To hunt or not to hunt a fox (1880 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.83 on 15 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by www.gingerjumper.com (View user info) at 2004-09-02 12:29:41 EDT
Prologue:
(The background to this post for anyone who isn't in the UK that at the moment there is some debate as to whether hunting foxes should be banned, an ongoing discussion that has been going on for about 2 years I believe)
Dear World,
Today whilst walking through my local town I stumbled upon a pro fox hunting group, complete with supporters giving our flyers and hunting dogs to show the locals why this very English tradition should be kept. Normally, I would have walked by this demonstration and not cared. Having lived in the country for 20 years I am used to both presentations for and against fox hunting. However, today I stopped and thought, is it write to hunt a fox or not?
A few weeks back a very good friend of mine talked to me about this subject as she has hunted foxes and is a keen supporter of the pro hunting movement. Up until that conversation I would say I was probably sitting on the fence, aware of both sides of the argument. For instance;
Pros to Hunting:
1) Keeps local people in employment, both directly (e.g. dog breeders & handlers, horse trainers) and indirectly (e.g. local pubs & shops where after the hunt people will spend money on food etc)
2) Controls a natural pest (e.g. a fox) that can damage a farmer's income as without chickens, he cannot make money to feed his family
3) Maintains a tradition that spans centuries and is much part of the countryside as the spring lambs being born each year
Cons to Hunting:
1) Declines the Fox population, a very important part of the eco system
2) Can damage farmers land as hunters cross on horseback or protestors try to set up demonstrations
3) The way of killing the fox can be inhumane and cruel
Those have always been my traditional views on the subject. Now though I find myself becoming more pro hunting because of two important factors.
The first is that if fox hunting is banned, there is no other industry in the rural communities for the unemployed people to go into. I live in Dorset (south west England) and already unemployment in some areas is higher than the European average. Housing prices keep going up as more rich people from cities buy second homes here. Combine no chance of housing with the possibility of no fox hunting industry (and the redundancies that brings) would mean that the countryside would become empty as people move to towns and cities where they can find work. This would then have the knock on effect of making our towns and cities more over crowded than they already are! If there were other jobs for people involved in fox hunting to go into, I feel differently but having seen how few jobs are advertised in the local press, it's clear that on economic grounds, fox hunting must stay.
The second reason for keeping it is that if people don't hunt foxes, farmers will. If you ever have driven through the country you must have seen dead badgers by the side of the road. Badgers cannot be hunted yet they are by farmers who believe that they will spread TB to their livestock. If fox hunting is banned, foxes will still be killed. It's just instead of having a sporting chance of escaping as they evade capture by horses and hounds, they will be chased by men in range rovers who then dump the deceased animals by the side of the road. If you don't believe me about badgers being killed by farmers, ask yourself how many times a badger has run out in front of you at night? In 7 years of driving I cannot think of one single time and I drive down a lot of country roads. By stopping hunting, it won't save foxes - if anything it will drive their numbers even further down. At least by keeping it, the number of hunts is controlled and in fairness, the fox has a pretty good chance of staying alive since it's faster than a horse or a dog.
If this country has a referendum on fox hunting I know which way I will be voting. Most of all though I have learnt that never just take what information has been given to you by the media or demonstrators. I cannot thank enough the person who opened my eyes to this and other issues like asylum seekers. I hope after reading this, it makes others think too.
Love, peace and understanding
Kingjc
(rural boy of 25 years and proud of it)
User Reviews
Submitted by Iago (user info) at 2004-11-19 13:10:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I would two-plus this forever if i could.
I completely aggree with you, and for someone who has no hunting experience, it is all the more impressive. I have hunted scince i was age 5 (on lead-reign) with my mother when i was on my pony. My father has been master of foxhounds for about ten years with the Ludlow hounds in Shropshire.
You touched on some of the most important issues, mainly that a healthy fox will always outrun horse and hounds. The only foxes that are caught are old, sick or both. Therefore it creates a healtier fox population. Most hunts usaully end with the fox going to ground. And when you consider the alternatives:
-poisoning. Takes about 2 days for the fox to die, in pain.
-shooting. A good shot will kill the fox in about the same time as the hounds will. but for the other 95% of the time, the fox will be wounded, die or starvation/exposure/blood loss/infection/lead poisoning etc etc then its one of the most humane way of controlling the population.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2004-11-19 13:05:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I reckon the ban should stay as well and am pretty pissed off by what I have seen the countryside alliance get up to.
Never before have I seen such a well funded campaign, all those proffesionally printed boards and stickers, all the adverts.
It's just a toff hobby, based on blood and pain, the initiation that these supporters leave out is to rub the blood of the slain fox on their face (they do this to kids).
