[Misc] Fox hunting banned on National Trust land

[Thunder Bolt]

So do foxes.

That's not a biased report at all, is it? We don't have rabies in Britain, and the very rare outbreaks, that we have had in my lifetime, have been controlled by shooting.

Possibly the pathogen of greatest concern is rabies, for which the Red fox is the major sylvatic (wildlife) carrier in Europe. The virus is transferred through a bite and can be fatal to both humans and other animals (including foxes); large scale vaccination of foxes has served to control the spread of rabies in recent years, eradicating it altogether from parts of western Europe.

 

[Wardy's twin]

So do foxes.

so do humans .... of the 4 creatures discussed rats, mice, humans and foxes the latter is the least likely to be in your house (does happen tho)

 

[Wardy's twin]

Why does fox hunting get all the attention? Let's think about rats and mice instead. There must be millions of people in this country (obviously not in this thread) who at the first sign of mice or rats in their house, would call out a ratcatcher. And what does the ratcatcher do? Puts out a slow-acting poison, deliberately designed to be slow-acting so that not only do adult rats die slow, painful deaths, but also it gives them time to take the food home and feed it to the babies. With the side effect that they die at the bottom of their holes and not in places where their dead bodies would be inconvenient.

why don't the rats and mice get publicity? They are killed in their millions, not their hundreds. Six pages on this thread, and not a person is in favour of killing animals at all, let alone in such a cruel manner - can't a campaign be started to save the rats and mice?

As has been said start a campaign but given the given the difficulty in stopping fox hunting and the badger cull then its very unlikely that it will work win the first two battles then you might win the third.

Regards rat catchers totally agree with you , what they do should not be allowed be it poison or glue traps. If they use poison not all rats die in their holes so effectively leave poisoned bait for any predator to find. They also could die in some cavity in your house and rot.

Any gardener needs to be looking at if they use slug pellets another indiscriminate form of killing affecting animals further up the food chain in particular hedgehogs although slugs are a very small part of their diet .

 

[dsr-burnley]

The answer is very simple - motive.

Fox hunting is carried out for fun - the idea that fox hunting is a pest control exercise is an excuse put forward by the hunting fraternity to try and justify their so called sport.

Billions of flies and other insects are killed annually but there is a world of difference between using insecticide and killing a spider by pulling its legs off for fun.

I don't think insects or spiders are really a fair comparison. Maybe rats and mice aren't either, but at least they are mammals.

As drag hunting has proved, fox hunting is basically an excuse for the "hunting fraternity" to have a ride out. Most hunt followers never got involved in the actual killing of a fox. It was their way of socialising and having a good time riding a horse in the country. Rather them than me, frankly, but there it is.

The National Trust's decision to ban hunt followers and drag hunts from their land is surely more to do with not liking posh people on horses, than it is to do with protecting foxes. Why else would they choose to ban all drag hunts, including those with no suspicion attached to them, claiming it is needed to "prevent potential illegal activity"? There are lots of other potential illegal acts that could take place by opening trust land to the public; they might be as well simply banning public access if that's their worry. If this wasn't an anti-toff decision, it wouldn't be a blanket ban.

I agree there is a lot to be said in both directions for foxes being allowed to die naturally, usually of starvation brought on by disease or infirmity, than being torn to death before their time. It's like the difference for humans between dropping dead of a heart attack at 70, or living till 90 but spending the last 10 years in pain or with dementia. Some would prefer the former, others the latter. (Though obviously the humans aren't left to die, helpless. Humans help each other to mitigate the pain but prolong the life. Foxes don't.) But that isn't really the issue hear because the resolution is directed specifically at trail hunting, which is scarcely relevant to welfare of foxes.

 

[dsr-burnley]

As has been said start a campaign but given the given the difficulty in stopping fox hunting and the badger cull then its very unlikely that it will work win the first two battles then you might win the third.

Regards rat catchers totally agree with you , what they do should not be allowed be it poison or glue traps. If they use poison not all rats die in their holes so effectively leave poisoned bait for any predator to find. They also could die in some cavity in your house and rot.

