Forum menu
@Squirrelking
I find it repugnant that you are defending such practices.
I saw a video yesterday on a newspaper site, cant remember which one, of a hunt exercising hounds in a very large walled garden. It seemed to me they were using it as a means to sort the wheat from the chaff, as sure enough, as dyna-ti describes, the huntmaster or whatever he calls himself, shot two dogs dead, one taking 2 shots to finish off, at point blank range too. Im talking literally an arms distance against a stationary target. Then just carted off in a barrow to be disposed of somehow.
It disturbed me greatly. I was going to post it here for the hunt apologists to explain but decided against it. You can find it very easily if you look.
Its the Independent, i just looked.
My friend once killed some hunt hounds after they jumped over a hedge straight in front of him on the M4 by Bridgend. No apologies from the hunters, they just tossed the dead hounds into the ditch explaining someone will be along to fetch them, and then carried on the way he told me anyway.
Effectively no real change in the local full-time employment numbers then.
Yep, that's the point I was trying to make, if hunting were lost it would be replaced by other countryside opportunities.
by going along at all they are choosing to put themselves in the position that they may well see a sentient creature terrified and chased to exhaustion and then torn to pieces and that they’re perfectly OK with that possibility…
They may well be supporting this by going along in the past, but much like our meat industry I think many of them are almost oblivious to it. It would also very much depend on how the hunt is run and by whom - I would guess that some hunts are more blood thirsty than others?
We've not had any protestors at our hunt in the 6yrs I lived here, it's always only one drag vehicle, they are very open about the operation and lots of people in the community are involved and aware of what goes on.
Many of the same people would get involved with beating/shooting in the shooting season, culling deer etc etc
Plus theres this, hounds running rampant over private property and savaging family pets .
Yes, I know the source, but the pro hunt lobby arent going to advertise their failings, are they?
https://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/hunting/pets/
For the record, I am not against any competent shooter killing a fox, a deer , whatever , outright, and I fish myself, but only for wild game fish which I would eat if I ever caught anything.
The chasing, terrifying and savaging an innocent is not sport, the odds are not even, its got very little to do with pest control either, much more effective and discreet methods exist.Its an excuse for the horsey set to dress up , have a couple of drinks and satisfy bloodlust. Hence the blooding of newcomers, who in their right mind does that?
Just look at how they treat hunt sabs, beatings abound. They put a red coat on and think theyre the ****in Cavalry. And the argument that some only go along for the ride, the killing is done far from them on the 'front line', that is no excuse at all, I view them as equally complicit. There is no condoning this.
And the argument that some only go along for the ride, the killing is done far from them on the ‘front line’, that is no excuse at all, I view them as equally complicit. There is no condoning this.
& this is why it's illegal to do so..... unfortunately there is a set that will try to carry on and it should be stamped out and those caught prosecuted, cirtainly with heavier fines and punishment than in the ops headline post. But should the rest be stopped too? Those that drag hunt etc?
I find it repugnant that you are defending such practices.
@dyna-ti I'm not defending folk shooting dogs or fox hunting for that matter. I'm saying that shooting something in the head is painless and stress free, considerably (and scientifically proven to be) less so than abattoirs FWIW. You say that isn't the case but I'm afraid you're wrong (and are actually undermining your case for stunning).
With regards to the ethics of drag hunting, I think it very much depends how the hounds are raised.
For example, I know of shooters who used to train their spaniel puppies by giving them a stuffed rabbit skin as a toy , so that they associate the smell and texture of rabbit fur with playing a game, much in the same way police and army units train their dogs, except hopefully without the hefty boot in the liver which I believe was standard practise.
Now, if the hounds involved had never been trained to target foxes using similar techniques as above, except with live 'toys'
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/animal-cruelty-fox-hounds-hunting-16358138
and the unencouraged instinct to hunt foxes can be overcome, then in theory I can see no problem. However, as a former owner of a beagle, I very much doubt the innate urge to scent hunt will be overcome, and foxes getting ripped apart will be regarded as unintended collateral damage of a jolly good drag hunt to some, but others will secretly be getting off on it. At least the red coated brigade are honest and unashamed of their cruel intentions.
Unless you could guarantee the behaviour of the hounds, which you definitely cant, their tenacity to following animal scents is what makes them such a force, at best I think drag hunters are naive or optimistic , at worst bloodthirsty and cowardly.
at best I think drag hunters are naive or optimistic , at worst bloodthirsty and cowardly.
