[Closed] Hunting with dogs?

Trailmonkey - not aimed directly at you - at least that is not a hypocritical stance you take as many do, Its barbaric and wrong IMO - do you support badger baiting or dog fighting? How about cock fighting?

The cultural and social aspects could easily be done by drag hunts - no kill needed.

I think you need to check your definitions of multicultural and iconoclasm tho.

To me its purely a moral stance. I believe killing animals in a deliberately cruel manner for entertainment is morally wrong. Nothing of the defence you make can possibly out weigh that - which is why hunt supporters make the utility argument - "its about eradicating a pest"

I am against hunting with dogs and for capital punishment .Especially for the masters of hunts

I think you need to check your definitions of multicultural and iconoclasm tho

I don't think so, i'm studying heritage at degree level, i believe that i have a firm understanding of the terminology.

do you support badger baiting or dog fighting? How about cock fighting?

If i felt that they were part of a beneficial social action then yes, i would.

To me its purely a moral stance. I believe killing animals in a deliberately cruel manner for entertainment is morally wrong. Nothing of the defence you make can possibly out weigh that

Purely opinion. mine differs. I put human need before animal need.

The cultural and social aspects could easily be done by drag hunts - no kill needed.

I think the fact that the killing has continued suggests that it is a neccesary part of the ritual. I don't understand it but it seems that way.

How about cock fighting?

Isn't that the sole reason this forum exists? 😀

he's got a point

that proves the stw law that if a thread runs long enough, paddedfred will eventually come up with something worth reading.

Go check your definitions - iconoclasm is about religion.

Go check your definitions - iconoclasm is about religion

thanks for the help but i'll trust what my tutor tells me above what you think.

‘iconoclasm’ – the breaking down of physical heritage as part of the process of forgetting and remembering, which is integral to heritage.

As such, appropriate to the Taliban's destruction of the buddahs at Bamiyan to the fall of the Berlin Wall to the eradication of fox hunting.

Thats not what the OED states - destruction of beliefs or images usually religious -

Still - I accept the meaning that you intend - petty pedantry? Me?

destruction of beliefs or images [b]usually[/b] religious

obviously, usually but not always.

I don't expect many people to agree with my viewpoint on this. I wouldn't even expect a lot of hunt supporters to follow what I'm saying. Before I started this area of study, I would have been very much on the anti hunt side of this argument and I still do not particularly like it. I don't expect that many people will change their minds,I just hope that it has brought into the open the fact that there is more at stake than animal welfare, class war and the politics of the city versus the countryside. A very valid and functioning aspect of culture and heritage is at stake here that should not be dismissed and will be potentially lost forever. To me, that outweighs my moral obligations to the fox.

Trailmonkey I follow your argument and at least it has some logic - obviously I disagree with you but it is not the usual hypocritical nonsense that most hunt supporters trot out.

*breathes sigh of relief*

To me, that's a result. I will now depart to the pub and hope that good news arrives about our friend.

This is boring and tedious now.

Come on, [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/scientific-exploration-worth-it-or-a-waste-of-time-and-money ]we're discussing the value of Science over here[/url]!

😀

As I've said before, I watched the Police's approach to the Countryside Alliances march with horror.

I (personally) have no money however WHY SHOULDNT THEY BE ALLOWED TO HUNT A VERMIN? Afterall how are Chickens treated by Fox's?

Sometimes do-gooders are complete idiots.

Could you jump a horse on uneven ground? Its not about a pissing fox its about the chase and the RISK to yourself. Think about it.

Phew!

I saw a horse reel back about 10metres today at a roundabout in the Peaks. The lass was a passenger (and bloody lucky). Falling off a mountain bike is **** all compared to a horse.

'Man up' would scare the crap out of some bicycle warriors.

As long as they're all wearing helmets (including the fox) its fine 🙄

aracer - thats right - deliberately prolonging. The dogs are bred not to be too fast so they don't catch them too quickly.