Any gardener needs to be looking at if they use slug pellets another indiscriminate form of killing affecting animals further up the food chain in particular hedgehogs although slugs are a very small part of their diet .

They do generally put the poison in plastic "rat tunnels" which makes it hard for other urban predators to get hold of. I don't know what they do with rural rats.

 

[Wardy's twin]

That's an inevitable side effect. Farmers who hunt have an interest in keeping the fox population healthy. Farmers who don't hunt, don't want foxes on their land.

If they can't live with nature they shouldn't be owners of the land and indeed they should be there to boost our ecology and certain modern practices are not helping e.g. the current TB issue is pretty much down to modern practices where herd densities have doubled. Why kill foxes , they naturally keep numbers of mice/rats down and yes the odd one might take a lamb but pretty much all lambs are killed by humans...

 

[rippleman]

So do foxes.

The last recorded infection of a human by canine rabies, transmitted by a fox, in this country was in 1902.
The last recorded rabies infection in the UK was in 1922.

You've gone and let yourself down again haven't you?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The last recorded infection of a human by canine rabies, transmitted by a fox, in this country was in 1902.
The last recorded rabies infection in the UK was in 1922.

You've gone and let yourself down again haven't you?

I'm not that old! That was classical rabies.

This was what I remembered in 1970.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/6/newsid_2515000/2515497.stm

 

[Wardy's twin]

I don't think insects or spiders are really a fair comparison. Maybe rats and mice aren't either, but at least they are mammals.

As drag hunting has proved, fox hunting is basically an excuse for the "hunting fraternity" to have a ride out. Most hunt followers never got involved in the actual killing of a fox. It was their way of socialising and having a good time riding a horse in the country. Rather them than me, frankly, but there it is.

The National Trust's decision to ban hunt followers and drag hunts from their land is surely more to do with not liking posh people on horses, than it is to do with protecting foxes. Why else would they choose to ban all drag hunts, including those with no suspicion attached to them, claiming it is needed to "prevent potential illegal activity"? There are lots of other potential illegal acts that could take place by opening trust land to the public; they might be as well simply banning public access if that's their worry. If this wasn't an anti-toff decision, it wouldn't be a blanket ban.

I agree there is a lot to be said in both directions for foxes being allowed to die naturally, usually of starvation brought on by disease or infirmity, than being torn to death before their time. It's like the difference for humans between dropping dead of a heart attack at 70, or living till 90 but spending the last 10 years in pain or with dementia. Some would prefer the former, others the latter. (Though obviously the humans aren't left to die, helpless. Humans help each other to mitigate the pain but prolong the life. Foxes don't.) But that isn't really the issue hear because the resolution is directed specifically at trail hunting, which is scarcely relevant to welfare of foxes.

The trouble is the fox hunting community stand together , certainly there seem to be worse fox hunting groups but if the 'honest ones' (if there are any) defend the bad ones then they are just as bad.

If they want to socialise on horses then no issue but why continue to train hounds to chase foxes - the smell they use is fox urine why after 20 years don't they use something else. Why aren't the dogs muzzled in some form if they are not to kill and that would stop them killing other creatures e.g. the cats they have killed in people's gardens.

The NT is a middle class , semi posh (whatever that means) organisation but they also believe that killing foxes with hounds is barbaric and should be consigned to history along with other things like badger baiting and hare coursing. Its a matter of educating people to see the issues and that there are better ways of dealing with things.

Your last paragraph is totally disingenuous - if you look at some of the videos published the foxes are very healthy they need to be to try to out run 30 hounds and hunters. They are caught because their natural dens where they would run to are illegally blocked as are any badger setts or rabbit holes in the locality. But this only tells half the story, the hunting season has two phases one of which is called cubbing and guess what instead of hunting old decrepid foxes they catch the young ones, the cubs i.e. fit and healthy ones which have generally just left the mum and are not streetwise and so are very easy targets. I say catch and in some cases i mean that, they keep them alive either to feed to hounds to blood them or keep them in artificial dens to use when they can't find any free ones. I assume you defend badger baiting as well and long for the return of bears.

