[Closed] Hunting with dogs?

I doubt it. I doubt very much that the chicken, notably not that intelligent an animal, was hunted down for ages, to the point of physical exhaustion, then ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. It might not have had a great life, but it's a chicken.

At least the fox gets a life.

I have no doubt chickens are treated appallingly, and kept in horrible conditions for their short and unhappy lives. But there is a need for food. Where, exactly, do you propose to grow all these vegetables to replace the meat we eat? What about the need for pesticides, fertilisers, preservatives etc?

See, it's easy to get all sympathetic with a chicken, pig, cow, goat, sheep or prawn, but the reality is, people need feeding. Meat provides a perfectly packaged source of proteins, vitamins and nutrients that are essential to survival. Economics dictate that if you were to take meat out of the global food production equation, then food would suddenly become a lot more expensive. One cow is probably far better value for money, than hundreds of square meters of farmland. Land is a precious resource.

We need to treat animals better, that's a given.

But then, we might want to think about treating each other a bit better too.

[img] [/img]

then you truly are ignorant. But then that was quite clear before anyway.

I'm sure it was.

I don't think I've actually advocated cruelty to any animals, and have to say, being as stupid and ignorant as I am, I'm having trouble with the concept that cruelty to foxes is ok because chickens are kept in bad conditions? Like, two wrongs make a right?

As I've said; there is no point to fox hunting other than to serve the egos of inadequate individuals. End of.

Chicken cruelty is a whole different kettle of fish.

you truly are ignorant.

I'm having trouble with the concept that cruelty to foxes is ok because chickens are kept in bad conditions? Like, two wrongs make a right?

Chicken cruelty is a whole different kettle of fish.

Fish don't feel pain the way mammals do. Besides, many people eat the fish, rabbits etc that they kill, thus justifying their actions.

Of course many (most?) people who catch fish don't eat what they catch - including for instance the wonderful Mike Foster MP, who is one of the original advocates and staunchest supporters of the anti-foxhunting bill.

I've had this discussion a good half dozen times on this site - and it never goes anywhere useful!

I'll simply make one comment - how many of you talking about hunting have ever:

i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox?

However, despite that of course I'm happy to accept that you all know all there is to know about Charlie and his friends. and how to kill them!

i) Farmed? Yep
ii) Hunted? Yep
iii) Shot anything? Yep
iv) Actually seen a fox? Yep

Your point is?

how many of you talking about hunting have ever:

i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox?

Disappointed though that you missed off some things I have done first hand:
v) Catch a fish, gut it, cook it and eat it.
vi) Skin and prepare a rabbit (shot by somebody else).

Then again I don't suppose you were aiming at me!

Your point is?

Get it right please. He said he would allow a free vote on it. Not the same at all. If there is a Conservative majority in the next parliament and a free vote on hunting you might find a lot of the new Tory MPs in marginal seats either voting to retain the ban or abstaining so as to not upset their voters.

Do us all a favour. 🙄

All he is trying to do with a free vote is just wash his hands in the wider public perception of this, I don't believe they are that stupid. If he really was tuned in to what the public thinks he wouldn't be offering a vote of any kind in the first place.

Hunting is only fair if the hunted animal has a chance to kill you too. I recommend wild boar hunting with only close range weapons like knife or spear.

Hunting things like foxes is for posh wooses who like to posture around in their fancy pants.

I don't think he was aiming at you either.

I've hunted wild boar, didn't get any though, they are tricky.

I challenge you to prove to me that without meat you would suffer any nutritional loss, I do not even expect you to get ill or die without it, just to suffer slightly?

Vitamin B12 deficiency is a reduction in vitamin B12 from inadequate dietary intake or impaired absorption. The condition is commonly asymptomatic, but can also present as anemia characterized by enlarged blood corpuscles with characteristic changes in neutrophils, known as megaloblastic anemia.

In serious cases deficiency can potentially cause severe and irreversible damage to the nervous system, including subacute combined degeneration of spinal cord.