I have debated both for and against fox hunting many times and know ALL the arguments.
The argument at the end of the day is killing an animal for fun is sick, forget licensed fox hunting those people should have themselves examined.
For years these basterds have had the option of following an artificial scent, but no they need blood.
Damn have to leave work
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-11-19 12:56:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Least important political issue ever.
Submitted by juliej (user info) at 2004-11-19 12:49:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I support the ban on fox hunting ,it should be supported not criticised,just because it goes way back in time does not make it right .In England times have changed ,there no justification on ripping apart an animal for sport or for any other reason for that matter .Is it right to hunt an animal and then watch as a pack of dogs rip it to death, i dont think so!.At the end of the day these hunters are "cruel" and the people who work in this business are more worried about there wages than animal welfare.I,v seen the documentary about the way these hunters attack those that are against the hunting ,attacking and beating them,its a disgrace.Leaving dead rotting animals outside the Labour conference is not the right way to make a point.It only highlights what sort of people they are,cruel hooligans .
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-17 11:31:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
as you say Stin, shame so few turned up at the house (maybe a way for Tony to get his way with the voting) and equally worrying was the entrance in the commons of some uninvited guests. Glad to see security in our countries most important building has improved after the powder throwing incident.
I wonder if the government will now spend as much time arguing over whether to bring fox hunting back as it did to ban it in the first place?!
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-09-16 06:04:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuckers.
190 majority, when the House of Commons was almost empty because they couldn't be fucked to go and listen to the debate.
Pissing me RIGHT OFF now.
I blame the fucking Labour shitheap of a government.
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-05 04:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
go stin! I wish I had written the original post as well as that! Certainly has more statistical weight and information from experience compared my piece. Writing like that does enlighten people, it worked for me!
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-09-04 09:08:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know that you and I have spoken about this at some length kingjc, but I'm surprised to see that you've come round such a long way. I'm proud of you hon!
Jack, do you know what the recommended way of killing foxes is? Yes, the RSPCA have a recommended way of killing foxes. It's to club them by gas light. That's right, club them over the head in the dead of night. It's not quick, it's not pretty, and there's a dead animal left on the ground to rot and fester unnecessarily.
Foxhunting may not be something which you see as part of your everyday life. If you live in a city, you wouldn't. Hell, if you live in a town you wouldn't. I live in a small rural village where foxhunting is a seasonal occurence. I see the hunt, I used to ride with the hunt (I no longer have a horse) and I am entirely supportive.
The Hunt do not just bring pomp and circumstance to rural locations. They actually do them some good. The Hunt pays to maintain paths and fences on land that they ride across. There is a financial incentive to farmers to allow the hunt to use their land. A nuisance predator is dispatched, who will not hassle their lifestock. Perhaps you've never seen a chicken farm when a family of foxes has been at it. It's not a pretty sight, and can do serious economic damage to a small poultry farmer.
There are obviously wider-reaching financial implications. The local equestrian community benefits greatly from the hunt. Livery fees run to a lot of money, someone has to look after those horses, and local grain merchants and suppliers are given a healthy chunk of income. At the kennels, people are paid to look after the hounds. The hounds have to be fed, the money keeps flowing round the local economy.
There are obviously many ways of catching a fox. I'll outline a couple.
1) trapping
If you catch a fox in a trap, it will chew its own leg off rather than stay where it is and die. In the event that it cannot free itself, it will attrack attention from other foxes who will actually eat it alive.
2) shooting
In theory, probably the kindest way to do it. But only with the proviso that you are a good shot. Hitting a fox anywhere which does not kill it will somply cause it to bleed to death. Slowly, and in lots of pain. Much like trapping.
Both of these methods are non discriminatory. The fox which is trapped can be old or young, healthy or diseased. Hunting allows the youngest, fittest foxes to escape - and contrary to what you might have been fed in the media - foxes _do_ escape. The hunt does not catch a fox for every chase. Hence the point about natural selection; hunting is merely an accelerated version thereof.
And I hear you say "if it was going to die anyway, why hunt it?". The fox population is larger than it should be. Because of the lack of any major predators, if left to its own devices the population will increase exponentially.
(I don't know if you know much about population statistics, but it will then reach a point where disease and lack of food and that sort of thing makes the growth unsustainable, so it falls for a little while, and then booms a little less, and falls a little less, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, along with the associated predator/prey populaces. My apologies if you knew about population dynamics already and I've just patronised you.)
The food chain simply cannot support the sheer number of foxes. This is why we now have a greater number of urban foxes than ever. Because there isn't enough available food, they have to forage through bins, eat the family rabbit and scavange in the towns. Through hunting we can control this population boom, and prevent the violent peaks and troughs which catagorise population growth curves in order to stabilise the biodynamics of rural areas.
