Never mind fox hunting.....

[chriscom]

I'm not talking convenience, I said if a fox is indeed being a pest, I.e killing livestock then it is understandable that the farmer will seek to protect his livestock. Nobody would argue that a farmer should sit by while a fox or any other animal for that matter kills his livestock.

But taking into account the death of lambs for example from foxes accounts for under 1% of total deaths, in reality the need to control foxes is virtually non existant. However, for the benefit of those who argue the need to kill them then I am suggesting more humane ways of doing it.

It's not about philosophy and I am in not condoning killing in cold blood for the sake of it.

The simple fact is Hunting has nothing to do with controlling the fox population.

[Russ]

And if we didnt have fox hunting how would we kill the fox Big Al?

Poison is cruel, as is shooting cruel - do u hit the fox the right place everytime? or do u sometimes hit it in the leg, leaving it unable to hunt for food for days on end leaving it to slowly die a painful death? At least with fox hunting you know the fox will be killed, foxes need to be kept under control....

And yes i support it

lynni, hiya

have anything to say about my post, seeing as your strongly for and im against, i think i put my point across in a good way. (its on page 8 btw )

[Auran]

I wouldn't put much faith in the MAFF study if I were you as this is the same group of people who made such a pigs ear of the foot and mouth situation. Plus Oxford university is hardly a shining example of scientific rigour.

I will admit that I haven't read the study in question, but I have read others that put the figures much higher. What is often forgotten is that stress is the biggest contributor to still births ar aborted pregnancies amongst sheep. The most common cause of this is foxes. So how much of the 24% is caused indirectly by the action of prowling foxes?

Now for this study they used highland sheep that are less prone to the effects of stress than the more domesticated lowland sheep. So it is not relevant to the whole of the Uk, where the 24% figure can rise to as much as 40% in some areas and with some breeds. So if the proportion of this figure due to foxes is higher, you can see why they are not welcomed on farming land.

[chriscom]

I wouldn't put much faith in the MAFF study if I were you as this is the same group of people who made such a pigs ear of the foot and mouth situation. Plus Oxford university is hardly a shining example of scientific rigour.

I will admit that I haven't read the study in question, but I have read others that put the figures much higher. What is often forgotten is that stress is the biggest contributor to still births ar aborted pregnancies amongst sheep. The most common cause of this is foxes. So how much of the 24% is caused indirectly by the action of prowling foxes?

Now for this study they used highland sheep that are less prone to the effects of stress than the more domesticated lowland sheep. So it is not relevant to the whole of the Uk, where the 24% figure can rise to as much as 40% in some areas and with some breeds. So if the proportion of this figure due to foxes is higher, you can see why they are not welcomed on farming land.

To be fair to MAFF, although they made a mess of the foot and mouth this incident has little to do with the research into foxes which does correlate with the research from Oxford university and more recent research from both the Mammal society and York university, the later recently putting lamb deaths at 0.4%. These four recent independent reviews have come to a similar conclusion, whilst sheep farmers have put the percentage of lambs lost to a fox at 0.5%. Such research has been carried out across the UK which matches the results from the highlinds study.
I'd am very interested though to see the results of the other research you mention.

On the subject of Abortive pregnancies research shows these tend to be related to Diseases. These being Enzootic abortion (EAE or chlamydia) Campylobacteriosis (Vibriosis) Toxoplasmosis
and Leptospirosis. (bacterial, parasite etc)

Pneumonia on the other hand is made up or a mixture of stress and micro organisms. But such stress can include poor sanitation, overcrowding, shipping, build-up of irritating gases, dust or numerous other conditions.

The stress caused by a fox in comparison with these conditions is likely to be small, especially when one takes into account sheep don't get stressed from foxes in general. Anyone living in the country will often notice a fox walking or running through a field of sheep without them moving. Often Foxes den's are within the same field as those where sheep graze and frequently lambs can be seen playing on top of the den.
If one takes into account the number of lambs killed directly by foxes (under 1%) then it is extremely rare that a fox will be stressing them out through chasing them.
Furthermore, a fox that does attack sheep tends to be a weak or sick fox, while post mortem evidence on lambs taken by a fox reveal they are likely to have already been dead or suffering from an illness.