Vitamin B12 is found in foods that come from animals, including fish, meat, poultry, eggs, milk, and milk products and fortified breakfast cereals. It is made by yeasts and microorganisms.[36] One half chicken breast, provides some 0.3 µg per serving or 6% of your daily value (DV), 3 ounces of beef, 2.4 µg, or 40% of your DV, one slice of liver 47.9 µg or 780% of your DV, and 3 ounces of molluscs 84.1 µg, or 1,400% of your DV, while one egg provides 0.6 µg or 10% of your DV. Other sources include nutritional yeast, fortified soy milks, and fortified energy bars.

so you either eat meat/animal products to get B12 or have to use "fortified" products which have been heavily processed and manufactured if you want to be a vegan. hmmmmm no thanks I'll stick with the natural version

aracer; I don't know what point you're trying to make with me. I've agreed that chickens are kept in bad conditions. i just don't see how fox-hunting is in any way more acceptable, as you seem to be suggesting.

(or if you do, it is possible to buy some which has led a proper life, though doubtless that wouldn't suit your finances)

😆 You might be right there, I've got to budget for Turkey Twizzlers, White Cider and Lambert and Butlers!

'Organic' and 'Free Range' are marketing terms designed to make people think they are being all nice and environmental. all bullshit; just the same chickens in different packaging, costing 3 times as much.

The subject of this thread is hunting with dogs. so far, apart from attempts to steer the debate onto chickens, no-one has actually come up with any sensible, reasonable and justifiable reason why fox hunting should continue.

can we re-train dogs to hunt catholic paedo priests (not picking on anyone in particular, it's purely an example)etc..? that way the toffs get their hunt, the daily mail readers get a nice warm feeling of justice and the "hang them, burn them, kill them all" capital punishment crew also get to see some blood and suffering that they seem to want. We could even televise it with interactive votes and Davina presenting it.

I'll simply make one comment - how many of you talking about hunting have ever:

i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox?

So, if you've not done any of these things, you're not allowed to have an opinion, then? 🙄

I am descended from farming people, and have seen many foxes. I've never been hunting, but have no problem with hunting for food at all. As for shooting; I could take your eye out from 200m. 😉

so you either eat meat/animal products to get B12 or have to use "fortified" products which have been heavily processed and manufactured if you want to be a vegan. hmmmmm no thanks I'll stick with the natural version

Ok this is all interesting but basically vegans can eat the supplements and live perfectly well ergo there is no "utility" reason here to eat meat.

I agree with your sentiment though, I'll stick to the natural version too.

B12 supplements are synthetic, therefore without the manufacturing technology to support a vegan lifestyle choice they would have to eat some form of animal product containing B12, therefore no longer vegan. 😉

i just don't see how fox-hunting is in any way more acceptable, as you seem to be suggesting.

'Organic' and 'Free Range' are marketing terms designed to make people think they are being all nice and environmental. all bullshit; just the same chickens in different packaging, costing 3 times as much.

The subject of this thread is hunting with dogs. so far, apart from attempts to steer the debate onto chickens, no-one has actually come up with any sensible, reasonable and justifiable reason why fox hunting should continue.

here is no "utility" reason here to eat meat.

Eh? I think it's actually been proven that meat is an essential part of many people's diets, worldwide. As I pointed out earlier I doubt the Inuit people would survive without meat.

B12 supplements are synthetic, therefore without the manufacturing technology to support a vegan lifestyle choice they would have to eat some form of animal product containing B12, therefore no longer vegan.

My challenge didn't mention that this was only valid in a post apocalyptic world. I don't believe anyone could be vegan if it wasn't today, 100 years ago it would have been very very difficult, but then we wouldn't be having such an enlightened discussion about cruelty to animals. My argument is that there is no reason for anyone in this day and age to eat meat, I did mention that at the very beginning.

As I pointed out earlier I doubt the Inuit people would survive without meat.

Eh? I think it's actually been proven that meat is an essential part of many people's diets, worldwide. iAs I pointed out earlier I doubt the Inuit people would survive without meat.

I don't think this proves it in any way, they could choose to be less "barbaric" and move south into the modern world, that would be the moral thing to do. Anyway I think you will find most of them have moved into the modern world. We are talking about choice here.

so it's ok to have mass industry with the increased energy consumption and associated use of resources and production of waste and pollution to make dietry supplements for those people to have a lifestyle choice that is unsustainable without it, as a morally acceptable alternative to eating meat?

