So gassing has been made illegal while a much cruel form of killing is still allowed to continue - anyone see the logic in that? I can't
Fox Hunting
- Thread starter Ajax
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
So gassing has been made illegal while a much cruel form of killing is still allowed to continue - anyone see the logic in that? I can't
No i didnt, for ppl that dont know of this a few years ago loads of animal rights ppl let lose 1000`s of mink in the wild, while i can understand why they did what they didnt think about was the effect on the local wildlife the mink ran roit and destoryed lots and lots of stuff (smoked too much weed to remember what) it was an ecologicaly fuck up and cost fucking shite loads to round up/kill all the mink, mink are vermin and letting out this many into the same place all at once was just plain stupid amazed me how the so called animal rights ppl didnt have a fucking clue about the balance of wildlife, in the end they casued more animal suffering than what was there to start with.
Well i suspect it was made illegal because people fuking up and gassing badgers by mistake! Also the stuff is incredibly dangerous, when we cymagged rabbit warrens we had to use special clothing, watch the weather make sure the ground wasnt to damp. Have a qualified first aider and carry an antidote with us to name just a few things! And i dread to think what would happen if there had been a car accident, cymag everywhere ARGHH! So we stopped using it.
As for the question of penning animals. Isnt that another cruelty matter in its self? You cant cage new born lambs and its difficult to effectively pen a wide area off for free range chickens. And then there are people with ducks etc which roam free.
Certainly on Pheasant shoot grounds where pheasants are reared in pens which cover maybe 1 acre it is difficult to make the fence line 100% effective against foxes. So i see no reason why its easier for free range chicken farmers. TBH the thing that will change all this fox hunting etc will be the day that Rabies gets here from the continent. Much more likely now with these Pet Passports. That would lead to the end of fox hunting and the decimation of the fox population like it has on the continent to try and reduce natural disease carriers.
Foxes are a pest which have to culled/controlled. the reality of it is there is no perfect way of doing it, and thats the big bad world for you. Shooting though numerically effective is possibly cruel due to animals being injured rather than killed outright. I think trapping has been banned because it is to indescriminate. but not sure. Not something we ever did. Poisoning was deffo banned and apparently so has gassing. so your choices are really down to shooting with shotgun/rifles or hunting.
As for the question of penning animals. Isnt that another cruelty matter in its self? You cant cage new born lambs and its difficult to effectively pen a wide area off for free range chickens. And then there are people with ducks etc which roam free.
Certainly on Pheasant shoot grounds where pheasants are reared in pens which cover maybe 1 acre it is difficult to make the fence line 100% effective against foxes. So i see no reason why its easier for free range chicken farmers. TBH the thing that will change all this fox hunting etc will be the day that Rabies gets here from the continent. Much more likely now with these Pet Passports. That would lead to the end of fox hunting and the decimation of the fox population like it has on the continent to try and reduce natural disease carriers.
Foxes are a pest which have to culled/controlled. the reality of it is there is no perfect way of doing it, and thats the big bad world for you. Shooting though numerically effective is possibly cruel due to animals being injured rather than killed outright. I think trapping has been banned because it is to indescriminate. but not sure. Not something we ever did. Poisoning was deffo banned and apparently so has gassing. so your choices are really down to shooting with shotgun/rifles or hunting.
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
I agree with Ajax, releasing the minks was an act of utter stupidity, you don’t fuck around with nature like that or you will cause a lot more harm than good.
To be honest I really can’t see why those things are so difficult. Any of these livestock have to kept penned in to a certain area – sheep in fields, chickens in an yard etc, so you just have to make sure the security you have to stop them getting out is of an adequate level to stop a fox getting in. Foxes can’t fly! All you need is a wire or wooded fence which goes a foot or two into the ground, be it round a field or yard. Yes increasing the effectiveness of the fence will cost slightly more, but it will not cost nearly as much as arranging a hunt, which only achieves a (possible) one kill.
And it’s no more cruel – your sheep are gonna be penned into a field regardless, enhancing the efficiency of the fence doesn’t make it any crueler. And with regard to pheasant shoots – that’s a recreational sport and I don’t think that is the number 1 priority here, I think its more important to ensure foxes and farmers can live in harmony before worrying about how people are going to entertain themselves next weekend.
If you allow ducks to roam free then you have to accept as a part of nature they will occasionally get eaten by larger animals. If you keep them in the wild then it is inevitable things that happen in the wild will happen to them as well. If you don’t want these things to happen then don’t keep them in the wild – killing off all the natural predators is not the answer and is just screwing around with nature. Foxes have as much right to exist as any other animal, and to do so they require a source of food. If you will put food out in front of them, expect it to be eaten. Don’t kill them for being hungry.