You need to separate drag hunting vs trail hunting.
Drag hunting has a history of avoiding killing foxes. That the hunt sabs leave them is pretty good evidence in my eyes that they are good at this as if those most opposed to fox hunting think they arent a problem then chances are they arent.
Trail hunting on the other hand uses "quarry scent" aka fox scent and is a recently invented hobby taken up by the former fox hunting groups.
Fair enough point, happy to be corrected, pardon my ignorance. So what scent do drag hunters use then? How do they overcome the prey drive of foxhounds?
Hunting is just as bad as eating meat in my book. If you see how farm animals are treated on the farm, in transport, and in the abbotoir it as bad if not worse than running for your life.
Kinda like aushchwitz vs hunger games. I know I'd rather take my chances running.
A few years ago, we were following a drag hunt. At then end of the hunt they passed a house in a country lane, when one of the hounds jumped into a garden after a pet dog and all the hounds went into a frenzy and followed. They tore the poor dog limb from limb, it never stood a chance and we could hear the cries of the poor dog from about .5km away.
There was always a very incorrect “class” element to the anti hunt campaign.
It's hardly surprising. A huge element of hunting is imposing your status on everyone else, the killing foxes bit is largely incidental.
I was forced to throw my youngest son over a wall and barbed wire fence a jump myself to get out of the way of a hunt galloping three abreast down a public single track lane. Being as they could see us from 300m away and judging from their expressions it was all a bit of a joke to them.
I wasn't being over cautious because even if the riders in front had been in control there was no way they were going to stop with twenty or so immediately behind them. I did try complaining but got nowhere.
@dyna-ti I’m not defending folk shooting dogs or fox hunting for that matter. I’m saying that shooting something in the head is painless and stress free, considerably (and scientifically proven to be) less so than abattoirs FWIW. You say that isn’t the case but I’m afraid you’re wrong (and are actually undermining your case for stunning).
Yeah I got that from the attitude of me the lowly non hunter, clearly not understanding the bigger picture.
Of course you could have just agreed that its as barbaric as the rest of fox killing industry, as it apears the forum agrees, but no you have decided to dig the hole deep as you can so lets examine those claims for a tad shall we.
So we'll start off here.
Umm, yes you can. That’s the entire point of a head shot.
A head shot yes(We'll ignore the sarcastic 'Umm' bit)
For starters its a brain shot, not a 'head' shot, and in hunting in general, by which i am referring to deer hunting its a chest shot, aiming to damage the heart, prevent it from pumping blood to the brain, bringing about unconsciousness and death. Hunters of deer are well aware the brain is a tiny target to hit, and with all the limitations of wind, bullet drop, the animal suddenly moving, such a shot is not desired because they dont want to cause unnecessary suffering, which stems more from having a wild injured frightened animal running loose and amok where they then have to track it and could themselves be attacked, so thee one shot kill is a professional aspect they aspire to.
With other hunting as in the amateur type rabbits, birds etc, where they dont have high caliber rifles, they are relying on concussion force. But even the most stupid amongst them if pressed would agree that that will cause some degree of suffering.
So a brain shot is ideal, but not really achievable in the majority of hunting scenarios.
To achieve it professionally in the sense of a non hunting aspect, its simply not a case of head= brain. Animals, especially dogs have pretty small brains and the positioning within the skull means to achieve instant death the shot has to be precise.
Asa said, food animals are stunned first, but the job of a killer in a slaughter capacity also involves whats known as emergency slaughter, with involves a 9mm pistol, and that individual is specially licensed and has undergone training as to where to place the muzzle to impact the brain to the point that the shot is effective.
I cannot say I know or can remember 100%, because it is a very long time since i covered this subject in an academic sense when training in the veterinary department of Glasgow abattoir to train in a 2 year course as a meat inspector. But the crux of it is the shot is in some animals taken from the front to back or back to front. The head needs to be tilted such and the shot taken so the bullet passes directly into the main part of the brain. For example for horses i think its from the front and dogs its from the rear or the head, at a specified angle, but its over 30 years now and i really cant remember for sure.
For captive bolt stunning of pigs, sheep or cattle. You draw an imaginary line from the horn center, to the eye center and at a 45d angle. For pigs the spot is lower than that of cattle and for sheep I think,not sure, but i think its straight down from the top of the head or from the back-Think its from the back, seem to remember some of this as i type it.