Anyone who gets pleasure from inflicting suffering and/or death on animals needs psychiatric help.

we're animals too, and designed to eat anything we can get our teeth into, apart from plant matter, because we can't break down and digest cellulose. Just look at how ****ed pandas are. Complete evolutionary dead end.

tazzymtb - Member

so it's ok to have mass industry with the increased energy consumption and associated use of resources and production of waste and pollution to make dietry supplements for those people to have a lifestyle choice that is unsustainable without it, as a morally acceptable alternative to eating meat?

You are talking yourself round in circles here, nobody on here was talking about the environment, it sounds like you are proposing that we all live in some kind of proto palealogic environment, I would imagine that any food we get our hands on would be essential and we would probably all die before we are 40...

Anyway I'll bet that there are lots of organic/eco/environmentally friendly ways of making B12 dietary supplements. Most vegans are properly clued up about the environment and food production methods and their effects on the ecosystems.

they could choose to be less "barbaric" and move south into the modern world, that would be the moral thing to do

W
T
F
????

Sod this, I'm off to watch CSI...

so it's ok to have mass industry with the increased energy consumption and associated use of resources and production of waste and pollution to make dietry supplements for those people to have a lifestyle choice that is unsustainable without it, as a morally acceptable alternative to eating meat?

Anyone who gets pleasure from inflicting suffering and/or death on animals needs psychiatric help.

You give me comparative figures for the energy and resource consumption of the dietary supplements business versus the meat production business and I'll give you an answer.

Yup dead right most vegans will tell you much better for the environment it is to get food from plants than it is to get it from animals.

Hmm, a few narrow minded opinions on here in my opinion.

I shoot, however I am not a 'toff/banker/rich man' I believe that the work that goes into a shoot benefits the local wildlife. Where i shoot there are 2 breeds of deer, various birds of prey, lots of wild birds that you don't normally see. None of these are shot i may add.
like it or not shooting supports conservation.
I admit to not being a fan of large bird days (100 upwards)however i have shot on such days as a guest in return for a season of 'beating'. I have been on shoots where i've shot 1 bird but still had a great day out because of the crack with the other guns.

It annoys me that some people in society take it upon themselves to bad mouth shooting without the full knowledge of what it is about and the majority of the people i know who shoot are respectful and generally nice people.

The same goes for hunting - whilst i am not a true fan of the hounds ripping a fox apart - i do like the spectacle of the riders and horses. again i know some very nice people who hunt (who havent got a "blood lust") and go for the love of riding. I also know of a few to$$ers who hunt and who fit the sterotype perfectly.

Theres not really much point to my post but i wanted to make my opinion. Generally in my experience with this type of argument it boils down to a class thing - and this is no dig at anyone in particular on here - i used to work with a guy who was so ignorant of what went on at a shoot yet would go on at me about it calling me a snob, saying I was cruel etc but the same person would then happily buy a piece of $hit, cheap ill treated piece of meat from the supermarket. Game has a much better start in life - FACT.

Anyway I'll bet that there are lots of organic/eco/environmentally friendly ways of making B12 dietary supplements. Most vegans are properly clued up about the environment and food production methods and their effects on the ecosystems

LOL

I take it you are not from a scientific/pharmaceutical or manufacturing background then? As with anything you need to examine a full life cycle analysis of any product meat/supplements/etc... before you can make an informed choice. You seem to forget that dietry supplement manufacture is a massive multi-billion pound global business. 😀

I take it you are not from a scientific/pharmaceutical or manufacturing background then? As with anything you need to examine a full life cycle analysis of any product meat/supplements/etc... before you can make an informed choice. You seem to forget that dietry supplement manufacture is a massive multi-billion pound global business.

BEng and MSc and 20 years experience in industry, I know plenty about supplement and pharmaceutical manufacture, like aracer said you don't seem to know anything about food production and what it takes to make a cow. I didn't make any comment on what your quote above says, and really your are not making much of a point here. Are you trying to say that vegan-ism is responsible for all of the worlds industrial pollution?

Chameleon - its nothing to do with class - its to do with moral. Killing animals for fun is simply morally wrong. There is some excuse if there is utility - the animal will be eaten or it is a pest and its the only way to control it. But a deliberately prolonged chase of a wild animal with dogs that has no utility whatsoever is just morally indefensible and no one has come close to doing so. Lots of spurious debate about other things to try to distract form the basic cruelty of hunting with dogs.

Its deliberately cruel and people are only there to enjoy the deliberate cruelty.