Obviously we don't want too many rabbits either as they are pests in their own right, so foxes play a useful part in the ecosystem - in the right quantity.
I'd be interested to know where you live though Jack, and whether you're parroting off media propaganda.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2004-09-02 17:03:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll answer excerts here.
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-02 16:13:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Response to jack:
"Seal clubbing is similiar to fox hunting in that seals have to be kept down to help maintain fish numbers which means seals can survive."
WRONG - It is the fur business, big money, and now hopefully a dying business. Anyone who believe the argument that seal hunts are valid to control the species since they are eating too much fish is too stupid to live. Human beings are the ones over-fishing the seas... and the ones encroaching on woodlands where foxes live. Human habitats = rodents in abundance. Rodents = fox food, and foxes hunting near farms and such.
"Fox hunting happens to keep foxes alive..."
!??!?!?!?!?
"Fox hunting is essentially culling..."
New study suggests fox hunting does not cut numbers of the animal
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animaluse/trapresearch/controltechniques/redfoxhunting.htm
"it is natural selection. men on horses have chased foxes for centuries. Men chasing foxes in pick up trucks, that is not natural."
I don't think the 'natural' in natural selection means what you think it means.
"I have not yet asked what do you think would happen to all the pack dogs and horses should fox hunting be banned? What would happen to the hundreds of packs, some 200 to 300 in size? Let me help you. They would be destroyed."
That is a circular argument intended to support animal breeding and related industries that have made most hunting endeavors exactly that. A business, not a necessity.
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-02 16:13:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Response to jack:
1) Well, these dickheads are gonna have to look for legitimate work. Just like the Canadian baby-seal-clubbing bastards up north. Times and attitudes are changing and the old ways are fading away for a reason.
Kingjc: whats illegitmate about training horses and dogs? It's very hard work, that like farming is a 24/7 lifestyle. I am guessing by the way you say "my beloved coutryside" you do not live in the country and hence would not know what that sort of career entails (unless you are in the Forces or emergency services). Seal clubbing is similiar to fox hunting in that seals have to be kept down to help maintain fish numbers which means seals can survive. Fox hunting happens to keep foxes alive, foxes have no natural predators since the wolf became exstinct in the UK. Neither is a nice thing to happen, I am not saying that fox hunting is fun I am just saying I see the reason for it and even as an animal lover, I do see why it should happen.
2) You are an ignoramus of magnificent proportions. You says foxes are hunted because they are on farmlands and I say the foxes were there first and the expanding farmlands are taking over their habitat and you say that because there are more foxes in any given area because their habitat is now reduced that justifies hunting them to keep their numbers down? Do you hold the same views about people? Wait, don't tell me. Skinhead. Doc Martins. National Front Membership card.
kingjc: No I do not have a national front membership card. I do not own any doc martins and for the most part, my head is covered in hair. Foxes like all animals have been intruded on as man goes forward but I am not denying that. What I am saying is that the eco system can no longer support as many foxes as it did (see point about wolves above). As such, something needs to be in place to make sure that foxes do continue to survive. Leads me to point below.
3) 'Foxes will die anyway' so it is okay to hunt them? Please forward your name and address and a recent photo, so I will know my prey when I come over there to hunt you. I mean, you are going to die eventually anyway, right?
kingjc: Foxes will die in greater numbers without fox hunting. My point is not simply they will die anyway, my point is that without hunting farmers will go around shooting them at night in far less humane circumstances. Whats more, they wll not worry about numbers killed. Fox hunting is essentially culling so hunts are limited and a season kept to. Farmers will hunt foxes all year round meaning more foxes are killed as the time in which they are killed during is greater. Whats more the dead foxes will be left by the side of the road which is a horrid sight for anyone. Hunting is a controlled way of doing the job.
4) "Hunting is nothing more than natural selection." Read your own line again. Note that you used the word 'natural.' Men on horseback. Specially trained dogs. Yes, that's all very natural. When your kitchen flooring needs to be replaced I bet you'll walk out into your beloved countryside with an axe over one shoulder, looking for a linoleum tree.
kingjc: it is natural selection. men on horses have chased foxes for centuries. Men chasing foxes in pick up trucks, that is not natural. You take everything to the extreme. Natural does not have to mean we do everything using the resources around us, it's about finding balance. Fox hunting keeps balance. Not only in foxes but in other eco systems because lets not forget that if the fox population gets too high, rabbits thrive which will then ruin crops and grass which can then effect a farmers output. Similiarly, if the fox population is destroyed too much then rabbits thrive. This would happen if farmers are left to their own devices. With fox hunting n place, here is balance.