All sorts of hunting needs to be reviewed, fox hunting with dogs is illegal but is not enforced because of 'connections' , hare coursing is illegal and in some parts the law is enforced as is badger baiting but the law needs to be stronger. We also need to review why its ok just to shoot foxes, stoats, polecats etc because they MIGHT interfere with some farming practices. This is my and your wildlife and its on the decline in this country.

The debate is similar to the culling of badgers a so called protected species. The rise in TB correlates with the growth of cattle herds post the 2001 foot&mouth and the dispersal of cattle thereafter. Don't forget that the same drive to reduce costs of beef was behind BSE.

I understand that farmers are under pressure but what needs to happen is instead of taking the easy way - kill everything - in the drive to reduce costs/increase profits we need to look at the true economic cost of producing meat properly , safely and ethically. Not enough for those who would ban meat eating now but that is not a battle that would be won so in my opinion don't fight it, yet.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The trouble is the fox hunting community stand together , certainly there seem to be worse fox hunting groups but if the 'honest ones' (if there are any) defend the bad ones then they are just as bad.

If they want to socialise on horses then no issue but why continue to train hounds to chase foxes - the smell they use is fox urine why after 20 years don't they use something else. Why aren't the dogs muzzled in some form if they are not to kill and that would stop them killing other creatures e.g. the cats they have killed in people's gardens.

The NT is a middle class , semi posh (whatever that means) organisation but they also believe that killing foxes with hounds is barbaric and should be consigned to history along with other things like badger baiting and hare coursing. Its a matter of educating people to see the issues and that there are better ways of dealing with things.

Your last paragraph is totally disingenuous - if you look at some of the videos published the foxes are very healthy they need to be to try to out run 30 hounds and hunters. They are caught because their natural dens where they would run to are illegally blocked as are any badger setts or rabbit holes in the locality. But this only tells half the story, the hunting season has two phases one of which is called cubbing and guess what instead of hunting old decrepid foxes they catch the young ones, the cubs i.e. fit and healthy ones which have generally just left the mum and are not streetwise and so are very easy targets. I say catch and in some cases i mean that, they keep them alive either to feed to hounds to blood them or keep them in artificial dens to use when they can't find any free ones. I assume you defend badger baiting as well and long for the return of bears.

All sorts of hunting needs to be reviewed, fox hunting with dogs is illegal but is not enforced because of 'connections' , hare coursing is illegal and in some parts the law is enforced as is badger baiting but the law needs to be stronger. We also need to review why its ok just to shoot foxes, stoats, polecats etc because they MIGHT interfere with some farming practices. This is my and your wildlife and its on the decline in this country.

The debate is similar to the culling of badgers a so called protected species. The rise in TB correlates with the growth of cattle herds post the 2001 foot&mouth and the dispersal of cattle thereafter. Don't forget that the same drive to reduce costs of beef was behind BSE.

I understand that farmers are under pressure but what needs to happen is instead of taking the easy way - kill everything - in the drive to reduce costs/increase profits we need to look at the true economic cost of producing meat properly , safely and ethically. Not enough for those who would ban meat eating now but that is not a battle that would be won so in my opinion don't fight it, yet.

The quote I have highlighted weakens your entire argument. If you put in a line that makes a totally unjustified assumption based on no evidence whatsoever, then what are we to expect of the rest of your argument? If some of what you believe is based on blind prejudice and illogical assumptions, then why shouldn't all of it be?

I know about cubbing and the rest. The increased suffering to foxes as a whole caused by cubbing is small or possibly nil, because in a stable population the majority of cubs die young anyway. And as I said, animals that die in the wild usually die unpleasant deaths. The amount of increased suffering to animals caused by trail hunts is too small to justify this sort of reaction.

 

[Creaky]

The quote I have highlighted weakens your entire argument. If you put in a line that makes a totally unjustified assumption based on no evidence whatsoever, then what are we to expect of the rest of your argument? If some of what you believe is based on blind prejudice and illogical assumptions, then why shouldn't all of it be?



I know about cubbing and the rest. The increased suffering to foxes as a whole caused by cubbing is small or possibly nil, because in a stable population the majority of cubs die young anyway. And as I said, animals that die in the wild usually die unpleasant deaths. The amount of increased suffering to animals caused by trail hunts is too small to justify this sort of reaction.