Chasing a wild animal for hours ... and then being torn apart by dogs

Where do you get your propaganda, TJ? You do realise that there was a study done which showed that the average chase was less than half an hour (significantly less I think, but really can't be bothered to go and look it up). As to it being killed by being torn apart, that bit is hardly a scientific fact either, much as the anti-hunt people like to keep repeating it (saw an interview with Mike "Hypocrite" Foster the other day where he said it every other sentence).

I have no real idea what you are on about Aracer - and I care less
I'll take aguess tho .

Your mind is clearly closed to all the evidence about the cruelty of hunting - where do I get my knowledge from - a very wide selection of sources varying from personal experience to independent research to trawling both sides propaganda - Ok hours might be hyperbole but there is no doubt whatsoever that the dogs are bred specifically to be only slightly faster than the fox but to have more stamina - so the chase goes on as long as possible.

Edit - I love the way any knowledge I have is "propaganda"

If it was about killing foxes as vermin as quickly and efficiently as possible this is not how it would be done - and anyway that is not the purpose as we have clearly established - its all about the thrill of the chases - and if the dogs caught the fox in 2 mins it would not have that thrill.

The torn apart by the pack is again observed fact - backed up by many witnesses including unguarded statements from huntsmen - the clean kill is a myth.

TJ - I'm afraid you're still repeating the Hyperbole! Yes, the knowledge you've gathered is 'propaganda' - its put out there by pressure groups (from either side) - thats like listening only to politicians and thinking you've got a good, rounded impression of the news!

Why not accept the evidence of the Burns enquiry - you know, the one your super Labour government set up to investigate and report on the issues, but chose to implement only selectively...

On the importance of hunting on fox population management:

5.40 In most areas of England and Wales farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary to manage fox populations in view of the damage which foxes can cause to farming and game management interests.

5.41 Methods involving guns probably account for the greater part of those foxes which are deliberately killed, but there are marked regional variations.

5.42 In lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population, and terrierwork, especially by gamekeepers, may be more important. In these areas, in the event of a ban, other means of control have the potential to replace the hunts' role in culling foxes.

5.43 In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out.

Length of Hunt:

6.43 The average length of the chase of a fox above ground has been estimated at 16-31 minutes, although it can be considerably longer.[405] It is not clear whether, as is usually the case in relation to deer, foxes are caught when they tire or whether they are simply overhauled by the faster hounds. Sometimes they make a mistake, for example by doubling back into the pack.[406]

The Kill:

6.49 The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although [b]insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds [/b]once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.

Alternatives:

6.59 None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.

6.60 Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.

6.61 In practice, it is likely that some mixture of all of these methods would be used. [u]In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover.[/u]

Your mind is clearly closed to all the evidence about the cruelty of hunting

I love the way any knowledge I have is "propaganda"

Jeezo - one small inaccuracy of saying the chase lasts hours instead of half an hour - the rest of what I have said is clearly supported by what you quote and other evidence.

No point in continuing but there are no factual inaccuracies in what I say - the kill - I said ripped apart by the hounds - your quote

In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs,

Enough - it goes round in circles and I am tired of arguing with apologists for an unnecessary and barbaric practice.

Aracer - if you really are neutral then why not attack the hunt supporters for the rubbish they claim which is clearly wrong?

For example

In lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population,

Mr Woppit - Member

When hunted by dogs, the fox:

1: has a chance of getting away and

2: if caught, is despatched quickly by a bite that severs it's spinal chord.

Have you ever been close enough to when the pack catches the fox? Im thinking you have not.
The leading dog will grab hold of the fox by whatever it can. The foxes rear leg normally or if the fox stumbles - then by the stomach or whatever is closest.

Also. When the fox goes to ground the hunt isnt ended. The terriermen will have made sure all the local sets that they know of have been closed at the beginning of the day to stop the fox going to ground. But if the fox does find a set. The terriermen will send the terriers in to get it out. Often the fox will bolt, other times they will dig it out and the fox will be exhausted and very often injured by the terrier. Then it will be let loose in front of the hounds to pick back up.

I followed the local fox hunt for many years when I was younger. There is no sport in it believe me.

I said ripped apart by the hounds - your quote

"In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs,"

Whats the difference?

