That's true.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] The Southdown & Eridge Hunt's traditional boxing day meet has been stymied
- Thread starter shingle
- Start date
I'm pretty sure that we are on the same side - i.e. the fox. I'm not quite sure why you appear so angry with me!This is a spurious claim - the legal shooting and legal snaring of foxes when done under licence (as it has to be by law) is a far more humane way of controlling foxes or any other species than allowing them to be chased and killed by a pack of dogs (for fun) - I live in an agricultural community (and have worked with local farmers on conservation matters ) so am familiar with the practices of snaring and shooting. The practice of using live traps with self-locking snap jaws or wires to trap animals are now illegal and have been for years. As I said, DEFRA are very clear on how animals are controlled now. In particular, modern snares capture the fox (painlessly) allowing for them to be dispatched humanely. Shooting is regarded as a humane method by DEFRA and is a lot quicker than a fox running through the Countryside chased by a pack of hounds for hours until it collapses in utter exhaustion and ripped to pieces while it is still alive. I’m not saying there are never incidences where foxes aren’t being snared by snap jaws that cause the ‘long slow horrible death’ you describe but this is not going on in the farming community and is outlawed. It is hard to protest against individual criminals who are breaking the law, no? It is easier to campaign against an industry or a Law (which is what the hunt sabbers do).
Anyone that tries to diminish the impact of the suffering of foxes when caught by dogs with whataboutery claims that shooting and modern traps cause the same level of suffering shows a lack of knowledge around the issues IMO. It is simply not true these methods are a ‘truly horrible way to kill a fox’ - if you see any incidence where that has happened, report it to the wildlife crime officer in your local police authority immediately.
DEFRAs guidelines are specifically to ensure animals are humanely caught and to avoid suffering
Personally, from a scientific point of view, I disagree with agricultural culling of most types of animals, not on the grounds of cruelty necessarily but because there is evidence to suggest that with many species it doesn’t work and can actually make the problem worse as was suggested with badger culling. Nature abhors a vacuum and with territorial animals like foxes and badgers, as soon as you remove one local population another moves in. In the work I do, we are finding out that the best way to limit the impact of foxes is to have better barrier protection for the prey species we are concerned with.
Edit - if you want to talk about the inhumane use of rodenticides to kill mice and rats then you’d have a point: long slow painful death caused by internal haemorrhaging which can last days - not to mention risks to other animals in the food chain and risk to pets.
Or you can ignore again the points I made to counter your charges of hypocrisy - it’s up to you
Shooting a fox can be done by anybody with a shot gun licence ( 539,212 people at the last count) which is not the same as shooting foxes 'under licence' and I was clear that I am against hunting but I also believe the other control methods (and I have witnessed this personally) can indeed be a 'truly horrible way to kill a fox' (as is also the case with hunting)
Sorry, but your statement that " It is illegal to kill a fox without a DEFRA licence and DEFRA specifies the appropriate firearms" is not correct. I have cut and pasted this direct from gov.uk site: "Foxes are not protected for conservation purposes in England. The owner or occupier of the property where a problem with foxes occurs can decide when to control them. You can shoot free foxes using a suitable firearm and ammunition". It does not specify what is 'suitable' nor does it mention the requirement for a specific licence. Regarding snares: "You should check cage traps at least once a day to stop a captured fox (or non-target species) suffering". This means a snared fox can be trapped for up to 24 hours before being 'despatched'. That is not very humane to me.
But as I say, I think we are in agreement: it is rarely necessary to kill a fox but if it is necessary, the most humane way should be used. the only difference appears to be that I am less happy with the current legal options than you.
You didn't need to warn junior, it probably gave him a stiffy
This is an astonishingly tone-deaf post. Besides, if he truly was volunteering I’d understand; but it was a photo op.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,905
1. Yes - we are1. I'm pretty sure that we are on the same side - i.e. the fox. I'm not quite sure why you appear so angry with me!
2. But as I say, I think we are in agreement: it is rarely necessary to kill a fox but if it is necessary, the most humane way should be used. 3. the only difference appears to be that I am less happy with the current legal options than you.
2. I was a little pissed of at your accusation that sabbers were hypocrites and our ‘bullshit’ needs to be ’called out’.
3. In your original post you made some sweeping comments about shooting and snaring but have since qualified them - I’ve outlined the law on snaring above. As for shooting, no, it is not comparable to hunting foxes with dogs - DEFRA does have guidelines on this and yes, while a licence isn’t required, they do advise on appropriate firearms and ammunition to ensure a ‘clean’ head or chest shot and you need to have a firearms licence - if people are not doing that, report them to the police. The licensing system used to cull certain species is also weak and licences issued far too freely imo so that could be tightened:
Licences to kill foxes issued despite experts' objections
Licences for a foot pack to kill foxes were issued by Forestry and Land Scotland despite strong objections from internal experts.
theferret.scot
- I do’t agree with any form of culling either as I said above - I don’t think culling has much basis in science and for small domestic holdings - we are finding that better barrier protective systems to protect target prey are more effective in the long term.
