Fox Shortage

[ringmasterrob]

I read in the Mirror, hence why I don't have enough confirmation it's true, that the pro-hunting arguement of keeping fox numbers down and controlling the population is no longer valid as there is no longer such a large amount of foxes due to hunting. In fact farmers are being asked to breed foxes for the hunt. This could be an unfounded rumour blown out of proportion by the Mirror, or there could be truth to it. Anyone got any ideas?

[Naselus]

There are plenty of foxes in Britain, but no-where near as many as the ecosystem will happily support and there is no justification behind the 'culling' argument. Besides, if it's just to keep the numbers down, why do they chase the fox so hard, and not just use poison?
The 'keeping the numbers down' thing has never been anything other than a lame excuse for a cruel sport. I don't doubt that there have been attempts to have farmers breed foxes for sport, as with other such things. Cock fights, badger baiting and hare coarsing (now all banned) are traditional blood sports, all of which farmers have in the past been responsible for maintaining, so why not foxes?

[HStorm]

Yeah, there've been reports in the media on and off for some years now indicating that foxes are bred on the quiet for hunting purposes. They've never actually been proven, but it all sounds very plausible. And of course the Countryside Alliance are the first to throw their arms up in pious professions of shock at such cruel practises. So noble ain't they?

[TheCritique]

Naselus said:

The 'keeping the numbers down' thing has never been anything other than a lame excuse for a cruel sport.

The 'keeping the numbers down' argument is very legitimate, but admittedly it does not dictate methods.

Fox hunting is not the cruelist way to kill - the proposal is to ban hunting with dogs only, but gas, snares, and a whole range of other methods are not to be illegalised, and are crueler as they draw out the death. If the hunting dogs are as vicious as they make out, the fox would be dead within 2 seconds of being caught. Gas would not always kill instantly, and snares also can draw out death.

And you may also want to consider this quote, from 'Pretty Straight Guys' by Nick Cohen:

"Huntsmen were the anti-tory's gays. Their inappropriate behaviour was the unpardonable pleasure they got from chasing a fox accross fields. Between the New Labour victory in 1997 and th Iraq War in 2003, most New Labour backbenchers accepted U-Turns on all the policies they had once held dear: except one; the banning of hunting with dogs. If it's true aim was to promote animal welfare, the proposed ban was a joke. The givaway was the curious proviso that only hunting with dogs should be prohibited. Other means of culling were to remain legal. When a fox has the taste for blood, it slaughters lambs and chickens indiscriminately. The supporters of the ban accepted that farmers had to remain free to trap and shoot them. But if the farmer dressed in a silly costume and went after the fox with his dogs, he would be arrested - presumably a British version of the Mounties. No-one could say why it was crueller to wing a fox with a bullet and leave it to starve and bleed to death than to have dogs finish it off. But hatred of the hunters was deeper than concern for the hunted."

Any comments?

[ringmasterrob]

Well, the 'keeping numbers down' arguement ISN'T legitimate if it's no longer valid for reasons stated in my original post. I think the whole idea it's being played as a sport is what makes it more sadistic, if the foxes have to be killed then putting on the costume and chasing it down with such incredible bloodlust & sadism strikes me as cruel. I think a fox is more likely to be scared by the noise of hunting horns, the chase by dogs and horses, the being bitten and torn apart, often after watching its cubs having the same done to them is a lot more unpleasent in my eyes.

[Naselus]

Indeed. And with the aforementioned sports of Hare-coarsing, badger-baiting and cock-fighting all being banned as the cruel and brutal acts they are, then why the hell is it still allowed with foxes?

The argument that they're vermin and bad for farmland would be fair, but why then don't we have all vermin being hunted by bands of toffs wearing stupid clothes? If I get a termite infestation, why don't lord and lady Rentokil come down and run round my front room blowing horns and encouraging dogs to eat them?

Besides, training dogs as attack animals has other obvious potential problems. If you teach them to be violent, aggressive and to go for blood, then you're essentially breeding a leathal weapon.

Lets put it like this, Will. If you were being executed, which would you choose, death by firing squad or being chased round Coventry by a gang of maddened hounds?

[TheCritique]

Well, the 'keeping numbers down' arguement ISN'T legitimate if it's no longer valid for reasons stated in my original post.

Hogwash. The argument stands because it has not been confirmed by any other sources, as said in your original post, too:

I read in the Mirror, hence why I don't have enough confirmation it's true

I would even doubt something said in a broadsheet without other confirmation. And I haven't noticed any confirmation since your original post.

Besides, training dogs as attack animals has other obvious potential problems. If you teach them to be violent, aggressive and to go for blood, then you're essentially breeding a leathal weapon.

Lethal weapon? Foxes can be pretty violent (one of the reasons they're hunted, as said in previous post quote). As can Grizzly Bears, lions, tigers, etc. Does that mean we also start destroying lions because their dangerous?

Lets put it like this, Will. If you were being executed, which would you choose, death by firing squad or being chased round Coventry by a gang of maddened hounds?

