[Closed] Hunting with dogs?

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.

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.

One wonders therefore why the majority of Grouse moors are listed as key areas for conservation, ie. listed under EU Designation as SAC and SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI - of course, the main breeding areas for Red data book species also coincidentally lie on the upland grouse moors of the UK... plus the vegetative species found only on upland grouse moors. You might even wish to consider the fact that "decreased biodiversity" as you choose to label it applies on a regional and global rather than just a local scale, your "decreased biodiversity" areas are recorded as having concentrations of breeding golden plovers, curlew and lapwing up to five times higher on grouse moors than on equivalent moors not managed for grouse... what a disaster that must be! Incidentally, where are the highest population concentrations of hen harriers, oh, yes, grouse moors - wonder why they seem to have died out everywhere else?

Zulu - everthing I have said is either my opinion - the moral debate and that con only ever be opinion. Everything else is incontrovertable fact.

As for yu four questions they are spurious. One does not need to be a murderer to know tha murder is wrong - but I will answer them

Zulu-Eleven - Member

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

Yes - I have farmed. different sorts in different ways arable and mixed.
Hunted - I have been on hunts as a supporter as a child
Shot anything - I have watched animals shot and I have killed small animals in my hands
Seen a fox - yes - urban and rural. My ancestors farm had a fox lair on it and the despised the hunters despite raising chickens. Real rural farming folk.

I am no shinking violet on this - I know animals are meat and I have killed them and watched them be killed and later that day ate the flesh.

The fact remains - hunting with dogs does not act to reduce fox populations - this is admitted by various hunt masters. I found the direct quotes last time we had this debate. Hunts feed foxes and make sure they do not wipe them out - after all if they did they would be no more prey to hunt.

The hunting with dogs is deliberately cruel - of this there can be no doubt.

the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible

Zulu - go away and try to learn something beyond your blinkered little mind.

You are simply wrong on the grouse moors as anyone who has any knowledge of wildlife could tell you. Monoculture leads to decreased biodiversity. Simple fact.

Zulu eleven in talking utter shite again.

No TJ - some, [i]some[/i] hunts make very little difference in local fox populations, dependent on season, terrain and hunt priorities - however by your own admission, you don't want to decimate local fox populations as you will see a sudden influx from nearby areas, you want to keep them at a low, managed level, maintaining their terrains with an acceptable level of loss.

Monoculture leads to decreased biodiversity. Simple fact.

[u]On a local scale![/u] - what happens where a species relies largely on a particular, unusual habitat that is not found anywhere else- such as Hen Harriers?

Grouse moors become unsustainable below a certain size, if the "monoculture" is smaller than the sustainable size, then the biodiversity also decreases.

Zulu - hunts admit feeding foxes, preparing artifical earths for them and nurturing them. Its not about controlling fox numbers. don't make spurious hypocritical arguments.

Argue it on the basis of tradition if you want - but the utility arguments have been totally demolished many times over.

Hunts do not reduce fox numbers at all. This is a simple fact.

Don't get me wrong - I have no particular issue with shooting as it is not deliberately cruel and the shot animals get eaten - and the money it brings is welcome and significant.

However again the arguments about conservation are spurious - the land could be managed for conservation in a far better way( proven in Scotland as some of the estates are now in the hands of conservationists.) and shoots poison raptors - hundreds a year - why did the hen harrier population collapse - in large part persecution from shooting estates.

the biodiversity in place in most of the countryside is shaped by human involvement, this is as true in the english countryside as it is in the apparent wilderness of the rockies. the diversity and balance of species that we see as natural would have been shaped by centuries of man's hunting methods be they for food or pleasure.
i'm not sure that there's much mileage in bringing biodiversity to the debate unless you wish to argue that hunting levels and practices should remain as they are in order to maintain what we perceive as the natural balance.

TJ - you've never hunted in upland areas then - the Burns report accepted that Hunts played a vital role in successful control in the mixed upland hill and forestry areas - significantly different from lowland areas, as other methods are so much less effective/efficient.

You cannot have the argument both ways, Raptor populations are higher in areas managed for grouse moors for a reason, either they're important for conservation or not - the fact is clear that Hen harriers are barely extant in areas where there are no grouse - one goes with t'other!

No grouse moors, no Harriers

Zulu - to some extent you are correct - but the moors managed for conservation not for shooting produce greater biodiversity, and more raptors. excessive burning gets more young game birds but impoverishes the soil and you get increased erosion. Burning also stops other plants from growing such as trees

The biodiversity argument is purely about practices on the shooting estates. ( not lowland hunting) Its bogus to argue conservation for the shooting estates and estates managed for conservation not shooting have significantly better results.

However there is to my mind no moral issue wioth the shooting estates - its only the same as farming but the beasts are free range.

I suppose what I am saying is don't be hypocritical and spurious in your arguments. Same for both sides.

Hunting with dogs is morality v tradition. Shooting is about styles of land management there is no moral argument unless you are vegan.

All other parts of the debate are spurious and often hypocritical - from both sides.

