Woman saves fox from hounds

[grimm]

There are two issues that I see in this thread.

1. People don't like that fox hunters gain pleasure from the hunt.

This is understandable, but there are lots of things out there that people take pleasure from that I think are disgusting, from smoking to being urinated on to god knows what. This is just something that you will have to accept and it is not related to the animal cruelty issue. It is also irrelevant to whether or not you think it is the right direction for us to go in as a species. You don't get to make decisions for us as a species, even the government doesn't have to power to control what we enjoy. They can make it illegal like marijuana, but people still enjoy it and will find a way to do so.

2. People think that fox hunting using hounds is a cruel and inhumane way of culling the fox population.

Really it isn't. Many people who shoot are not skilled enough to kill the fox outright anyway, so they end up suffering. Poison is likely to be a worse death, the fox won't even know what is happening to it. Traps are more cruel and will lead to a longer, slower death overall. With the hunt, the fox does have a chance to escape, and if they do get caught by the hounds they would have their neck snapped and be ripped apart in a matter of seconds anyway. It is a survival of the fittest scenario which would be better for the fox population in general anyway, as the older/sicklier/genetically inferior foxes would be culled first usually.

They are pretty much separate issues though.

The fact that they are not hunted for food is irrelevant and is not the basis for a valid argument against fox hunting. They are going to be culled regardless of the method because they are a pest, it was never about being a food source.

As for the electronic devices to keep them out of the countryside, this will just drive them all into urban areas raiding bins and killing/injuring family pets trying to survive. This in itself is probably more cruel than just allowing them a "survival of the fittest" chance to live in the countryside which is where they actually belong.

 

[wilber]

Yes they do. Certainly around here they do, landowners who do not want the hunt to cross property owned by them have the request upheld. If the trail leads towards/onto land that the hunt does not have permission to cross then the hounds are called in and the huntsman moves the pack away to a new area.

The ground covered can be as much as a 600 (sometime more) acres in around 5 hours.

 

[Naffa]

Yes they do. Certainly around here they do, landowners who do not want the hunt to cross property owned by them have the request upheld. If the trail leads towards/onto land that the hunt does not have permission to cross then the hounds are called in and the huntsman moves the pack away to a new area.

Unbelievable... Yes, I'm sure that some landowners do give permission, as I said. I have never seen or heard of a master calling back the pack, as they were moving towards land that they weren't allowed to be on, on the contrary, a local master told me that they generally don't. There was also the time when I looked out of my window to find several hounds in my vegetable garden, along with three men on horseback... Pretty good evidence in my favour.

The ground covered can be as much as a 600 (sometime more) acres in around 5 hours.

And the chances of the entire trail remaining within six hundred acres owned by the same person? Almost zero.

 

[wilber]

1 minute it's enjoyment and the next minute it's solemn? It sounds like your arguments change from moment to moment.

The enjoyment comes from the social aspect of the meet, and riding horses across land you do not normally have access too, whilst enjoying the countryside around you, as i have already stated the horse riders rarely witness a kill and when it does occur it is quite a solemn event.

I have told you where the enjoyment comes from, you choose to ignore it and associate it with the kill.

I have been to the Essex & Suffolk Hunt many times with clients and business associates, but nice attempt at setting up and argument from authority.

I was merely asking if you had experience of it. So you are against it but actively participated in it "many times" for monetary benefit?

 

[wilber]

Unbelievable... Yes, I'm sure that some landowners do give permission, as I said. I have never seen or heard of a master calling back the pack, as they were moving towards land that they weren't allowed to be on, on the contrary, a local master told me that they generally don't. There was also the time when I looked out of my window to find several hounds in my vegetable garden, along with three men on horseback... Pretty good evidence in my favour.

And the chances of the entire trail remaining within six hundred acres owned by the same person? Almost zero.

You should read what others have wrote here then. The hounds are incredibly well trained, and will reign in when called in, of course a couple may not and carry on for a bit but will soon realise and return to the rest of the pack.

The comment you make about the area hunted is dependent on your location, the neighboring farms will all have been asked in advanced, considering the farms around here are 200-400 acres in size then it is quite unlikely for the hunt to cross many different farmers land.

 

[Woden]

I have told you where the enjoyment comes from, you choose to ignore it and associate it with the kill.

Now, hear me out here OK? I know it is going to sound pretty out here but just gimmie a chance yea?
What if ... What if ... you could go riding without tearing helpless animals to shreds? :mindblown

Seriously though. My mates lil sister goes riding almost every weekend. And though I have never asked her, I am pretty sure using a pack of dogs to rip a fox to shreds is not a requirement.