That's out of perspective. Does a fox stand up against a wall against a line of hunters with shotguns? No, it'd be legging it the other direction through the undergrowth, meaning that the hunter doesn't get too much time for accuracy. Therefore he could only injure the fox (and an injury with a shotgun is pretty bad). So the choices are as follows:

Shotgun, which, unless a lethal hit, will cause the fox pain for a while. The alternative is being finished off quickly (seconds) by dogs when down.

...often after watching its cubs having the same done to them is a lot more unpleasent in my eyes.

Same would happen with a shotgun.

with the aforementioned sports of Hare-coarsing, badger-baiting and cock-fighting all being banned as the cruel and brutal acts they are, then why the hell is it still allowed with foxes?

Because there are good reasons for the continuation of fox hunting, as said previously.

Another thing to add, is that it is common for the fox to get away in a fox hunt. Entirely different with a shotgun.

*Complete post later*

[ringmasterrob]

Erm, if the post is incomplete, wouldn't it be more sensible to save it in Word or something rather than putting half a case up now? That way if I type a response to points you may have missed and you come to complete the post and bring them up I wouldn't have known about it.

Hogwash. The argument stands because it has not been confirmed by any other sources,

It stands in that respect yes, but I did say 'IF' in my post which was the key word you seem to have missed. I'm saying IF it did turn out to be true, not it IS true.

[Naselus]

I wasn't arguing to destroy all dogs, and I can't quite see how you managed to completely mis-understand my last post, even if you were really really trying to. How many people do you know who keep a trained pack of flesh-eating grizzly bears, specifically trained as attack animals? Or lions? A couple of roman senators did, but I don't think that has any place here at all. Training a bunch of dogs into essentially killing machines is nothing like a lion in the wild that kills when it's hungry. The dogs aren't trained to hunt what they eat, they're trained to KILL. That's what's wrong with it, Will.
And they aren't trained to kill particularly quickly, or nicely, just to kill however the hell they can. Most foxes are disemboweled when the dogs catch them. That's very nasty for starters, but intestines drive dogs nuts. Really nuts. So they chew on the poor animals guts, Will, as it lies there bleeding to death from it's torn stomach, and it takes some time to bleed to death, even for an animal as small as a fox. Usually it'll get savaged by the hounds enough to kill it, but it's not quick or painless.

Foxes can be pretty violent, but only when cornered. Same's true of most animals. Why aren't there shrew-hunting parties, Will? Where are the toffs hunting cats? Gods knows there's enough of a stray cat problem, but no-one goes chasing them down with dogs. The RSPCA deal with them, humanely. And a stray cat'll go for most of the farm animals a fox'll go for, to, and it'll kill them in a far crueler way.

The fox gets away from a fox hunt? Sounds like an exceptionally shite way to keep the numbers down, then. If you're culling, then you have to be efficient, or it's just hunting, which has nothing to do with ecological reasons and everything to do with blood sports.

And there's no mass epidemic of foxes in this country anyway. Habit destruction and the automobile are keeping them under control quite handily without blood-crazed hunters chasing them down.

A shotgun might not be quite so humane (debatably. I still find this idea that being ripped apart by dogs is meant to be some blessed way to die a tiny bit doubtful.), but the shotgun only gets used when the fox is trying to kill a farmers livestock. You don't get a fox-hunting party that only comes together to go for a malicious fox. They go out for the SPORT of it, and the idea it keeps the numbers under control is a lame excuse, Will. They hunt foxes for the thrill of killing something that can't possibly win against you, and can at best hope to flee. It's a sad and pathetic throwback to a time when people wanted to bully everything, pretty much, and serves no real purpose at all.

Also, a fox that gets away can die from the trauma of a long chase, and may also escape while severely wounded and later bleed to death (just like it would from being winged by a shotgun).
In 1937, a drain was opened that contained ten fox skeletons. All had apartently crawled in after being hunted, and promptly died. Well, probably not promptly. They probably died long, slow lingering deaths as they bled from the wounds across their flanks and stomachs. I bet they were thinking to themselves 'This is so much better than being put down by the RSPCA. Those bastards give you a painless injection. And wow, I'm glad I didn't get a shotgun blast to the head, cos then I couldn't lie here bleeding, stuck in a drain.' Trying to claim fox hunting is humane just shows an ignorance about both foxes and hunters.

As for fox breeding, you want other sources:

5th June 2002 CUMBRIA "FOX FEEDING RACKET" PROBED BY ANIMAL HEALTH OFFICIALS

It's from the league against animal cruelty, but it is actually a true source, I checked on lexisnexis. It's been done in the past using artificial earths for the foxes to live in, so why wasn't there a fox population explosion then?

And one last thing, then. Would you rather be chased by a shotgun weilding executioner, or by a pack of maddened hunting dogs? Since the firing squad was out of context, this is more like it. You didn't answer last time.

[ringmasterrob]

Just wanted to say here Nas, some really fantastic points made in that last post. You've argued points I never even considered & I'm pretty strongly against fox hunting. Well argued & I strongly agree with what you say here. [/suck up]

[Naselus]

Not to worry, Rob, your bribe's in the post. It was twelve thousand for unequivocal support, wasn't it? ;D

[ringmasterrob]

Never! I pride myself on my honour! (It was 15k actually )

[HStorm]

Oh? I thought it was an honours mention and a CoFSUIR (Commendation For Sexing Up Intelligence Reports).