No more so than your claim, “ The National Trust's decision to ban hunt followers and drag hunts from their land is surely more to do with not liking posh people on horses, than it is to do with protecting foxes.”

 

[rippleman]

The quote I have highlighted weakens your entire argument. If you put in a line that makes a totally unjustified assumption based on no evidence whatsoever, then what are we to expect of the rest of your argument? If some of what you believe is based on blind prejudice and illogical assumptions, then why shouldn't all of it be?

I know about cubbing and the rest. The increased suffering to foxes as a whole caused by cubbing is small or possibly nil, because in a stable population the majority of cubs die young anyway. And as I said, animals that die in the wild usually die unpleasant deaths. The amount of increased suffering to animals caused by trail hunts is too small to justify this sort of reaction.

So you may be right that many animals that die in the wild die unpleasant deaths. But to use that to support the imposition of an unpleasant death at the hands of humans, purely for the pleasure and gratification of a few toffs makes me wonder if you have gone a bit barmy.

Look, if you are one of those who can enjoy and defend the killing of a wild animal for shits and giggles then I am mighty relieved that you are in a tiny minority.

To kill for pleasure is a psychopathic trait. Many serial killers have started out abusing or killing animals at a very young age.

 

[dsr-burnley]

So you may be right that many animals that die in the wild die unpleasant deaths. But to use that to support the imposition of an unpleasant death at the hands of humans, purely for the pleasure and gratification of a few toffs makes me wonder if you have gone a bit barmy.

Look, if you are one of those who can enjoy and defend the killing of a wild animal for [deleted] and giggles then I am mighty relieved that you are in a tiny minority.

To kill for pleasure is a psychopathic trait. Many serial killers have started out abusing or killing animals at a very young age.

It's not that tiny a minority. How many people own domestic cats? Many of them facilitate the deaths of wild animals. It's easy enough to draw a line just beyond where I am and say that I am moral and right and people the other side of my line are immoral and wrong. Plenty of people who eat meat would say that killing animals for their own pleasure of eating them is fine; killing animals for the pleasure of a ride out is not fine. But to a vegetarian, those people are on the same side of the line as the drag hunters.

Do you honestly believe that everyone, or even a the majority, who follows a drag hunt does it because they enjoy killing wild animals?

 

[dsr-burnley]

No more so than your claim, “ The National Trust's decision to ban hunt followers and drag hunts from their land is surely more to do with not liking posh people on horses, than it is to do with protecting foxes.”

It's a lot easier to guess at the average motivation of a group of people than it is to guess at an individual.

For example, I can guess that these 100,000 (or the 70k who voted to ban drag hunting) are animal lovers to the extent that they don't like hunting, shooting, fishing. I wouldn't like to say whether they are vegetarians. But for you as an individual, while I know that you are anti-hunting and anti-drag hunting, I don't know whether you eat meat though I would guess not if I was forced to make a guess, and I certainly don't know whether you would refuse to exterminate mice in your home or whether you refuse to drive above 10 mph because of reluctance to kill insects.

You see, I don't assume that someone who opposes drag hunting necessarily opposes all human actions that result in the death of a living creature. Any more than you can reasonably assume that someone who supports drag hunting necessarily supports badger baiting too. It's an irrational and illogical viewpoint and it reduces the value of the rest of your contribution, which was thoughtful and sensible. Even though I don't agree with it.

 

[Creaky]

It's a lot easier to guess at the average motivation of a group of people than it is to guess at an individual.

For example, I can guess that these 100,000 (or the 70k who voted to ban drag hunting) are animal lovers to the extent that they don't like hunting, shooting, fishing. I wouldn't like to say whether they are vegetarians. But for you as an individual, while I know that you are anti-hunting and anti-drag hunting, I don't know whether you eat meat though I would guess not if I was forced to make a guess, and I certainly don't know whether you would refuse to exterminate mice in your home or whether you refuse to drive above 10 mph because of reluctance to kill insects.