I was merely asking if you had experience of it. So you are against it but actively participated in it "many times" for monetary benefit?

Most vegetarians have eaten meat at some point.
Most teetotallers have had a drink before.

Surely he is actually in a better position to be against it, if he has tried it?

 

[Naffa]

You should read what others have wrote here then. The hounds are incredibly well trained, and will reign in when called in, of course a couple may not and carry on for a bit but will soon realise and return to the rest of the pack.

The comment you make about the area hunted is dependent on your location, the neighboring farms will all have been asked in advanced, considering the farms around here are 200-400 acres in size then it is quite unlikely for the hunt to cross many different farmers land.

This is a bit of a waste of time... You didn't actually answer any of the points in my post.

 

[Kenai]

I have told you where the enjoyment comes from, you choose to ignore it and associate it with the kill.

That'd be why they was uproar from the fox hunting community when it was suggested that the 'entertainment' aspect of it could be fulfilled via drag hunting instead then?

Apparently though, it's just not the same for some reason?

 

[Xordium]

There are two issues that I see in this thread.

1. People don't like that fox hunters gain pleasure from the hunt.

This is understandable, but there are lots of things out there that people take pleasure from that I think are disgusting, from smoking to being urinated on to god knows what.

And yet both are covered by legislation to ban them too.

This is just something that you will have to accept and it is not related to the animal cruelty issue.

Actually is it. To think you can break this down in such overly reductionist manner is rather simplistic and also belies a complete ignorance of how such a methodology is wholly inappropriate for things which are comprised of such inter-related issues.

It is also irrelevant to whether or not you think it is the right direction for us to go in as a species. You don't get to make decisions for us as a species,

Actually that is also wrong. We all get to decide and pressure and lobby for how we as a species progress from barbarism into something far more humane. It is how we have worked before and how we will work again. We stimulate debate and challenge the status quo at the local level and sometimes we start a wave the changes the whole of society: whether that be disgust at child labour, the emancipation of women, the slave trade, or a man immolating himself to start the Arab Spring. We are all custodians and shapers of the future of the human race to a greater and lesser degree.

even the government doesn't have to power to control what we enjoy. They can make it illegal like marijuana, but people still enjoy it and will find a way to do so.

Yes it does have ability to control what we enjoy. It absolutely has the right ie making it illegal as you demonstrate there. Whether that control is effective or warranted or even accepted is another issue.

2. People think that fox hunting using hounds is a cruel and inhumane way of culling the fox population.

Really it isn't.

Yes, actually it is. It is not shown to be an effective way to cull foxes if indeed foxes need culling in the first place.

Many people who shoot are not skilled enough to kill the fox outright anyway, so they end up suffering. Poison is likely to be a worse death, the fox won't even know what is happening to it. Traps are more cruel and will lead to a longer, slower death overall.

So if culling is absolutely needed why not find a more acceptable and humane way of doing it by people who can implement it properly?

With the hunt, the fox does have a chance to escape, and if they do get caught by the hounds they would have their neck snapped and be ripped apart in a matter of seconds anyway. It is a survival of the fittest scenario which would be better for the fox population in general anyway, as the older/sicklier/genetically inferior foxes would be culled first usually.

Evolution fail there. There is no survival of the fittest.

The fact that they are not hunted for food is irrelevant and is not the basis for a valid argument against fox hunting. They are going to be culled regardless of the method because they are a pest, it was never about being a food source.

As for the electronic devices to keep them out of the countryside, this will just drive them all into urban areas raiding bins and killing/injuring family pets trying to survive. This in itself is probably more cruel than just allowing them a "survival of the fittest" chance to live in the countryside which is where they actually belong.

How about people let nature take care of nature. If fox numbers are high then they will come down as their food source depletes.
Why do people such as yourself insist we play god in natural balances?
Are farmers that retarded they can't build a proper fence and enclosures for their animals?

 

[wilber]

This is a bit of a waste of time... You didn't actually answer any of the points in my post.

I don't know what you want me to post exactly as it was something from a personal experienced...

I have never witnessed such behavior, they where clearly trespassing and causing criminal damage to your crops. Perhaps we just have more respect for our neighbours in this area.

The one point you made about crossing many landowners properties I answered.

 

[wilber]

That'd be why they was uproar from the fox hunting community when it was suggested that the 'entertainment' aspect of it could be fulfilled via drag hunting instead then?

Apparently though, it's just not the same for some reason?