However to atry to argue things that are demonstrably wrong is stupid. Land managed for conservation and biodiversity gets more animals including harriers on it - shoots kill raptors in the hundreds.

Langholme you referred to earlier has now got input from SNH to increase the conservation at minimal effect on the shoots.

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

How can you justify the breeding and killing of animals for your own personal satisfaction? TJ your complete refusal to address the issue that your eating meat is not necessary makes you the biggest hypocrite on here, you are just denying the truth. Prove to us that you absolutely must eat meat, that is the only utility argument that is valid, your life or the cows life, other wise your arguments are shot down by your own so called moral compass.

Come on, cough up, answer the question.

This thread has taken a familiar turn.... 😆

Toys - are you so morally deficient you cannot see the difference? BTW your humbug and lack of knowledge was exposed further up the page. So you have never actually been in on the kill? You only follow hunts on a quad?

Hunting foxes with dogs is only about the pleasure of the kill.

Raising animals for meat is different.

1) its not deliberately cruel by intention - although intensive farming has some cruel aspects.

2) There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than ther pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

3) Its a domesticated animal bred and raised for this purpose - not a wild animal.

Clear and obvious moral difference.

Blimey this thread has run, thought I'd add a few comments

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?

TJ, you should stick to kicking puppies as you know very little about dogs. Lurchers/longdogs usually catch a hare within a couple of mins or they dont catch the hair at all, they can also catch foxes and deer very quickly and yet these sports were banned too and banned far more effectively.

Never done any fox hound hunting, always done by people who pissed me off too much, but have done various other types of hunting and shooting. I dont do it much anymore but it is remarkably good fun. I'm sure this sense of excitment is a genetic evolutionary thing.

(devils advocate hat on)
Perhaps any bill to repeal the anti foxhunting legislation should have a double section on also repealing dogfighting.

This way there will be no accusation of bias against working class townies, The hobby will be brought out into the open, and it will save the police a fortune in investigation and prosecution of a sport that gives pleasure and jobs to many?

Aa - I acknowledged that very point further up.

Fox hounds are bred to be only slightly quicker than a fox. Lurchers catch and kill quickly

Hunting foxes with dogs is only about the pleasure of the kill

No it's not, we've established that. The kill is a part of the process but the hunt in itself is an important social performance for many, many people in a huge area of the country.

Raising animals for meat is different

There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than ther pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

Seems to me that you're just justifying areas of animal exploitation that you enjoy yourself and condemning those that you don't rather than proving any moral high ground. You don't have to eat animals you do so to enjoy them. you don't have to wear leather you just enjoy wearing it and if you think that animals are destroyed humanely and without fear or discomfort at an industrial level then you are mistaken. My father worked in an industrial slaughter house and I can assure you that animals suffer greatly on the way to your plate.

So trailmonkey, where do you draw the line?
are you in favour of legalizing dogfighting?
The motives for it are exactly the same.

Oh dear we do seem a bit upset.

Do you think I actually need to see it to imagine what 20 odd baying hounds will do to a live fox? Is that a lack of knowledge? Your attempts to try and prove yourself are pathetic, I've worked in a kennel feeding the hounds dead horses, goats deer, foxes. Its vicious. Do I need to have been present on the day seeing what they do to a fox to have any idea what goes on? No, so don't give me your humbug, you are clutching at straws, but do carry on, it only exposes your ignorance.

I do not think you are in a position to call me morally deficient, when you think its OK to kill for your pleasure, but not for mine. It just shows that you are running out of things to say and have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make yourself feel better.

I'll address your points to show your total lack of knowledge.

1) its not deliberately cruel by intention - although intensive farming has some cruel aspects.

The intention is to remove the young from the mother and raise it for our pleasure, eating, as yet unproven by you to be actually necessary in these modern times. Seems pretty cruel to me. Not to mention all the previously reported aspects of cruelty in farming, and suffering and pain.

2) There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than their pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

Contrasted with hunting as there is some utility as the hunt supports the local economy and provides a social function, skins are often produced, as are mounted heads (all as necessary as leather products, IE not in any way necessary). I agree the kill is awful, but then have you been to an abattoir? Its just as brutal. But you don't appear to know anything about that.

3) Its a domesticated animal bred and raised for this purpose - not a wild animal.

How is that better? This is so spurious. You keep banging on about how the hunts are supporting foxes by feeding and building sets for them, effectively raising them for the hunt, seems like its approaching domestication to me.

so have you addressed my question? Nope you have avoided it through some spurious personal attacks on me and avoiding the issue, can you prove to me that eating meat is essential for your survival? It's either the cow or you. Prove that without leather and meat that you will suffer more than the animals that are bred for slaughter?

You just feel that your utility is more important than my utility. You think that leather and meat are more important than jobs and social cohesion. It's just meaningless twaddle.

So trailmonkey, where do you draw the line?
are you in favour of legalizing dogfighting?

if there is a long tradition of it and it serves some kind of social purpose that is clearly beneficial to the community then i'd certainly consider it. don't really know enough about it to comment really though.

The motives for it are exactly the same.

I'm not sure that the social contexts are anywhere near close enough to come to that conclusion.