I am tired of arguing with apologists for an unnecessary and barbaric practice.

if you really are neutral then why not attack the hunt supporters for the rubbish they claim which is clearly wrong?

Tally ho!

TJ - are you the chemical Ali of the anti hunt world?!
I'd love to see your evidence of how the hunts worked out the stamina of a fox and then translated that into the breeding of a hound. Hounds are BRED to run slower than a fox to prolong the chase - what a load of pish.
Has anyone ever BRED a dog to run slower???? FFS. My wife is a qualified Vet so I'll take her experience and knowledge over your internet media, generated opinion.

I'm sorry but your argument and any biased evidence you have generated have lost any credibility with me now.

I have just done a search on the foxhound breed to support my argument and it appears that your statement that they are bred to be slower comes from a website that appears on google as 'Fox hunting and how to stop it' I really don't think that site will be creating a non biased opinion do you? Assuming thats where you got it from? if not i apologise.

I found that the ENGLISH foxhound is slower than the American one. The English Foxhound was created by a careful mixing of the Greyhound, for speed, the Fox Terrier, for hunting instinct, and the Bulldog, for tenacity in the hunt.
During the Raj, Foxhounds were used for Jackal coursing and were used instead of greyhounds to prolong the chase.

Chamealeon - why don't they use lurchers then? They would catch a fox much quicker.

The whole ethos of hunting with dogs is to provide a chase for the "sport" Quicker dogs could be used -

As for the evidence - its there if you want it. Dogs are bred for specific purpose and a part of it for the fox hunt packs is to ensure they are not too quick so that there is a chase.
The most obvious piece of evidence is that they don't use lurchers

Look at the last line of what you post - that is what I say.

Bollox bollox bollx - got suckerd back into it.

They don't use Lurchers because they do not have the nose to follow a trail. They are "Sight" Hounds. They can only chase what they can see. Pretty useless in the woods, eh?
Also, Lurchers do not have the Stamina to chase anything for more than a few minutes. They are bred to chase Hares, which are much quicker than foxes, in a comparatively small field.
Hounds are bred for their nose, and for their stamina. Stamina and speed don't usually go together.

TJ - I give up with you, you seem so blinkered and deluded its unreal.
YOU CANNOT BREED A DOG TO RUN SLOWER FFS. You can train it but not BREED it. As for all this evidence you talk about you have not been able to provide anything worthy as yet.

C'mon guys, youre arguing over a small detail thats relevent only if the 'hunting as pest control' is the main justification, which most people on the thread accept is not the case.
If its about culture and tradition then, why is a fox death the sticking point?
I mentioned the Hawick riding earlier- It isn't necessary to launch an actual cross-border raiding party resulting in the real deaths and injury of English people for that tradition to be marked, so why is it so for foxhunting?

Of course you can - its called selective breeding and it is precisely how the various breeds of dog are arrived at - you select the qualities you want and you breed towards it by only allowing dogs with your desired characteristics to breed.

Have you no basic understanding of selective breeding?

Fox hounds like all domesticated dogs are cross breeds bred to give certain characteristics. One of these characteristics you breed for is running speed - along with size and stamina and so on.

To quote what you said above

I found that the ENGLISH foxhound is [b]slower[/b] than the American one. The English Foxhound [b]was created by a careful mixing of [/b]the Greyhound, for speed, the Fox Terrier, for hunting instinct, and the Bulldog, for tenacity in the hunt.
During the Raj, Foxhounds were used for Jackal coursing and were used [b]instead of greyhounds to prolong the chase.[/b]

The fox hounds are/were bred for stamina and for picking up the scent.

Why not use a lurcher? for the as mentioned reasons of stamina obviousl. I have had lurchers that could flush a rabbit out using its nose but if you have ever hunted with lurchers you would know how easy they rip .. their skin is almost tissue like.

Holy fwuck it's still going! happy easter fella's!

Tj- surely to breed a slower you wouldn't put a greyhound in the mix? Anyhow you're boring me now. I'm off to gas some foxes.