You have not read what i posted earlier

It provides a service to the farmer. If people should wish to dress up in REGULAR horse attire and view the huntsman at his job, whilst hacking across land they would not normally have access to then so be it.

The horseback riders very rarely witnesses a fox being killed and when it does it is quite a solemn occasion. It's not like a football match where everyone cheers and pats each other on the back. The anti groups have done a good job of portraying hunting as done solely by the rich for the pleasure of the kill.

If the hunt is not providing a service to the landowner then the landowner is not going to give permission to cross on his/her land. Its not just one location you hunt at, as i have stated its a vast swath of the countryside which you would have no chance of riding across if not for having the invitation extended to others to view the huntsman at his work.

 

[grimm]

Wow Xordium, I think you have become a little over obsessed with your field ie. genetics to have an objective real world opinion on subjects like this. I'm not going to get into the definition of "survival of the fittest" and the flaws of that statement with you, as I was just using it to illustrate a point, not trying to be scientific. You know exactly what I meant by it, you are just choosing to be pedantic. Effectively the ones least equipped to survive because they are old/sick/whatever will be the ones most likely to be culled in a hunting with hounds scenario.

You are correct that certain things like smoking are banned, but your argument is invalid as people still do these things, just behind closed doors or in the areas where it is not banned to do so. The same goes for other things as I mentioned like marijuana. My argument still stands, the government cannot stop these things from going on, this has been proven by their track record to date on issues like drugs, prostitution etc.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that fox hunting with hounds is less humane than other methods. It may not be THE most humane method, but it is far from the worst method being used. Often the methods that the anti hunting lot want to use causes more/prolonged suffering to the animal than hunting with hounds does.

The government would like to think, and would like the general population to think, that it can control us, but in effect they really can't. Maybe one day when they have 1984 style surveillance in our homes then they might manage it, but I can't see that ever being workable.

You are also using the "let nature take care of nature" argument far too simplistically. It is a requirement of ourselves to maintain our food source, and it is a requirement of the farmers to support their livelihoods that we do not allow fox numbers to get out of control.

I'll leave it to your biology brain to invent a cost effective mechanism to prevent foxes roaming around hundreds of acres of farmland. If you can do that then I will accept your argument about farmers being at fault for not enclosing their animals properly. I have already pointed out the faults with using that electronic device, it will simply push the fox population into other areas where they are not wanted.

Even if professionals were to be hired, who is going to foot the cost of that? The farmers? Why would they do that when fox hunters will do it for free in the name of sport?

You are very idealistic (which is commendable) but not very realistic. I think your science background has somewhat stunted your real world perception.

 

[elmarko]

Why do people tout "survival of the fittest", to justify brutality?.

Fittest simply means the most adaptable to change & able to produce (reproductive success based).

Are farmers that retarded they can't build a proper fence and enclosures for their animals?

From what I've read fencing seems the best way of farmers protecting animals, much better than hunting with dogs (which has been proven to have no noticeable impact of fox populations).

 

[Woden]

Why do people tout "survival of the fittest", to justify brutality?.

Fittest simply means the most adaptable to change & able to produce (reproductive success based).

What makes me laugh is that it is counter productive. Hunting the foxes in this mannor is, quite literlary , going to eventually produce a new race of faster, hardier foxes that are inherrently unhuntable.

This is exactly what happened with antibiotics. Just bacteria adapt faster is all.

 

[Xordium]

Wow Xordium, I think you have become a little over obsessed with your field ie. genetics to have an objective real world opinion on subjects like this. I'm not going to get into the definition of "survival of the fittest" and the flaws of that statement with you, as I was just using it to illustrate a point, not trying to be scientific. You know exactly what I meant by it, you are just choosing to be pedantic. Effectively the ones least equipped to survive because they are old/sick/whatever will be the ones most likely to be culled in a hunting with hounds scenario.

1) My field is not genetics.
2) Why would you chose something you knowingly know to be false to substantiate something you believe to be correct?
3) I didn't know what you meant I just assumed you didn't know what you were on about.
4) Would you care to show the the statistics to demonstrate the a hunt discriminates against the healthy in favour of focusing on the old/sick. I would think the hunt would be flushing out what it geographically came across once a scent was picked up. Unless of course you have something to actually prove your assumption.

You are correct that certain things like smoking are banned, but your argument is invalid as people still do these things, just behind closed doors or in the areas where it is not banned to do so.

So you are not correct then because smoking has pretty much ceased in areas where it is legislated against but not in areas where it isn't controlled. So the government can control it. The opposite of what you said.