The reality of the big bad world in my opinion is animals eat other animals. This is nature. Foxes are only considered a pest because you dangle food in front of them then get arsey when they eat it– they have to survive too, of course they will eat food offered to them on a plate (pun intended!). If you don’t want the animals you keep to be eaten then it is down to you to protect them from nature, not to kill off as much of nature as possible so it is no longer a threat.
To be honest I really can’t see why those things are so difficult. Any of these livestock have to kept penned in to a certain area – sheep in fields, chickens in an yard etc, so you just have to make sure the security you have to stop them getting out is of an adequate level to stop a fox getting in. Foxes can’t fly! All you need is a wire or wooded fence which goes a foot or two into the ground, be it round a field or yard. Yes increasing the effectiveness of the fence will cost slightly more, but it will not cost nearly as much as arranging a hunt, which only achieves a (possible) one kill.
And it’s no more cruel – your sheep are gonna be penned into a field regardless, enhancing the efficiency of the fence doesn’t make it any crueler. And with regard to pheasant shoots – that’s a recreational sport and I don’t think that is the number 1 priority here, I think its more important to ensure foxes and farmers can live in harmony before worrying about how people are going to entertain themselves next weekend.
If you allow ducks to roam free then you have to accept as a part of nature they will occasionally get eaten by larger animals. If you keep them in the wild then it is inevitable things that happen in the wild will happen to them as well. If you don’t want these things to happen then don’t keep them in the wild – killing off all the natural predators is not the answer and is just screwing around with nature. Foxes have as much right to exist as any other animal, and to do so they require a source of food. If you will put food out in front of them, expect it to be eaten. Don’t kill them for being hungry.
The reality of the big bad world in my opinion is animals eat other animals. This is nature. Foxes are only considered a pest because you dangle food in front of them then get arsey when they eat it– they have to survive too, of course they will eat food offered to them on a plate (pun intended!). If you don’t want the animals you keep to be eaten then it is down to you to protect them from nature, not to kill off as much of nature as possible so it is no longer a threat.
Well most chicken 'farms' are ran for profit. This makes keeping costs down a priority.
The sort of fencing we used to lay was 16 inches below the ground and 9ft above. Wood is a bad idea as foxes take a running leap and scrammble up it. Around this was an electric fence, and no it doesnt kill them
, to try and stop them digging under.It wasnt enough. within 2 weeks the pen had been entered 100's of dead pheasants. You can only do so much.
You have to remember that there are disproportionate numbers of foxes in the countryside because man produces food resources for them in the shape of animal pens, young sheep etc. Without these the number of foxes would be lower anyway.
***
but it will not cost nearly as much as arranging a hunt, which only achieves a (possible) one kill.
***
Arranging the hunt dont cost the land owner squat, neither does having shooters on it. So the financial argument is a dead one too.
Banning fox hunting will lead to more foxes been killed/injured by shotguns and rifles thats the reality.
The sort of fencing we used to lay was 16 inches below the ground and 9ft above. Wood is a bad idea as foxes take a running leap and scrammble up it. Around this was an electric fence, and no it doesnt kill them
, to try and stop them digging under.It wasnt enough. within 2 weeks the pen had been entered 100's of dead pheasants. You can only do so much.You have to remember that there are disproportionate numbers of foxes in the countryside because man produces food resources for them in the shape of animal pens, young sheep etc. Without these the number of foxes would be lower anyway.
***
but it will not cost nearly as much as arranging a hunt, which only achieves a (possible) one kill.
***
Arranging the hunt dont cost the land owner squat, neither does having shooters on it. So the financial argument is a dead one too.
Banning fox hunting will lead to more foxes been killed/injured by shotguns and rifles thats the reality.
Nope. Still fail to see the similarity. Let me type this s-l-o-w-l-y and c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y so you can stop and think: (
)In the first 3, the death of the animal is guaranteed, because it can't escape.
With the hunt, the animal only suffers if it is actually caught. Which, as I understand it, is usually a fairly rare occurence.
What gives us the right to kill a fox? To end the life of another being just because it inconveniences us? You could argue that foxhunting is the least hypocritical way to keep fox numbers down, as it gives the fox an odds on chance of escape and survival. The other 3 examples quoted don't.
1 You don't kill a thing when you're hunting. The dogs do it for you
2 You wouldn't think twice about swatting a wasp. No difference really to killing foxes that cost people lots of money because of the damage they do, which if anything justifies it even more than swatting the wasp.
