Just found this on facebook

[junior]

Have a trained marksman shoot it. Bang. Job done.

How do you suppose he find them? Lay's in a field all night? How many do you think would even wander into that field once they got wind of a human scent in it?

 

[junior]

To be honest i am struggling to think of any ways less efficient that chasing one about all day with a load of dogs and some tossers on horse back who think they own the country side and treat everbody else in it like shit!

Again this gives me a chance to point out again that the 'anti fox hunting' thing is actually nothing to do with foxes buy everything to do with people perceptions of the type of person who does it. As soon as this type of comment is dropped from the argument, people might start to take the 'anti's' seriously.

 

[BadFish]

Again this gives me a chance to point out again that the 'anti fox hunting' thing is actually nothing to do with foxes buy everything to do with people perceptions of the type of person who does it. As soon as this type of comment is dropped from the argument, people might start to take the 'anti's' seriously.

It could be to do with both!

To be fair my dislike of the way hunts behave is based on my own personal experiences of sharing the countryside with such ill mannered oafs.

My main concern is the ridiculous excuses hunters uses to go about their barbaric bloodlust. I would have more respect if they just came clean and admitted they get their kicks but tormenting and killing defensless animals in the name of sport. Instead of banging on about culling in the most humane way.

 

[junior]

My main concern is the ridiculous excuses hunters uses to go about their barbaric bloodlust. I would have more respect if they just came clean and admitted they get their kicks but tormenting and killing defensless animals in the name of sport. Instead of banging on about culling in the most humane way.

From my experience, they are not excuses. They simply state facts. The anti brigade then spin these around, dress then up and add a few ill-truths and start spouting off. They are usually very quickly show themselves up as not knowing what they are talking about, and thats that.

At no point in this thread have I stated that I should be allowed to hunt the old fashioned way because I love watching animals ripped apart, tormenting them etc. What I have done is given facts and an educated side of the argument.

What the ANTI'S do is bang on time and time again about how 'cruel' it is and defenceless furry animals shouldnt be chased etc, 'toffs' get kicks out of watching it etc. They never give reasons as to WHY any of the alternatives to hunting should be preferred. There is no case and they can't. When they can, I think people will take them a bit more seriously.

 

[BadFish]

How do you suppose he find them? Lay's in a field all night? How many do you think would even wander into that field once they got wind of a human scent in it?

I watched Fantastic Mr Fox the other day and they are tricky little buggers to get hold of!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

How do you suppose he find them? Lay's in a field all night? How many do you think would even wander into that field once they got wind of a human scent in it?

How about you use a couple of trained dogs to flush them out, then shoot thm?

By the way, if 'finding' them is so hard, how do the hunts find the ones that they trap, then release so they can chase them?

 

[BadFish]

From my experience, they are not excuses. They simply state facts. The anti brigade then spin these around, dress then up and add a few ill-truths and start spouting off. They are usually very quickly show themselves up as not knowing what they are talking about, and thats that.

At no point in this thread have I stated that I should be allowed to hunt the old fashioned way because I love watching animals ripped apart, tormenting them etc. What I have done is given facts and an educated side of the argument.

What the ANTI'S do is bang on time and time again about how 'cruel' it is and defenceless furry animals shouldnt be chased etc, 'toffs' get kicks out of watching it etc. They never give reasons as to WHY any of the alternatives to hunting should be preferred. There is no case and they can't. When they can, I think people will take them a bit more seriously.

I have put forward the idea that there are many more efficient ways to kill foxes than spending one day killing one fox using a huge pack of dogs and many people on many horses.

My example is farmers over here poison them or use dogs to flush them out of their holes and then shoot them. They die quickly and you can cull lots in one day. These are far more efficient ways of culling than hunting them.

The main purpose of a hunt is for sport not to cull animals.

 

[junior]

I have put forward the ideas that their are many more efficient ways to kill foxes than spending one day killing one fox using a huge pack of dogs and many people on many horses.