The same goes for other things as I mentioned like marijuana. My argument still stands, the government cannot stop these things from going on, this has been proven by their track record to date on issues like drugs, prostitution etc.

And yet for other barbaric and arcane practices they seem to have a remarkable amount of success (I didn't say they were perfect merely disputed your assertion they have no control).

Slavery in the UK? Not really going on.
Forces child labour in the UK? Not really going on
People being restricted from the vote? Not really going on bar prisoners.
Racism? Reducing
Sexism? Reducing
Homophobia? Reducing

See those last 3 there - not in any way fixed but on the path too. Are you that naive that you only accept success if it is instant. Most of these are timely sociological adjustments either from acceptance of law and changing of attitudes or a changed attitude which is then written into the law.

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that fox hunting with hounds is less humane than other methods. It may not be THE most humane method, but it is far from the worst method being used. Often the methods that the anti hunting lot want to use causes more/prolonged suffering to the animal than hunting with hounds does. The government would like to think, and would like the general population to think, that it can control us, but in effect they really can't. Maybe one day when they have 1984 style surveillance in our homes then they might manage it, but I can't see that ever being workable.

Can't control us. Now I know you live in cloud cuckoo land. You live in a country which is governed by a minority government that was in itself voted for by a small percentage of the population. That government consistently instigates protectionist policies that prejudice against large proportions of the population and yet their are hardly any riots. There is no open discontent. People rise every morning to attend jobs they dislike to run the rat wheel of the system. If that is not a pretty good method of control I don't know what is. All the while our children are being taught about acceptance, equality and all the very fundamental principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights from the off - things and principles that people not only didn't accept 50 years ago but open joked about and poked fun at. And you say that they can't control and we can't change. Right.

You are also using the "let nature take care of nature" argument far too simplistically. It is a requirement of ourselves to maintain our food source, and it is a requirement of the farmers to support their livelihoods that we do not allow fox numbers to get out of control.

I'll leave it to your biology brain to invent a cost effective mechanism to prevent foxes roaming around hundreds of acres of farmland. If you can do that then I will accept your argument about farmers being at fault for not enclosing their animals properly. I have already pointed out the faults with using that electronic device, it will simply push the fox population into other areas where they are not wanted.

Even if professionals were to be hired, who is going to foot the cost of that? The farmers? Why would they do that when fox hunters will do it for free in the name of sport?

You are very idealistic (which is commendable) but not very realistic. I think your science background has somewhat stunted your real world perception.

No, it has just afforded me the ability analyse situations and have a healthy appreciation of what is wrong and right and just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should do something.

 

[grimm]

Actually is it. To think you can break this down in such overly reductionist manner is rather simplistic and also belies a complete ignorance of how such a methodology is wholly inappropriate for things which are comprised of such inter-related issues.

Actually, it can be broken down like that.

We already do it with a number of other matters such as atheism and agnosticism.

It is possible to be atheist, agnostic, or both. The same is true of this.

The reason I separated it is that some people appear to be getting confused as to whether they dislike the fact that foxes are being culled at all, whether they dislike the fact that people are taking pleasure out of the act of culling, or whether the method of culling itself is what they disagree with.

Most people in this thread are claiming all sorts of things without offering a viable and realistic solution.

 

[Xordium]

What makes me laugh is that it is counter productive. Hunting the foxes in this mannor is, quite literlary , going to eventually produce a new race of faster, hardier foxes that are inherrently unhuntable.

This is exactly what happened with antibiotics. Just bacteria adapt faster is all.

Everyone worries about the impending zombie apocalypse me I am worried about the impending fox apocalypse when everyone gets pounced upon and ripped apart by packs of genetically fortified super foxes seeking revenge!

 

[Xordium]

Actually, it can be broken down like that.

Actually no it can't because then you'd be ignoring all events that happen between the separate components. And when you are examining and ethics issue it is rather difficult to present on ethic in isolation. Invariably, there is always more than one in play therefore they have to be examined and judged in unison.

Most people in this thread are claiming all sorts of things without offering a viable and realistic solution.

Solution to what exactly? If this is about culling foxes then the evidence shows the hunts have no tangible effects on the fox population.

If it's about the thrill of the hunt well then there are some logical suggestions to make that would really make it entertaining ...

 

[FARGO]

On a typical fox hunt, how many are caught/killed each time?

 

[Naffa]

On a typical fox hunt, how many are caught/killed each time?

A whole day out on the moors will net two foxes, if they're lucky.