I cant imagine it would be hard to modify those fences slightly so as the foxes couldnt get in. The wood could have a lip at the top so they could not scramble up it, how about an electrified mesh running across the wood too. There would be no way they could scramble in then.
How about this idea as well - set humane traps for the foxes, ones that keep them unharmed but trapped, then you can check them each morning and if there is a fox you can give it a lethal injection or shoot it in the head, or if there is something else you dont want kill you can just let it go. This way, nothing will ever die that shouldnt, and the fox is killed in the most humane way possible.
Of course, but that is a better situation that more foxes being ripped apart while still alive by a pack of dogs.
How about this idea as well - set humane traps for the foxes, ones that keep them unharmed but trapped, then you can check them each morning and if there is a fox you can give it a lethal injection or shoot it in the head, or if there is something else you dont want kill you can just let it go. This way, nothing will ever die that shouldnt, and the fox is killed in the most humane way possible.
Of course, but that is a better situation that more foxes being ripped apart while still alive by a pack of dogs.
Last edited:
So you think animals suffering gunshot wounds and dying from associated infection/starvation is better? Its an immotive subject and one that people will always have differing views on. I feel its a bit unfair to say ban it booooo until you have tried it. Isee what your saying about fences and you are probably right. If it was financially viable it would happen.
No I don’t think them dying like that is any better at all, however with hunting 100% of the foxes that are killed die a horrendous death. Where as with shooting it would only be a small percentage that die slowly and painful, only maybe 10% would not be killed outright. It’s still not great, but any percentage is better than 100%.
And I don’t want to try it thanks, I’m sure it is great fun – I play computer games and enjoy the hunting / killing adrenaline. However I would never knowing cause intentional harm to another creature with the intelligence of a fox unless it was in self-defense or for food, however much fun it may be. I get my fun at the expense of inanimate objects, not at the discomfort of other living creatures.
I’m sure it couldn’t cost that much at all, it would be one initial pay out to get the fences you already have upgraded, and then maintenance wouldn’t be much after they were set up. And it would pay for itself in the long run anyway – think of all the chickens and lambs you would save having them in a compound that was 100% predator-proof?
And you didn’t comment on my idea about the humane traps, I liked that one
What did you think?
Last edited:
I would have thought that animal rights campainers would have a bit of a whip round and collect enough money for the fencing. After all they've supposedly got the interests of the animals as their primary concern so I'm sure they wont mind doing everything they can to ensure their wellbeing.
Well the fact that they wouldn't be prepared to do that must tell you something.
Well the fact that they wouldn't be prepared to do that must tell you something.
Plonko, I think you would find if the government stated for a fencing fee of £100k they would ban fox hunting, I think you would find within a month or two of appeals etc the money would be there quick enough.
I'd give a few quid to that cause no probs.
I'd give a few quid to that cause no probs.
i unfortunately didnt have the time to read the whole thread yet but i wanted to stat my opinion
i think anyone who accepts hunting should be chased for 6 hours by a pack of hounddogs who havent been fed for some days, i would be very surprised if anyone who survived that would still accept it
i think anyone who accepts hunting should be chased for 6 hours by a pack of hounddogs who havent been fed for some days, i would be very surprised if anyone who survived that would still accept it
indeed
The humane traps are possibly a good idea. But from previous experience the animal rights lobby say its cruel to have them in traps like that. Certainly where we shot we would have happily have done it with humane traps etc. You do have the problem of all traps like that have to be checked at a certain frequency time wise. But im sure most estate could manage that.
All it would take would be a quick scoot round each morning on ur quad bike or tractor to see if the traps had gone off, or if you paid a little more you could have ones that send a radio signal to a base station to let you know when they are sprung, that would be a lot cheaper than you'd first guess 
It is a bit cruel keeping them in a cage over night, however it's a damn sight less cruel than them being ripped apart by a pack of hungry dogs!
It is a bit cruel keeping them in a cage over night, however it's a damn sight less cruel than them being ripped apart by a pack of hungry dogs!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2235775.stm
"The hunting ban during last year's foot-and-mouth outbreak had little effect on British foxes, according to scientists.
Numbers are down only a little this year, compared with previous years, says a Bristol University team.
It suggests a permanent ban on fox hunting would not lead to a dramatic increase in foxes, they said. "
"The hunting ban during last year's foot-and-mouth outbreak had little effect on British foxes, according to scientists.
Numbers are down only a little this year, compared with previous years, says a Bristol University team.
It suggests a permanent ban on fox hunting would not lead to a dramatic increase in foxes, they said. "