Its clearly immoral by any standards and no one here or anywhere else has made any defence that carries any weight. Its a barbaric remnet and will hopefully be properly stopped one day.

Oh - and shooting is not always good for conservation - see denuded grouse moors, see the overgrazing by deer that are fed thru the winter etc etc.

what it takes to make a cow

Well, when a mummy cow and a daddy cow love each other very much....

no

what I'm saying is that if you look at the full life cycle analysis of industrial farming, meat processing, packaging etc..

against

the manufacture of dietary supplements (which would not be required if we eat what is already available as food resource) including all the plastics used in bottles, production facilities, energy to light heat and power the factories etc.. it's not such a black and white case.

just playing devil advocate

and yes I do know lots about food production seeing as used to inspect ****in food production facilities and pharma facilities for a living.xx

well, when a mummy cow and a daddy cow love each other very much

genius 😀

vegans do not need dietary supplements - its a myth.

yey-let's hear it for TJ and other one his "I'm god " moments 🙄

You seem to forget that dietry supplement manufacture is a massive multi-billion pound global business.

Of course this is all rather ignoring the issue that it's only being a true vegan that you have a problem with B12. As you mention yourself back up there, there are plenty of non-meat sources for this (hence you don't even prove that "without meat you would suffer any nutritional loss"). No problem with maintaining a healthy diet whilst avoiding both the meat and the dietary supplements industries. Heck you can even avoid the significant cruelties of the meat industry and still eat meat. Not that most anti-hunt people are particularly bothered about that (after all meat comes ready packaged in the supermarket, so it's easy to ignore it was ever anything to do with an animal).

wtf you on about tazzymtb?

Well, vegans, like everyone else, do need the right nutrients, and if they can't get these from their diet, then they will become malnourished without supplements.

Some of the most unhealthy people i've known have been vegans. It's not that easy.

Lots of spurious debate about other things to try to distract form the basic cruelty of hunting with dogs.

As opposed to the basic cruelty of herding animals into trucks by beating the crap out of them, making them travel for 8 hrs, beating the crap of them at the other end whilst herding them into a chamber to be electrocuted, as they walk past piles of offal and skin they can smell and hear the death and fear, for no reason other than to satisfy your taste buds.

Yes but this thread is about hunting with dogs.

people are only there to enjoy the deliberate cruelty.

Yes but this thread is about hunting with dogs.

Yes but this thread is about hunting with dogs

Ok sorry I'll just talk about hunting with dogs an not use anything else as an example to support my arguments. So what was all that stuff about inuits and pharma?

tazzy, if I can pick you up on your libelous dissin' of the Ailuropoda genus, Pandas aren't by any means an evolutionary dead end, they're a specialisation, which brings higher risk with it.
Their evolutionary bad luck was being specialised at a time when they share the planet with a particularly invasive type of primate...
anyhoo, back to the toffs (and apologists) defending their hobby.. 😉

Inuits hunt for food. Fox hunting is not justifiable in any way.

I think you'll find it's about debate and generally making peoples minds work a little bit, and possibly taking the piss a smidgen 😉

aracer I agree with you, but it's always fun to put an opposing argument together to see how it works, that way you can look it from both sides 😀

aracer - well that was the admission from toys - I suggested that all teh soocial benefit from hunting could be achieved by drag hunting. He asid drag hunting won't work as people need the thrill of the kill.

Hunting with dogs is inherently cruel as it is designed to give a long chase - the dogs are bred so as to be only a small amount quicker that the prey. If they caught it in 2 minutes it wouldn't be much fun would it?

If the fox was being killed in the quickest adn most efficient way and if hunting with dogs actually reduced populations of foxes there might be some sense - but hunts actually feed and support foxes to provide prey and certainly don't want to see the wiped out - thei is admitted by various hunts.

West Kipper if the Panda lived during the same period as tazzymtbs proposed proto society with no manufacturing or factories of any kind would they be better off?

aracer I agree with you

west kipper- if you become so special that you can no longer adapt, you're on the doomed list sunshine. just look at the sabre tooth tiger, great for eating mastodons, big goofy teeth and **** all use for anything else other than maybe as a can opener 😀

[Conspiracy] Whilst all the NooLab hoo-ha about the hunting ban was going on last time, many Daily Mail readers momentarily forgot about Hans Blix, wmd's and Iraq.