My example is farmers over here poison them or use dogs to flush them out of their holes and then shoot them. They die quickly and you can cull lots in one day. These are far more efficient ways of culling than hunting them.

The main purpose of a hunt is for sport not to cull animals.

Holy f***! So you are saying they should be poisoned?!!! Didn't this whole debate start because one of you anti's suggested that fox hunting was cruel and inhumane?!!!

Do you know how fox hunting works? We flush them with dogs (hounds) and then shoot them. EXACTLY what you are suggesting, except that we dont flush them out of their holes. They are safe for another day down their holes.

So what if it is sport? As stated time and time again, it is the most effective humane way of dealing with the fox population. If you can create a whole industry around it then that is fantastic and it provides many jobs and does a great service to the rural community. This fact can't be argued against, so again it comes down to the people who take part, not the welfare of animals at all.

 

[BadFish]

Holy f***! So you are saying they should be poisoned?!!! Didn't this whole debate start because one of you anti's suggested that fox hunting was cruel and inhumane?!!!

Do you know how fox hunting works? We flush them with dogs (hounds) and then shoot them. EXACTLY what you are suggesting, except that we dont flush them out of their holes. They are safe for another day down their holes.

So what if it is sport? As stated time and time again, it is the most effective humane way of dealing with the fox population. If you can create a whole industry around it then that is fantastic and it provides many jobs and does a great service to the rural community. This fact can't be argued against, so again it comes down to the people who take part, not the welfare of animals at all.

It is not the most effective or humane way to cull foxes.

How many foxes are killed by hunting in a day?

 

[Surrey_Albion]

I've stated several times on this thread already, but you've chosen to ignore it.

The numbers of foxes in this country need to be controlled. The most humane way of doing so is for them to killed by hounds. It's natural! More importantly it isn't allowed to happen anymore and the fox has to be killed by other means. We use an Eagle and unfortunately it is not as quick as it would be using hounds. So foxes are actually suffering at the hands of this ban brought in to protect them, hence why it is a farce!

So if you had a choice die would you A) Be mauled to death by a bear because it is natual or B) shot in the head

As you have called so much to other for proof of their beleives I will now ask you, Please show me documented proof that it is the best and humane way to kill and cull foxes, or even the need to cull foxes

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Of course I am not against the rat population being controlled. Poisoning must be a horrible way to die but the chosen method employed by pest controllers is not my concern. I will add again that Foxhunting IS NOT 'cruel'. The fox, when being chased, has no concept that it could be about to die, this has been researched fully.

Please show research and proof that a fox, although it runs for it life, does not realise it is being chased, also that as the dogs tear into its flesh it doesnt really feel anything

 

[junior]

Please show research and proof that a fox, although it runs for it life, does not realise it is being chased, also that as the dogs tear into its flesh it doesnt really feel anything

The first or second hound to reach the fox catches it, usually by a hind leg. The next hound instinctively bites its neck and gives a quick twist which breaks the spinal cord. From the moment the first hound reaches the fox to its death is very seldom more than a very few seconds. The remaining hounds tear the dead fox to pieces.

Surely even this is preferable to the possibility of a slow death from wounds after an attempted shooting.

 

[junior]

Please show me documented proof that it is the best and humane way to kill and cull foxes

Research entitled "Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes", presented to Parliament in June 2003 by several scientists shows that expert rifle shots at 100yds wound heavilly as many foxes as they kill outright. Even at 50 yds with the rifle supported, they killed 60% and wounded heavilly some 40%. They may not know when they wound as the fox will run away. They are not always able to shoot a second time. They may not have a suitable dog to catch a wounded fox and kill it quickly. However, unlike Gamekeepers, relatively few farmers would claim to be expert at shooting foxes. Inexpert shooting often with a shotgun at short range (difficult to achieve against a shy fox) was shown also to wound heavilly as often as to kill. Wounding heavilly always runs risks of a slow painful death resulting in a much longer period of suffering than when caught by hounds.