Final point: I have not yet asked what do you think would happen to all the pack dogs and horses should fox hunting be banned? What would happen to the hundreds of packs, some 200 to 300 in size? Let me help you. They would be destroyed. Do you want to see that many animals killed for less than a hundred or so foxes a year? Do you want to see people with no lively hood? I am not a redneck, I have lived in London in my life as well as the country. I appreciate balance, you, at present do not and I would wager you live in a town and only object to fox hunting because it's trendy to!
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2004-09-02 14:23:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-02 12:48:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
replies to jack:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1) fox hunting does keep people employed. Why would you have hound breeders and horse trainers when they would have no reason to have horses or dogs?
2) I agree the fox is only trying to survive hence why hunts don't try to kill all foxes, only keep the numbers down so that the rest of the fox population can survive as not many foxes actually get chickens. In the end foxes end up going into towns and cities to feed which can mean they can their be a pest to people as they sift through rubbish.
3) Tradition doesn't have to be kept for just being tradition but if there are other sound reasons, eg foxes will die anyway, why get rid of it?
You seem to have totally missed my points. Do you live in the country? Have you actually ever seen a hunt? Foxes do escape a lot of the time because unlike the huntsmen, they can go wherever they want. Hunters can only go onto land they have permission. The foxes that normally die are old and a such, hunting is nothing more than natural selection.
--
1) Well, these dickheads are gonna have to look for legitimate work. Just like the Canadian baby-seal-clubbing bastards up north. Times and attitudes are changing and the old ways are fading away for a reason.
2) You are an ignoramus of magnificent proportions. You says foxes are hunted because they are on farmlands and I say the foxes were there first and the expanding farmlands are taking over their habitat and you say that because there are more foxes in any given area because their habitat is now reduced that justifies hunting them to keep their numbers down? Do you hold the same views about people? Wait, don't tell me. Skinhead. Doc Martins. National Front Membership card.
3) 'Foxes will die anyway' so it is okay to hunt them? Please forward your name and address and a recent photo, so I will know my prey when I come over there to hunt you. I mean, you are going to die eventually anyway, right?
4) "Hunting is nothing more than natural selection." Read your own line again. Note that you used the word 'natural.' Men on horseback. Specially trained dogs. Yes, that's all very natural. When your kitchen flooring needs to be replaced I bet you'll walk out into your beloved countryside with an axe over one shoulder, looking for a linoleum tree.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-09-02 13:13:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
crazy british traditions
Submitted by kingjc (user info) at 2004-09-02 12:48:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
replies to jack:
1) Utter shit. These same people could do all of that without terrorizing and killing the animal. 100 against 1. Yeah, the fox has a fighting chance all right.
2) The natural pest is on the farmer's land because people have expanded into the natural pests terrotory. It is only trying to survive.
3) Being able to legally beat and murder your wife, and cannibalism, were traditions once too. Want to bring them back? How about the grand tradition of the British in regard to bumfuckery, from boarding schools to the navy to colonial India to...
________________________________________________________________________________________________
1) fox hunting does keep people employed. Why would you have hound breeders and horse trainers when they would have no reason to have horses or dogs?
2) I agree the fox is only trying to survive hence why hunts don't try to kill all foxes, only keep the numbers down so that the rest of the fox population can survive as not many foxes actually get chickens. In the end foxes end up going into towns and cities to feed which can mean they can their be a pest to people as they sift through rubbish.
3) Tradition doesn't have to be kept for just being tradition but if there are other sound reasons, eg foxes will die anyway, why get rid of it?
You seem to have totally missed my points. Do you live in the country? Have you actually ever seen a hunt? Foxes do escape a lot of the time because unlike the huntsmen, they can go wherever they want. Hunters can only go onto land they have permission. The foxes that normally die are old and a such, hunting is nothing more than natural selection.
Submitted by Sideburns (user info) at 2004-09-02 12:36:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
if you can kill it, you should eat it.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2004-09-02 12:35:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Pros to Hunting:
1) Keeps local people in employment, both directly (e.g. dog breeders & handlers, horse trainers) and indirectly (e.g. local pubs & shops where after the hunt people will spend money on food etc)
2) Controls a natural pest (e.g. a fox) that can damage a farmer's income as without chickens, he cannot make money to feed his family
3) Maintains a tradition that spans centuries and is much part of the countryside as the spring lambs being born each year
--
1) Utter shit. These same people could do all of that without terrorizing and killing the animal. 100 against 1. Yeah, the fox has a fighting chance all right.
2) The natural pest is on the farmer's land because people have expanded into the natural pests terrotory. It is only trying to survive.
3) Being able to legally beat and murder your wife, and cannibalism, were traditions once too. Want to bring them back? How about the grand tradition of the British in regard to bumfuckery, from boarding schools to the navy to colonial India to...