I reckon Callmedave has his eye on somewhere a bit classier and with less guns, say Mauritius? [/Conspiracy]

OK, lets take another slant on this. What the general consensus on dogging with hunters?

[img] [/img]

nite nite

dogging with hunters

Ha that's very good

well that was the admission from toys - I suggested that all teh soocial benefit from hunting could be achieved by drag hunting. He asid drag hunting won't work as people need the thrill of the kill.

I understand there are reasons why drag hunts don't fulfil the same function - hence why most current legal hunts aren't drag hunts. Don't have anything like enough knowledge to want to argue the point though.

Tazzy thats the risk of specialisation, though the pay-off is that by adapting to a vegetarian diet , giant pandas can live in greater numbers in their ecosystem than a carnivore (which brings us back on topic a bit).
Name me any large wild animal, that isn't under any pressure from humans?
BTW, The Machairodont(sabre-tooth) cats survived for about 14 million years
thats not bad going.

cats survived for about 14 million years thats not bad going.

Agreed, It's a lot better than we monkey boys will ever manage, and shows that being a meat eater is good for you 😀

Well I don't think everyone enjoys the kill, it's much like eating meat but not liking the idea of killing it, but the two are intrinsically entwined. I've been hunting, mostly following by 4x4 or motorbike, never seen the kill though and yes I imagine its awful, but I think its a necessary part of it. I have killed many other beasties though both to eat and as vermin, and enjoyed it. When I shoot I make sure its quick and clean, why wouldn't I? For all animals its a legal requirement that the kill is clean and there is no unnecessary suffering. To get your stalkers cert from the British deer Soc you have to prove your ability to shoot well and where to aim for the cleanest kill. My point is that anyone who s pro hunting should face up to the fact that killing is part of it, as should anyone who is pro meat eating, its one and the same thing.

If you become so special that you can no longer adapt, you're on the doomed list sunshine.

aracer-if it gets to a point where you can only eat one species of bamboo......that's probably a bit to far 😉
evolution tends to favor the species with the highest genetic diversities as somewhere in the species an organism will be able to adapt. The other option is to become a specialist but as west kipper says it's an all or nothing approach

toys, I respect your opinion, I've ridden enough to understand that riding crosscountry at top speed is exhilarating, and I understand that aspect perfectly.
But you mention that one protocol of responsible hunting is to make a good clean kill, and thats where foxhunting with dogs falls down completely.

humans are a bit different, we've learned to adapt our environment to suit us, which is why there are humans in all sorts of silly places that we have no business being in if we'd have just stayed in the rift valley, we wouldn't need to wear all these bloody winter woolies to survive in the cold 😀

Pandas are still perfectly capable of eating meat, as the odd Chinese farmer occasionally finds out.
As I say, their specialisation is down to being able to make a living in an enviroment where few other carnivores could, and they'd be doing fine if it wasn't for Homo sapiens.

I cant say anything about that as I've never seen the kill, I know they were supposed to shoot it first, and if it was me in charge then I would do my damnedest to make sure that happened. Personally I think people who shoot (like me) are much more humane than the people that run abattoirs. We need an abattoirist on here to argue the case...

Personally I think people who shoot (like me) are much more humane than the people that run abattoirs.

Edit: damn your editing as I was posting

Unlike shoting deer or birds though, the fox has been chased and harrassed for as long as possible-thats kind of the point (wouldn't be much fun otherwise)
I have several colleagues that have worked in abatoirs, all kind, decent guys, and they say how stressful the process is seems to be very dependant on species.
Few of these guys eat bacon which is kind of telling.

TJ - grouse moors are burned off to help regenerate and deers are culled to keep their population down to try and avoid that damage.
deer are usually wild and not fed, unless farmed on an estate and are still culled - usually the meat goes to market.

In terms of cruelty, when did these acts become "cruel"? If i remember correctly this is how we all used to live before. It is cruel in your opinion and I'm not saying you are wrong but, without looking back over the thread are you a veggie or a meat eater?

I feel very strongly about people who are very critical of country pursuits - in particular shooting - who are quick to say its cruel etc only for them to admit that they have no idea where there £1 chicken or any other meat came from.

A pheasants life - raised and fed until released into wild, fed regularly with the ability to roam wherever it pleases, wandering open fields and woodland etc etc. Potentially shot on shoot day - usually dead within seconds.