Next?

 

[BadFish]

Research entitled "Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes", presented to Parliament in June 2003 by several scientists shows that expert rifle shots at 100yds wound heavilly as many foxes as they kill outright. Even at 50 yds with the rifle supported, they killed 60% and wounded heavilly some 40%. They may not know when they wound as the fox will run away. They are not always able to shoot a second time. They may not have a suitable dog to catch a wounded fox and kill it quickly. However, unlike Gamekeepers, relatively few farmers would claim to be expert at shooting foxes. Inexpert shooting often with a shotgun at short range (difficult to achieve against a shy fox) was shown also to wound heavilly as often as to kill. Wounding heavilly always runs risks of a slow painful death resulting in a much longer period of suffering than when caught by hounds.


Next?

How many foxes are culled by a hunt in a day?

(Just a heads up, when people ask for research and documentec evidence they are really asking for citation and links rather than just your paraphrasing of information you have read).

 

[BadFish]

No it isn't.
And how many members are there? Presumably thousands, so most don't agree with your statement. At least only 500 are wrong.

The veterinary profession is made up of around 24,000 registered veterinary surgeons.

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/about-the-veterinary-profession/

 

[Triggaaar]

The veterinary profession is made up of around 24,000 registered veterinary surgeons.

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/about-the-veterinary-profession/

thanks. So 2% of them agree with Junior, which is his factual prove that chasing foxes letting dogs rip them apart is the most humane way of controlling their population.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

The first or second hound to reach the fox catches it, usually by a hind leg. The next hound instinctively bites its neck and gives a quick twist which breaks the spinal cord. From the moment the first hound reaches the fox to its death is very seldom more than a very few seconds. The remaining hounds tear the dead fox to pieces.

Surely even this is preferable to the possibility of a slow death from wounds after an attempted shooting.

So there is never a dog that misses but there is a gun?? Still you have not justified the riders part in all this, the rider does nothing but gets some thrill from seeing another animal killed, please explain why you get pleasure from this, and as for a "shy fox" I am sure you "hunters" have been accused of digginf these animals out of their hole after they have given the dogs "the slip" infact I am 100% sure there is actually photographs of Prince Charlies doing just this.

Also do you just skim through and answer the questions you want too, if shooting is wrong,dogs are wrong then maybe there is a better way than making it a spectators sport? and you seem to have ignored the "why do we need to cull foxes" and please I do not want the Farmers veiw real scientific facts please, I could say in a study done by Proffesor Nathaniel Corbett that when he studdied the numbers of foxes in Britian in his sitation "ferral animals of the British Isles" that fox number were not a nuisance, I made that up but I am sure you didnt do the with your "welfare aspects of shooting foxes"

 

[sydney]

The veterinary profession is made up of around 24,000 registered veterinary surgeons.

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/about-the-veterinary-profession/

oh gosh.....there you go with your links again......

my cousin is somewhat of a shooter and him and his crew will frequently kill 60 plus foxes in a nights shooting......at 3 quid a head it more than covers his ammo and piss....don't know the why's and wherefores but have seen the pics of landrovers full of toby's.........fox hunting is surely right up there with the ducking stool and burning at the stake as far as bastions of English culture go ...no...?

 

[junior]

How many foxes are culled by a hunt in a day?

(Just a heads up, when people ask for research and documentec evidence they are really asking for citation and links rather than just your paraphrasing of information you have read).

I am at work and have limited access to the internet. NSC is one of only a few site's I can get onto. If you type into YouTube "fox being killed by hounds" there Is a video in which you will see that the fox is dead within seconds. No more evidence than that needed. I can also give you a few other links when I get on my own PC.

Can you give any evidence to the fact that fox hunting is 'cruel'? I'm doing a lot more here to back up my side of the debate than any of you that are against it are That speaks volumes.

 

[narly101]

Wow - what a great Facebook page.