As for the current legal framework - no, if you are against hunting, fishing and shooting it is not going to satisfy you or me - but we do have very strong laws against animal abuse/causing harm to wildlife under a complex system of licensing/guidelines/Statute laws even if individual licences aren’t always required, including under the Wildlife and Countryside Act for example and in particular under the ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006. In this country, we should be grateful, songbirds are not still eaten - glue traps are amongst the absolute cruelest of traps IMO and were still legal in the UK until very recently but the suffering they caused was not - they have since been banned so if you see these, report the landowner (and remove the trap).
WARNING distressing images
What to Do if You See Someone Selling or Using Glue Traps - PETA UK
Glue traps are cruel. Find out how to speak out against these devices and help animals who are caught in them.
I’m sure we both agree, no animal should suffer unnecessarily for fun or sports and any animal culled/controlled should be done humanely - the laws are in place to do that and outlaw abuse but as with glue traps and rodenticides for example I mentioned above, the law falls short and when licences are required, they are issued to easily. Most importantly outlawing behaviour doesn’t wipe out criminal behaviour, people break laws all the time. Personally, I am against all forms of hunting/Fishing and Shooting for sport and although they are not illegal and governed by strict guidelines, I would love to see it all banned but that is never going to happen - far too many people enjoy killing animals and birds. You and I are probably very much in a minority when it comes to that.
Last edited:
ROSM
Well-known member
In response to those who say trail hunts mean no dead foxes
Thats just disgusting, and the huntsman coming onto someones private property to retreive the mutilated body of the fox pretty much says it all. There is no excuse, none.
Trail hunting is legal, but it can morph into real hunting. How often does an 'accident' like this occur?
What other laws were broken during this footage?
How much more likely is it that labour will become the next government if they prioritize the banning of 'fake' (trail) hunting?
I am resolutely anti hunting, and a Labour member, in case my antecedents are an issue.
Who does Packham suggest we vote for? I hope not a protest vote for greens or liberals. This will simply increase the chance of the present shower returning.
ROSM
Well-known member
I dont think he is suggesting who to vote for but more over making the labour front bench aware of this incident especially as country side alliance are putting pressure on labour to end the war on countryside (kate hoey is part of this campaign)
Four hunters plead not guilty after hounds kill fox in private garden - Protect the Wild
Four men from the West Norfolk Foxhounds have pleaded not guilty at Norwich Magistrates' Court. Three were charged with various offences after hounds tore apart a fox in a residential garden in Hingham, Norfolk, on 20 February 2023. The men have also been charged, along with another man, for a…
protectthewild.org.uk
Thanks.
Surprised Hoey is still in the labour party.
Incidentally I saw the Mail front page today (at the petrol station), something about Labour making transgender assessment compulsory for five year olds. I'd be willing for Labour to risk further opprobrium from the Mail ('destroying English traditional way of life, and freedoms') by throwing these ****s on horseback, and their slobbering serf wanker following, into a village pond.
ps
Hoey remained a member of the Labour Party for several decades while she was Member of Parliament (MP) for Vauxhall from 1989 to 2019, but resigned from the party in 2020.
On 23 August 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appointed Baroness Hoey as the UK's trade envoy to Ghana.[20]
ROSM
Well-known member
She isnt. Think she may be dup now.
Quite a mad bat. Was very left wing and in favour of a united Ireland at one point. Seems to have gone full Peter Hitchens/Joey Barton
ROSM
Well-known member
Yep she was a friend of magic grandpa
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,866
Many don't even attempt to lay a trail.
There have been a number of incidents where hounds have been killed either on the road or on railway track , I doubt they were following anything but their nose WHICH IS STILL TRAINED TO SEEK OUT foxes even after 19 years .
"Non-affiliated" apparently.
Which is apparently different to being a cross bencher or an independent.
The list of reasons why Lords are non-affiliated is good for a laugh.
Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords - Wikipedia
I though the hounds had all been put down, which was one of the main arguments by the hunt wankers for not banning hunting (stop me hunting and the dogs all get it)?
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,866
Just to add more to the discussion I assume people are aware that hunting stags with packs of dogs still continues , with the poor f*cker chased for hours until the fun has diminished and it is shot. So this is CLEARLY a 'sport' designed to derive pleasure from chasing a tormented animal.
Last edited:
Interesting. They come across as a load of eccentrics who don't quite know what they think or stand for. That alone is just cause for having an elected upper chamber. The ****s."Non-affiliated" apparently.
Which is apparently different to being a cross bencher or an independent.
The list of reasons why Lords are non-affiliated is good for a laugh.
Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org