[i]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?[/i]

Hmmm, good fox hound dog weighs what? 20-25kg, it's been fed 3 squares a day all it's life, it's in tip top condition, and it can run pretty ****ing fast, given it's got long legs an' all. At best, a really good dog fox weighs in at about 5kg, probably hasn't had a decent meal it's entire life, and has little stubby legs. Who wants to bet on the outcome between a fox and a pack of hounds once it's flushed into the open? (the whole point of hunting) Any advance on 2mins?

The hunt, TJ, is the bit leading up to the bit where they flush it out into the open, that's the bit that takes the time.

Just for info like, not taking sides, or owt

This thread has got bogged down in too much scientific/statistical data.

The simple question is: In a civilised, modern country, should pervy toffs be able to get sexual pleasure from tormenting animals to death?

Correction to my last post:

I know it is perfectly possible for pervy toffs to extract sexual gratification from tormenting animals to death

I meant: should it be legal for said pervy toffs to obtain said pleasure?

I meant: should it be legal for said pervy toffs to obtain said pleasure?

Keep going; we'll get there in the end. 😀

Keep going; we'll get there in the end

Hi Fred

I think you'll find most great thinkers develop their ideas over time 😀

fox hunting is an expensive hobby, people pay thousands of pounds to ride with 'famous' hunts.

they would not do this if there were no foxes to chase - it is the job of a Hunt manager to make sure his patch is full of foxes.

anyone who thinks the current ban has stopped fox hunting needs to think again.

(apart from the bit about killing a fox) fox-hunting does look like lots of fun - i can see why people enjoy it; riding horses with your mates/ jumping hedges/ getting muddy/ etc. - is that so different from mountain biking?

foxes are chosen as the target because they provide so much entertainment: it wouldn't be half as much fun to chase a badger, and if the bovine-tb-ists are right, badgers kill as much (as many?) livestock as foxes.

i don't see a clear distinction between toffs who hunt foxes, and scallies tying fireworks to a cat (both are bad things ok?)

i also don't see a clear distinction between fox hunting, and KFC.

actually, in terms of animal welfare, cheap meat is possibly worse. I am a hypocrite, i eat cheap meat, and i complain about fox hunting.

i am genuinely ashamed of myself.

Not gonna read the whole thread, but my 2 pence worth is.

If your gonna ban it, ban all cruel sports and include Fishing and Shooting don't just go for the ones who have horses that stinks of class not doing it for the right reasons.

I once shot a bird when I was little and I've felt bad about it ever since.

i also don't see a clear distinction between fox hunting, and KFC.

actually, in terms of animal welfare, cheap meat is possibly worse. I am a hypocrite, i eat cheap meat, and i complain about fox hunting.

i am genuinely ashamed of myself.

At least you can recognise it....

Hunting with dogs results in a healthier fox population than indiscriminate shooting, poisoning or trapping of foxes, as the old/slow/sick foxes tend to be the ones that get caught by the dogs. It's also a more reliably quick death than other methods. So despite appearances it remains the most humane way of controlling the population whilst also having economic upsides.

Likewise since hare coursing was banned more hares are being indiscriminately shot by farmers as there's no incentive to have them on their land - and likewise a fit healthy hare usually beats the greyhound.

Hunting with dogs results in a healthier fox population than indiscriminate shooting, poisoning or trapping of foxes, as the old/slow/sick foxes tend to be the ones that get caught by the dogs. It's also a more reliably quick death than other methods. So despite appearances it remains the most humane way of controlling the population whilst also having economic upsides

To enjoy killing something when you are not going to eat is is rather worrying trait to see in any human.

Hunting is wrong (mostly), we all know that, banning it though was a complete waste of parliaments time and the bill was political not in the interest of foxes. Like I say ban all hunting if you’re going to do it and include fishing!

The real shame is that Parliaments’ time could have been spent doing something much more effective in the time. Hunting hasn't stopped, the law changed very little. It was and is a stupid law irrespective of the rights and wrongs.

Now if the time had been used to push through a bill the guaranteed every child in the UK in poverty freedom from abuse and exploitation would anybody debate the rights and wrongs of that. Of course that won't happen cause that's a bit harder to execute.