying you are judging who is facing the consequences with a rather narrow view.

You are showing prejudice here by referring to hunters and those who support hunting as sadists, I have already given evidence from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management that counters the argument based on purely on animal welfare, so whether fox hunting is in opposition to the general principles this country seems to stand for is entirely subjective and dependent on your prejudices one way or the other...personally I am, as I have said plenty of times, ambivalent about pack hunting. The suffering of an animal in pack hunting is not much different than the other most common forms of culling and hunting according to many Vets.

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/HWMMI-12-11.pdf

In short my opinion is that the decision on whether to ban hunting and what form that ban takes should be a decision taken by the communities in which hunting occurs, it should be a democratic decision that includes everyone in the community, with the communities based on the legislatures we have in place. (Local councils). If they vote for or against means little to me personally.

Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain, cruelty, degradation, or humiliation, or, watching such behaviors inflicted on others.

Sorry but that sounds about right to me. I mean the best you could drum up was it was not cruel but caused considerable distress. Therefore, it amply fits the definition.

 

[Biohazard]

Can't ever agree with what was depicted in the OP.

To qualify myself I've hunted and seen hunts of varying descriptions.

That isn't hunting, that is enjoying a completely different blood sport in my mind.

Very similar to the one that gets young chavs in the clink for animal cruelty...

 

[Castiel]

Reason my uncle stepped in is because one of the hounds was going for his dog! He scared them off, thus letting the fox escape.

I find it difficult to believe a trained hound pack broke and went after a farm dog or any farm animal for that matter, also why did your Uncle allow the hunt to use his Land in the first place?

And did you not say that the fox was already caught, any farmer would know that interfering in a hound pack would result in a far less humane end for the fox, particularly as he didn't do anything to help the fox which you should have been able to do of you were close enough to see the type of injuries you say you did.

He owned a cattle farm with lots of other animals like geese, chickens, some sheep, horses etc, why? Have you been on a working farm or have you lived your 'life' behind your keyboard?

Given where I live and the my home has the title 'farmhouse' in it should give you some idea the answer to that question......nice try though.

You Uncle's actions seem very strange given that he was a) a landowning farmer and b) keeps animals which are the natural prey of foxes and c) would presumably know that the animals welfare would be better served in this case had the hounds (or the hunts marksman) be able to finish their job.

And it still doesn't explain why you did not help the fox subsequently, as concerned about animal welfare that you are.

 

[estebanrey]

So the hounds were stopped from finishing the fox and the hunts markmen stopped from killing the fox and then you and your Uncle (great animal welfare proponents that you are) decided to leave the fox to slope of somewhere to die (although how it managed to do so in such a state is unclear) instead of putting out of its misery....

You almost make it sound as if koolpc and his uncle were responsible for the Fox's death.

 

[Castiel]

You genuinely would be in favour of that for most issues? In a nation the law should be uniform as otherwise the consequences can be very perverse.

Should animal welfare laws be unique to different regions? Let's leave aside fox hunting to one side. Environmental laws? Labour laws?

It depends purely on who is affected by it.....environmental and labour laws affect the entire country, hunting laws do not. There are a range of local laws that differ in regions and are dealt with using Bylaws. There is also no an issue with differences in the hunting laws in the UK between the various nations, so why should that be different at a more local level?

 

[Tombo]

You almost make it sound as if koolpc and his uncle were responsible for the Fox's death.

Sure, he makes it sound like that if you just ignore what he wrote and read what you want to read, what he actually said was that they could have been responsible for its unnecessary suffering.

 

[estebanrey]

Sure, he makes it sound like that if you just ignore what he wrote and read what you want to read, what he actually said was that they could have been responsible for its unnecessary suffering.

No they weren't, the hunt were totally responsible for all the suffering that fox suffered.

 

[Tombo]

No they weren't, the hunt were totally responsible for all the suffering that fox suffered.

No they weren't.

 

[muon]

It depends purely on who is affected by it.....environmental and labour laws affect the entire country, hunting laws do not. There are a range of local laws that differ in regions and are dealt with using Bylaws. There is also no an issue with differences in the hunting laws in the UK between the various nations, so why should that be different at a more local level?

Environmental and Labour laws are very local issues. They affect the local workforce and most environmental issues affect local areas.

If a town wished to maintain cheap industry with no regard for local environmental issues, it should not be allowed to happen if national environmental laws are in place. Again if a a region wished to abolish the minimum wage, it affects one else except for people who live there.

Like I said before, within a nation, laws must be uniform.

 

[estebanrey]

No they weren't.

Right so the fox just ran onto their land after knawing his own leg off then I suppose, the men on horses and the hounds were just there by coincidence.

 

[Castiel]

No they weren't, the hunt were totally responsible for all the suffering that fox suffered.

Not for the extended suffering of the Fox they were not, if the pack had not been interrupted then it is likely the fox would not have suffered as much as koolpc seems to imply. Given the context of his example it belies the evidence that foxes killed by pack hunting are subjected to as little suffering as any other form of hunting....this fox suffered due to the involvement of an outside intervention, not by the actions of the hunt.

If they had been that concerned about the welfare of the fox, as an experienced farmer the Uncle would have presumably known better than to interrupt the hunt after they had caught the quarry animal and even had he not then why did they simply let a badly injured animal slope off to die?

Agree or disagree with the hunt itself, but interfering in a hunt that has already caught its prey is hardly going to increase the animals welfare, quite the opposite. Most farmers I know who do not support the hunt do so because of the trespass and the damage to hedgerows and dry walls that the hunt can do (and the changes in the law don't do anything to address that) and the difficulty they have with getting compensation from the hunt, others have a prearranged fee system that gives the hunt access or the landowners are members. Fox welfare is not really a concern for the farmers I know, quite the opposite, they shoot them with shotguns, snare them and in at least one case I know of burned them out.

 

[Biohazard]

Rifle, head or throat. Anything else to me isn't fair - as fair as shooting a projectile at high velocity at an unsuspecting animal can be - and by the end of my shooting days I was only taking out mixy rabbits in winter.

I shoot targets trees and fire arrows at wicker with a bunch of women now. No joke.

Pacificism! Peace!

 

[Castiel]

Environmental and Labour laws are very local issues. They affect the local workforce and most environmental issues affect local areas.

If a town wished to maintain cheap industry with no regard for local environmental issues, it should not be allowed to happen if national environmental laws are in place. Again if a a region wished to abolish the minimum wage, it affects one else except for people who live there.

Like I said before, within a nation, laws must be uniform.

However those examples also affect the rest of the UK and the wider society directly, they also involve several examples where grants, compensation or exceptions are given according to the specific needs of certain regional variances. There are no pack fox hunts in Peckham.

Besides we do not have uniform laws in the UK, there are exceptions and regional variations all over the place.....the Hunting Laws are a good example of that, with England & Wales NI and Scotland all having different laws.

 

[Castiel]

Right so the fox just ran onto their land after knawing his own leg off then I suppose, the men on horses and the hounds were just there by coincidence.

If the hunt had not been interrupted the fox would have suffered less, not that the hunt are not responsible for the foxes death, but that it was not entire,y responsible for the extended suffering of the fox..,without the interruption the fox would have been killed far quicker and with less suffering.

I wonder how koolpc's Uncle deals with foxes, and what his opinion is on Badgers given that he is a cattle farmer?