You see, I don't assume that someone who opposes drag hunting necessarily opposes all human actions that result in the death of a living creature. Any more than you can reasonably assume that someone who supports drag hunting necessarily supports badger baiting too. It's an irrational and illogical viewpoint and it reduces the value of the rest of your contribution, which was thoughtful and sensible. Even though I don't agree with it.

You’d be wrong in that guess - I do eat meat and have no objection to animals being bred and raised for human consumption so long as it is done in a caring and humane way.

I’ve never suggested nor assumed that anyone who supports drag hunting, or fox hunting, would also support badger baiting. Your apparent belief, (“guess”), is wrong.

I also don’t believe, or at least have no evidence to support such a belief, that the NT don’t like posh people on horses.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You’d be wrong in that guess - I do eat meat and have no objection to animals being bred and raised for human consumption so long as it is done in a caring and humane way.

I’ve never suggested nor assumed that anyone who supports drag hunting, or fox hunting, would also support badger baiting. Your apparent belief, (“guess”), is wrong.

I also don’t believe, or at least have no evidence to support such a belief, that the NT don’t like posh people on horses.

Yes, well I said it was a guess. And obviously your moral line is that killing for meat is fine, riding behind hounds who may kill is not.

Why did you assume I personally support badger baiting? I did assume it was because you believed all people who support drag hunting also support badger baiting, and I was wrong. I apologise. So what is it about me, personally, that made you assume I support badger baiting? (Which, for the record, I don't.)

 

[Weststander]

Scummers deriving immense pleasure from hunting down in big numbers a mammal over a sustained period, blocking off holes and butchering the target.

Rupert Everitt reluctantly was made to go on one hunt when a kid, the initiation ceremony at the end of the hunt is to rub the fox's blood on the newcomers face.

Says it all.


By the way, it's actually illegal.

 

[Creaky]

Yes, well I said it was a guess. And obviously your moral line is that killing for meat is fine, riding behind hounds who may kill is not.

Why did you assume I personally support badger baiting? I did assume it was because you believed all people who support drag hunting also support badger baiting, and I was wrong. I apologise. So what is it about me, personally, that made you assume I support badger baiting? (Which, for the record, I don't.)

Where did I ever make that claim

 

[Weststander]

The last recorded infection of a human by canine rabies, transmitted by a fox, in this country was in 1902.
The last recorded rabies infection in the UK was in 1922.

You've gone and let yourself down again haven't you?

 

[Wardy's twin]

The quote I have highlighted weakens your entire argument. If you put in a line that makes a totally unjustified assumption based on no evidence whatsoever, then what are we to expect of the rest of your argument? If some of what you believe is based on blind prejudice and illogical assumptions, then why shouldn't all of it be?

I know about cubbing and the rest. The increased suffering to foxes as a whole caused by cubbing is small or possibly nil, because in a stable population the majority of cubs die young anyway. And as I said, animals that die in the wild usually die unpleasant deaths. The amount of increased suffering to animals caused by trail hunts is too small to justify this sort of reaction.

You know and I know that my comment was there to stir a reaction from you and the one i got was classic, you are going to deny all the truths in my statement because of that line which interestingly you have not denied and then you have the audacity to say my views are based on blind prejudice and are illogical.

The logic is simple if you believe bear and badger baiting is cruel then why not fox hunting as well, it ends in the same result which is a tormented animal torn apart by dogs.

You say you know about cubbing but in your previous reply you said fox hunting only effected the the old and those near death so that original statement was untrue so your argument is beginning to look very weak.

How can you say that the increased suffering to foxes due to cubbing is nil, they are ripped apart . You then say that the majority of cubs die young therefore cubbing is ok because it is only doing what nature does . I have to say that's a very perverse argument. If it were applied to people there would be no need for hospitals , why fix people when they were going to die anyway and killers could say well I killed him but he was going to die anyway so its not a crime...Doesn't sound right to me.

But let's get our feet back on the ground, its illegal to hunt foxes with dogs and has been since 2004 yet some parts of the population think they are above the law and have continued to do it , most normal people think its not acceptable and the NT population reflect that in the way they voted. Not anti posh, anti-toff but supporting the law of the land.

If I remember correctly you are quite happy for badgers to be culled even though the science says the main issues around TB are down to farming practice is that correct?