Here's the results of the findings from the Minstry of Agriculture
According to the Ministry of Agriculture (UK).
Lamb mortality is as follows.
Disease & Malformations (16%)
Starvation/Exposure (35%)
Infections (37%)
Predation (1%)
Other (7%)
No Result (4%)

In conclusion they report "The Ministry does not consider foxes to be a significant factor in lamb mortality nationally."

[chriscom]

In response to the myth that Foxes are killed by a single nip to the back of the neck.

Post mortem results on foxes killed by a fox hunt.
"I feel that the most likely cause of death was that of shock (in the pathological sense) brought about by blood loss, organ damage, lack of oxygenation of the blood due to lower respiratory dysfunction and upper airway obstruction, and ensuing circulatory failure. In short, the fox died a painful and unpleasant death which probably was not quick as evidenced by the areas of haemorrhage seen at many sites."

Post Mortem 2:
"I could detect no external damage to neck or throat areas, but there were extensive wounds to the abdomen and thorax. In fact the abdomen was ripped open and the intestines were hanging out. The wounds were consistent with the fox having been severely bitten by another animal or animals."

[Auran]

Chriscom - The study I read was from a year a so ago and I wouldn't have a clue who it was by. My partner at the time was a vet and she was somewhat pro-hunting , thus she had quite a few reports etc. filed away. For other reasons I am not speaking to her so am not in a position to find out any details. I do remember that they found different levels of lamb deaths attributed to "stress" between hardy and domestic sheep.

I will admit that I was being a bit simplistic in my argument but was trying to point out that you shouldn't just accept scientific hypotheses at face value. Especially in a situation a complicated as this and where emotion can get in the way of rational discussion.

I also agree that sheep will completely ignore foxes when they walk through fields and that it is old / weak foxes that prey on lambs. When I manage to track down a study that was highlighted in the Telegraph a while back (by one of Britain's foremost experts on foxes) I'll post details of it and findings. Surprisingly she was pro-hunting (If independantly regulated) as it is good for a healthy fox population. This also has a beneficial knock-on effect with regards to regulation of the rabbit population.

Having had dealings with MAFF / DEFRA both directly and indirectly for over 10 years I still have very little faith in them at all. Too much pandering to their "masters" and not enough rational decision making based on hard facts. Foot and mouth was the most obvious example I could of used to make my point, there are lots of others.

[chriscom]

Chriscom - The study I read was from a year a so ago and I wouldn't have a clue who it was by. My partner at the time was a vet and she was somewhat pro-hunting , thus she had quite a few reports etc. filed away. For other reasons I am not speaking to her so am not in a position to find out any details. I do remember that they found different levels of lamb deaths attributed to "stress" between hardy and domestic sheep.

I will admit that I was being a bit simplistic in my argument but was trying to point out that you shouldn't just accept scientific hypotheses at face value. Especially in a situation a complicated as this and where emotion can get in the way of rational discussion.

I also agree that sheep will completely ignore foxes when they walk through fields and that it is old / weak foxes that prey on lambs. When I manage to track down a study that was highlighted in the Telegraph a while back (by one of Britain's foremost experts on foxes) I'll post details of it and findings. Surprisingly she was pro-hunting (If independantly regulated) as it is good for a healthy fox population. This also has a beneficial knock-on effect with regards to regulation of the rabbit population.

Having had dealings with MAFF / DEFRA both directly and indirectly for over 10 years I still have very little faith in them at all. Too much pandering to their "masters" and not enough rational decision making based on hard facts. Foot and mouth was the most obvious example I could of used to make my point, there are lots of others.

HI Auran,

To attempt to clarify the higher numbers you speak of I have contacted the Pro-hunt lobby for their take on sheep deaths to foxes, understandably they were unable to be specific but their quote on the number of deaths of lambs as killed by foxes "Scientific estimates vary from 0.5% to 5.2%"

If one is generous and uses the higher percentage lamb deaths to foxes still remain insignificant in respect to other causes of death.

Furthermore, according to figures by the BFSS hunts tend to kill 2.5% of the local fox population a year. (I do however, wish to get an update on this figure as I am quoting the BFSS from a few years ago, not that I can see hunts have suddenly become more efficient)

Thus even if they were needed to control foxes such figures show they remain a poor method of doing so.

Cheers for the debate Auran, its good to have a well informed and friendly debate.