Even in the controlled environment these type of shots are difficult, animal move and getting exact placement even with practice does sometimes mean it misses its mark, fails to stun* and promptly gets back up again and believe me the last thing you want is a failed stun going on the rampage. So from there the next stages of bleeding it to death is carried out as rapidly as possible.
*Stunning.
This is a captive bolt, it penetrates into the brain but as the name implies it doesnt kill, and if the bleeding process isnt carried out forthwith, the animal will regain consciousness and get back up again. This at least should prove to you that even a penetrating shot isnt going to kill the animal as you imply it does, and this is be a skilled operator, used to the job and fully licensed.
The brain on a dog is much much smaller,and the chances of missing it are very high. as such in the emergency situation, like deer the preferred shot is to the heart, not the head.
(and are actually undermining your case for stunning).
Am I 😕
Have you ever witnessed it , i'll wager not. Have you done any papers on it or been tested on the practices concerning CB or compression stunning ?, again I reckon not. Or spent weeks working on the slaughter floor of an abattoir undergoing inspection training ?
I think like St Peter thats a thrice denial eh mate.
I think many of these hunters believe they are Robert De Niro and in their heads it a scene from the deer hunter or some other war type fantasy. but the reality of it they are causing suffering and are happy to do so for their own sick pleasure.
I’m getting the impression you know very little about shooting/hunting.
Absolutely not, and thank god for it. But I appear to have a far greater understanding of the processes of slaughtering animals for food.
" I’m saying that shooting something in the head is painless and stress free, considerably (and scientifically proven to be) less so than abattoirs FWIW. You say that isn’t the case but I’m afraid you’re wrong (and are actually undermining your case for stunning)."
So I think I'll call you out and say you haven't got a bloody clue as to what youre talking about.
So thats that and i feel discussion on this matter, at least from yourself, is purely speculative and not worth replying to any further.
Several years ago, having witnessed the Master of the Hunt lose his shit as he was denied access to the back of an industrial unit to persue a fox they were chasing, it was very clear that the “drag hunt “ they were supposed to be on was just a cover story.
When that was pointed out to him, it all became very aggressive, with several turning up on quad bikes to try to bully their point.
I think the fox new the score too, as it didn’t go far from the metal fence and seemed to be taunting them and the dogs. Had to chuckle at that.
Pauly
Free Member
TJ, I’m very anti-hunt but I think that monkeyboyjc has a point ref the killing. They’re not all doing it through blood lust.
Still barbaric though.But by going along at all they are choosing to put themselves in the position that they may well see a sentient creature terrified and chased to exhaustion and then torn to pieces and that they’re perfectly OK with that possibility…
@scruffywelder - you are correct, but I don’t think some of the followers really think/comprehend the outcome of a ‘successful’ hunt. It’s just a ruddy good jolly.
I repeat that the whole thing is barbaric.
You're saying a lot but clearly not seeing the full picture. Yes deer are shot in the heart because yes, the ranges involved make a head shot tricky (I didn't think I had to dumb it down to brain shot but whatever). With the smaller quarry like rabbits, rats, foxes etc. you go for a head shot because you are a) closer and b) requiring less energy to achieve a humane kill.
All that said:
So a brain shot is ideal.
Was my entire point. Why was that so hard to agree with?
The rest is just uninformed conjecture on your part.
Ok
I’m not going to get dragged into this too far but I’ve spent a lifetime killing animals.
My utmost goal has been to kill it as instantly as possible. I shot a sheep the other week and it dropped like a brick and felt nothing, it literally was like a switch.
This bullshit about killing any animal involves sadistic pleasure is just that, bullshit.
I spent a long time killing my own food and enjoyed the fact I was doing it, but trust me, the killing is not part of the pleasure. You are proud of yourself if you stalk and kill an animal without it even knowing you are there, and are proud that the food on you plate came from an ethically justifiable source, so , quite frankly you can ram the sadistic crap up your hoop. It’s not true.
Brads - I agree that the difference between the hunts killing hounds with a head shot and what happens in an abattoir is really pretty minimal - but hunting foxes with hounds is inherently cruel - deliberately so, has no utility and the so called " trail hunts" have had their lies exposed by this
fox hunting - the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible
Fox hunting is inherently sadistic - its the whole point.
Well I’ve also been involved in digging foxes with terriers.