A 'cheap' chickens life - raised and fed with hormones, growth rate far exceeding the norm, sat in their own pi$$ and $hit becasue they are too fat, no ability to roam - kept in constant daylight to help develop etc etc etc

The pheasants life is 'free range' the cheap chickens is cruelty defined.

Just trying to make my point that in 'cruelly' shooting a bird for sport/fun the gun has also contributed to the living of that bird, and its life up until being shot was superior to that of 'cheap chickens' and all cheap meat for that.

People who buy cheap meat have no right to call a sport cruel if you ask me.

Chameleon - I did not say shooting was cruel and I don't believe it is. The difference between shooting and hunting with dogs is the length of time of the suffering - and the animals shot get eaten.

You need to see what burning the heather does to the hills - for a start off it is effectively a monoculture over large areas leading to decreased biodiversity. The burning causes erosion as well. Its adopted over too wide an area.

Deer - deer cause erosion on a massive scale. They are culled on the sporting estates but not to a sustainable level. Many of the sporting estates feed the deer over winter allowing a population of deer to big to be sustainable on the land - they then overgraze and cause erosion.

In areas where the land is being restored - recovery of the ancient forests for example - the deer numbers have to be reduced dramatically or land fenced off - they are like goats and eat everything.

Finally there is the killing of raptors on the sporting estates.

I do acceptt that the shooting industry especially pheasant has an interest in maintaining the land - planting copses and so on and the money it brings in is very welcome to the rural economy. However it is not always good for biodiversity and can be responsible for erosion and impoverishment of the land. Deer are vermin and very destructive

i think i've made my point on this thread. i don't like hunting with dogs, i don't personally hunt and have no close friends that do. i will however defend fox hunting as being a cultural ritual that should be allowed to be celebrated by those that wish to. the issue here is about erosion of heritage.

i find the fascism and self righteousness displayed on this thread far more of a distasteful moral issue for debate than hunting with dogs will ever be.

You mean the facism and self righteousness of those who want to chase a terrified animal in a deliberately prolonged and cruel fashion and use spurious arguments to justify this.

bear baiting, badger baiting and cock fighting where all cultural rituals and drag hunting would perform the cultural ritual equally well - unless it is all about the thrill of the kill.

Rank hypocrisy from the pro hunters

no, i mean the facism and self righteousness of those who use spurious arguments to justify their denial of that which they do not understand or like.

and yes it is about the thrill of the kill, absolutely, that's why drag hunting obviously does not become a suitable substitute. i said that i felt that earlier so how is that hypocrisy ?

trailmonkey - we have had the pro hunters saying both its all about the thrill of the kill and that its not about the killing on this thread. Those that admit its bloodlust are at least not being hypocritical.

The moral argument is not spurious. How can you justify a deliberately cruel practice thats only aim is to provide entertainment?

We know that the hunts are deliberately prolonged to give a good chase. ( dogs bred to be only slightly faster than prey)

We know its not about controlling fox numbers - number taken are a small % of the population and hunts feed and nurture foxes to ensure a supply of prey.

We know from experience in many places that drag hunts can provide the social focus and the thrill of the chase.

So the only remaining argument is that it is traditional. To me the moral argument far outweighs this. Other wise cock fighting, bear baiting and badger baiting would still be legal.

The moral argument is not spurious. How can you justify a deliberately cruel practice thats only aim is to provide entertainment?

I would argue here that it is not purely entertainment, it is social action and yes the ritual of the kill is part of that. it is not a social action that i am part of or would want to be part of but i will defend it in the same way that i would (grudgingly)have to defend the right of those that wish to vote bnp.

So the only remaining argument is that it is traditional. To me the moral argument far outweighs this

At last a point that we agree on. The difference is that for me the need to retain tradition/culture/heritage is the moral issue and the denial of the anti hunt lobby to recognise this value completely and impose their own values as though they were incontestable is what i find most fascistic.

TJ in talking complete and utter boll*cks shocker!

Hows about you answer the four questions laid out earlier? - What is your personal level of knowledge of the issues?

For the record, I've killed foxes using every legal method of control, on areas varying from upland forest and moorland to Southern English gameshoots, for organisations from the Forestry Commission and RSPB to small private co-operative shoots - so consider that I know more than a little about what methods of killing foxes are humane and effective in differing terrains.