[Auran]

Chriscom

From my understanding of the situation, there are three important facets to what needs is required with regards to the farming industry, who are after all the ones that are benefiting from the services of the hunt;

1. Population control
2. Locale & territory
3. Health of fox population

Thus an effective fox hunting method needs to achieve all three of these in the right balance. Hunting as it stands has been shown to achieve all three, but only with a well managed hunt. The actual data on territory is a bit sketchy to say the least as not much work has been done on this. (It's about time money was spent on researching our own mammal species as quite a few of them are in danger of dissapearing).

As I stated earlier I'm looking for the paper that went into the benefits of hunting for fox populations vis. a vis. overall health. Peverse I know but the healthier the foxes the less damage they do to the afrming industry.

So it's not just a case of how many they kill.

[chriscom]

Auran,

What are your definitions of the 3 facets you mention above?

[Auran]

Chriscom

1. Population control - this comes down to the number of foxes killed per annum by the hunting method being used

2. Locale & teritory - where the foxes dens are and the territory that they cover to obtain food

3. Health - the percentage split of the age groups, prevelance of disease etc., in some respects a measure of the populations ability to hunt for their natural prey rather than having to "adapt" to taking other animals.

[chriscom]

Chriscom

From my understanding of the situation, there are three important facets to what needs is required with regards to the farming industry, who are after all the ones that are benefiting from the services of the hunt;

1. Population control
2. Locale & territory
3. Health of fox population

Thus an effective fox hunting method needs to achieve all three of these in the right balance. Hunting as it stands has been shown to achieve all three, but only with a well managed hunt. The actual data on territory is a bit sketchy to say the least as not much work has been done on this. (It's about time money was spent on researching our own mammal species as quite a few of them are in danger of dissapearing).

As I stated earlier I'm looking for the paper that went into the benefits of hunting for fox populations vis. a vis. overall health. Peverse I know but the healthier the foxes the less damage they do to the afrming industry.

So it's not just a case of how many they kill.

1) As according to the British Field Sports Society, the local population of foxes killed represents 2.5% I can’t see how this can be classed as population control. Furthermore, with Foxes at the head of the food chain when one fox is killed another will take its place. Thus, as fox numbers are controlled by the amount of food available in a given area, outside control has proved to be at best difficult. This was seen in the 1980s when most local authorities had some form of fox control, two different methods included extermination or translocation but the success of both was minimal. A better method has been the use of chemical deterrents to keep them away from areas they have been adjudged to be causing a nuisance.

2) As above, this is based on the food available within the area. In environments of a lower food supply, the territory of a fox will be much larger. But the largest prey a fox (in 99% of cases) will target continues to be rabbits, weak hares or birds depending of location.

3) If we are talking about fox hunting to control diseases? A hound that attacks a fox is more likely to pick up such disease and then spread it as they hunt in other areas. With recent concern about the spreading of diseases from moving livestock, fox hunting becomes a major worry as any disease picked up can be transmitted not only from farm to farm but from county to county.


On the argument that hunting kills the weakest foxes and is therefore good for the fox population.
The popularity of fox hunting is the chase; hounds are breed to be good over long distances to ensure this. Healthy foxes who have given a good chase but manage to escape the hunt have often later died from trauma. Furthermore, when a fox goes to ground it is dug out and set on with terriers. A weak or injured fox offers little enjoyment to the hunt as a good day hunting cannot be had unless there is a healthy fox to chase and outwit.

In contrast a sick fox that is often responsible for the 1% of all lamb deaths from foxes is easier to spot due to having to take increasingly risky methods to obtain food. Due to its sickness it also lacks the awareness, stamina and the strength and thus is not only easier to target but doesn’t need a pack of hounds in order to kill it.
On some days a hunt will kill 6 foxes on other days 0. Of course those six foxes would not all be weak. Incidence of weather for scent, visability (hunters), frost, terrain all have to be taken account of.



“As I have said we are not a pest destruction society. I would rather account for a fox at the end of a good run than ‘chop’ it at the beginning”
Captain RE Wallace. Master of Fox-Hounds.

[Bunjiweb]

I'm going to make it short and sweet, i can't be bothered to go into depth on this one.

Fox Hunting should be totally banned, it is the cruel inhumane killing of thousands of animals for a "Sport". The Fox's are literally terrorised for hours until they are caught, and when they are, their limbs are ripped from their body when they are still alive. I've seen this happen in real life as I live in a small village where there used to be a lot of fox hunting, and it is enough to make you feel sick.