It wasn’t pretty and I was actually young when doing it and won’t go back to it but a fast kill was always the aim. Sadism was never a factor trust me.
Also as an aside, I spent decades coursing. Again, the dogs retrieved to hand and I killed the hare, for food. Now it’s only legal to hunt rabbits with dogs. The difference?? Beyond me.
Ratting with terriers anyone?.
This sadism label does not fit all Jeremy, the majority are not, regardless of the sport.
Digging foxes out using terriers is never a “fast kill”. It’s sadistic.
Digging foxes is sadistic as its all about killing animals for fun. there is no utility in it at all.
Hunts feed and provide shelter for foxes so they have plenty of prey for their hunting.
You might be blind to it Brads but most hunting and shooting is all about sadistic blood lust not utility
Harte coursing is also sadistic in tht you are chasing a terrified animal until its exhausted and caught
I do agree with you about some folk not understanding meat is animals
And yet. Dogs hold foxes at bay till dug,and the fox is killed, with a gun.
Sadism never entered the equation. You can surmise, but I was the one doing it so take from that what you like.
I never though of cruelty, only of getting the fox.
I know that using dogs attracts an unhealthy type, but that wasn't the "sport". Fox control was.
Even when you had a "hard" dog it was still sport , it was what you were brought up to do. You never considered cruelty and never intended it. There was never pleasure in injured or injuring animals, you were doing a job. Kill the fox.
Would I dig to dogs now ? No. But am I a sadist ? No.
I'll happily talk about what I have done in my lifetime, but I won't accept insults from people who preach without knowledge.
but most hunting and shooting is all about sadistic blood lust
Utterly wrong.
I think, as we live nearby to each other, a pint and a civilised discussion is in our future.
Might be interesting but you will never convince me about the sadism inherent in fox hunting with dogs because its obvious and well known - from deliberately chasing them to exhaustion to feeding and sheltering them to ensure a supply of prey to the ritual of "blooding"
Its not ignorance on my behalf - its a different point of view
What is this utility you speak of? Are you implying abbatoir killing is utility whereas fox killing is cruel?
There is no difference, very few people need to eat meat. There are 1/2 a billion veggies in Asia that are testament to that. Anti hunting is a total diversion by the meat eating lobby to stop people from thinking about the effing billions of animals slaughtered every day for your "utility", what a crock of shit. To me the left wing hand wrigning over blood lust and cruelty is a great way to absolve themselves of their own guilt of their own blood lust over chicken roast dinners and beef stew.
Every time you say utility another few hundered thousand animals are slaughtered for the meat eaters. And you are worried about a few foxes? What utter piffle. The cruelty is the same, in fact shooting is hugely less cruel than farming.
Digging to foxes is not fox hunting, but hey, I agree it would be interesting.
As an aside. Does anyone here use paper ? like write on it, or read it ?
I have a 5plusn8 type point to make !
I have a 5plusn8 type point to make !
Do it, yes I use paper, reading, printing, wiping my arse.
5plus8
Utility is if it has some use
so for example grouse shooting - the grouse get eaten, rat killing stops the spread of disease, cows killed for food get eaten but there is no utility in fox hunting - they are not eaten and its not vermin control because the hunts feed and shelter foxes to ensure a supply of prey.
You may argue that eating animals in unnecessary - and its a valid argument but a differnt one
Fox hunting is only about the killing for fun.
Has anyone any idea how many deer are killed every year simply in paper production ?
The pulp industry accounts for a huge proportion of deer culling.
Just saying likes.
As for vegetable growing and pigeon mortality ! well !.
Thank god for the sadists eh?
Brads - if there is utility in it its not (just ) sadism. when the only purpose is to enjoy the killing it is
I'd happily see 90% of the deer in scotland culled because of the damage they do to the ecosystem and their numbers have grown hugely over the past decades.
Fox killing - a load of dogs and hunters get what they want, does your utility trump theirs?
The logical fiction here is that you have defined utility as things you agree with or justify to yourself and you have defined no utility as the things you do not like - ie killing foxes.
It is a red herring. One mans utilty is another mans waste.
Not to mention the cruelty you assume is there may not be, but it is definitly inherent in the legal food chain and happens at several orderes of magnitude more than a few hundred foxes a year. Go and spend soe time on a farm, or factory farm, and follow the animals to the slaughterhouse. You'll think Huntsmen are pussy cats by the end of that.
You need a better argument, or spend your time fixing something that has an actual impact on the world. The fact that umpteen hours were wasted in parliamanet and poalice an court time over a few foxes when kids get reated cruely in the UK every day, and the disabled and the sick and the poor.
Human beings are shameless in their virtue signalling.
Woosh - thats the sound of the point flying right over your head
Well, not really.
I've always said I won't take criticism from anyone who eats veg grown in Britain. How many rabbits dies to make you're carrot soup ? .
Your point is fox hunting on horseback but you continually fail to separate it from any other field sport.
For the record I have worked to hounds (footpacks) utterly effective fox control on sheep farms.
Brads – if there is utility in it its not (just ) sadism. when the only purpose is to enjoy the killing it is
Enjoying eating meat, same thing. Stuff gets killed for your pleasure. Your definition of utility is an excuse. Your pleasure is utility, someone elses pleasure is not? Its logically bereft.
I imagine more sadists work in abattoirs than work in hunt kennels.
I have seen it action first hand.
Check these numbers out. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/
and compare that to fox hunting. If we could quantify the volume of cruelty, fox hunting does not even register, like ridculously meaningless.
But it makes you look all nice and caring and virtuous to declaim it and the people that do it, whilst ignoring the real problems in the world, and the vast amount of cruel shit that happens every day to humans and animals.
I’d happily see 90% of the deer in scotland culled because of the damage they do to the ecosystem and their numbers have grown hugely over the past decades.
Wolves is the solution!
I imagine more sadists work in abattoirs than work in hunt kennels.
More a lie from the militant veggies .
99% of the cases of cruelty shown in militant vegetarian propaganda is of slaughterhouses in countries where the rule of law doesn't apply.
A happy cow is a tasty cow.
If you only eat veg, and have a humanitarian ideal about not eating meat, I applaud you.
@8+5
Read
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683
unfortunatly Ernie wolves are not the solution in Scotland.
Yes what happened in Yellowstone shows what happens but there are hundreds of thousands of excess deer. the number of wolves needed to bring the red deer population down would be huge and then once the deer numbers are down what do all those wolves do for food?
I think Wolf proposals in scotland amount to a few 10's of wolves. I am not sure there is enough wild space for hundreds of wolves. Gonna take a while to reduce deer numbers, plus the deer actually reproduce annually.
It will also make future prosecutions easier as well as the lie of “trail hunting” is now a useless defense
does it?
1. Magistrates courts don't make legal precedent so ironically you'd have to hope for an appeal to do that.
2. Is all "trail hunting" a lie? (genuine question - I didn't see anything in the article that suggested that trail hunting was fundamentally illegal - but rather that going on the internet telling people how to dodge around the law by pretending to trail hunt was illegal).
I'd liken a lot of the pro-hunt lobby to large parts of the orange order going on marches in the west of Scotland. There will be some with genuine evil intent, but many who just continue to do it because its what they've always done, a tradition passed on from generation to generation and those who want to stop them are interfering with their way of life.
Is all “trail hunting” a lie?
yes basically ( I think one hunt did convert =properly to drag hunting)
they claim to use fox urine ( because the hounds for the kill hunts converted to trail hunts are trained to follow foxes - drag hunts use other scents). there is no supply of fox urine in the UK - it all has to come from the US and lo and behold - no records of any ever been found of fox urine being imported ( from my information from the anti hunting side but this has never been rebutted that I know of)
the leaked webinar was a national thing broadcast to all hunts and the person prosecuted was one of the most senior people in the national organisation and there is plenty of evidence of all hunts routinely killing foxes illegally
does it?
Yes - although its not legal precedent strictly speaking every prosecution for illegal hunting that has been attempted the defense has been - we were trail hunting and accidently caught a fox. NOw the prosecution will be able to shoot that defense down. the hunt can still attempt the defense but its been shown to be a lie and thus will be much much harder for the hunts to make that case.
the critical thing however is the landowners - when that webinar came out many landowners put temporary bans in place and others were waiting for the outcome of the prosecution. Now its proven that "trail hunting" is a lie and used to cover up illegal hunting then the temporary bans should be come permanent and other landowners will join in. This then makes hunting very difficult / impossible as they do not have the ability to go on land owned by utilities and the NT and national parks. One hunt has already disbanded because they no longer had enough land they can use
Its not the end of illegal killing of foxes but its another nail in the coffin - and a big one