As for banning the keeping of pets such as Cats, i disagree.

Cats do not go out and hunt thousands of birds for sport do they.

My cat goes out, maybe kills a baby rabbit, or a bird of some sort and eats it. He methodically catches them and breaks their kneck so they die instantly then eats them. Ok so the birds or rabbit might get stressed but they aren't chasen through fields for hours on end.

You've got to understand that a cat killing a bird is the circle of life, where as Fox hunting is a brutally inhumane activity carried out by toffs and *** jockies.

Ok so wasn't as short and sweet as i'd hoped but i don't want to get into arguements on this one!

Ben

[Rythmic]

Just my last 2 pence on this subject - and I'm leaving it.

You can't compare cats to the hunt. Cats unlike humans do not have the intellegence to put themselves in another animals place and understand suffering. We do and I think it's a great shame that some people do not understand and use this skill.

I quite believe the MAFF figures on sheep deaths. My wife did her degree, and worked for a few years in animal science for a couple of years before getting sick of it. She saw many mutants (mainly chickens), and many, many diseased and dying animals.

I believe that those who take part in Hunts do so because they enjoy the kill and no other reason. If it were for enjoying the social aspect or the riding, there are many other activities they can pursue. I have yet to see any evidence that they monitor the population of foxes in any way whatsoever, so do not see how they claim that it keeps them "under control". Even they do perform this function - there are other ways.

Thats it for me on this subject

[Auran]

Chriscom
These factors need to be looked at in combination, rather than as separate entities. If the 2.5% that are killed are old / sick then this will have a bigger impact than just a reduction in numbers. Peversely you want healthy foxes in your location as they will go after rabbits, so eliminating old / weak foxes in the 'farming' area is what needs to be acheived.

Not an expert on diseases in foxes so cannot comment on potential for disease spread, I included them as they will be weaker than normal and thus go after easier prey.

On the subject of the comment by the Master of Hounds - he needs to drag himself into the 21st century and understand that unless there is a need for his service, then he's going to find himself out of business. Still, it is his sort of attitude that proves the case for independant regulation of hunting. And so you understand my position correctly - as soon as it is proved scientifically that there is no need for their activities I'll be quite happy for it to be made illegal.

Bunjiweb
Cats do go out and hunt for sport, but in the sense that we call sport. They will hunt and kill far more than they need to eat in order to practise there skills. In addition, they will happily play with their prey for quite a while once they have caught it. The psychology of domestic cats is far more complicated than you might think. Finally, fox hunting isn't just the province of toffs so I'd suggest that climb off your anti-upper-class soapbox.

Rythmic
Most of the people who take part in fox hunting have nothing to do with and take no pleasure in the killing of the fox. Their participation is part of what makes the function economically viable.

[skins]

Thank you people for supporting the ban of Fox hunting. I will be very busy in the future with lamping old Mr Reynard.

Once again thank you

[RVF500]

and im not bloody stupid i dont think foxes are cuddly lil creatures who live offf grass, im fully aware of the damage they can do.

So tell me genius, what is going to happen to all the dog packs? Will Battersea dogs home take in packs of up to a hundred or more dogs at a time? Will the RSPCA house them all in nice new homes? If you've served the toffs the champagne then you will know that the dogs are pack animals who can rarely survive outside of the pack. They will be destroyed. So from where I'm sitting it seems you are happy to support the destruction of thousands of dogs. Do you find that moral?

You will also know that the only people who will really suffer the loss of hunting are not the well of horseborne toffs but the working class men and women whose living depends on the hunts. The pack handlers, blacksmiths, stablehands, groundsmen, tackmakers. Some will survive, most won't. Why keep an expensive stable of hunters if you aren't going to hunt?

Badger baiting is different. As far as I am aware the badger is captured and thrown in a pit to fight dogs. They never get away and are forced to fight until they are killed. Which is a long and savage process. It does not get a chance to run and if it manages to survive all the dogs sent against it will probably be bludgeoned to death with a spade. A bit different to going out to find and then try and catch an animal that is running free with a head start.

It seems from reading between the lines that your argument is not so much one of animal rights but of inverted snobbery against the well off.

Oh, and I don't like cats so feel free to ban them The last one that crapped in my garden met a .22 coming the other way and didn't do it again.