Hunting

[midori1999]

Oops, that was meant to quote the post above it, not sure what happened there.

 

[PeanutBean]

The difference is that the dogs are not doing what they do naturally, they are doing what they are bred to do for the pleasure of humans who enjoy the chase, exhausting an animal then watching other animals tear it to shreds. I don't find pleasure in watching other animals eat other animals though I accept in the wild it is a necessity and part of nature.

Many if not all the things we do to animals that are distasteful are because of our own massive population and our attempts to maintain it. As a society we have to draw the line somewhere or we would end up with no nature and no chance of survival ourselves. This is where I draw my line. If there is a necessity to control population growth of any animal then we should be doing what we can to make their environment more natural; use natural biological control where possible; take away those things that encourage such as access to food/waste and where culling is apparently the only answer it should be done in as humane a way as possible and not a way that gives a thrill to people who have a taste for barbarism.

 

[midori1999]

It's obvious you've got your own opinions on hunting, but it doesn't appear based on ANY Hunt I have seen or on the opinions or beliefs most people I know who go hunting hold. I do not know one single person who has ever been fox hunting who goes because they "enjoy the chase, exhausting an animal then watching other animals tear it to shreds". They will all tell you they either go simply for the ride or also to qualify their horses for point to pointing. I don't know anyone who has even seen a fox killed. The huntsmen and farmers are the only ones really interested in the kill.

As I said before, I don't really agree with hunting, and don't think it is really that effective anyway in a lot of areas, but I do think the fox population needs to be controlled. Perhaps you can suggest a more humane way of controlling the fox population? No-one seems to be able to.

Also, the hunting ban in it's current form has actually made hunting LESS humane IMO.

 

[PeanutBean]

Funny that my opinions should differ from someone who goes on a hunt. Besides which it is illegal to hunt with dogs in the UK now so they shouldn't be involved in the killing of foxes in that way. If it were really all about the ride there wouldn't have been outcry at the ban and people would be quite satisfied to just go out on a big ride! Or if it were really about exercise of dogs [bred for the purpose of hunting] then drag hunting would be sufficient.

I have no suggestions beyond what I've already said about how to control fox populations primarily because I mostly don't agree with population control. For farmers I imagine that suitable fencing of areas of land would do it, after all, foxes don't get into my house so it must be possible to stop them! lol I suppose effective measures wouldn't be considered cost effective though. And that's what it usually comes down to after all, money.

 

[midori1999]

Well, eople won't even pay the extra for free range meat or eggs in most cases, so they wouldn't want to ay extar for 'normal' meat, would they?

Foxes might not be able to get into your house, but they could probably get into your garden. Foxes are well capable of scaling a 6ft or 7ft fence, can get through gap of 4" by 4" (deer fencing for example) and can dig very well, so in order for farmers to be able to keep their animals safe from foxes the countryside would have to look like a fortress, so it is not just about cost in any case.

As for hunting with dogs being illegal, it's may be, but fox hunting it it's traiditonal sense still exists in virtually the same way. Hunting is allowed, (eg. the dogs chase the fox) but only two dogs are allowed to be able to go into the cover and the huntsman is supposed to then shoot the fox. You only have to go to any rural area on Boxing Day to see that hunting is still going on pretty much as it were prior to the 'ban'.

 

[PeanutBean]

It might have to be a fortress to keep a fox out but that doesn't make it impossible does it? People should be forced to pay more for their animal products through regulation of farming that includes humanity towards wildlife. Production of meat for consumption is highly environmentally damaging and in a world of 6 billion people uneconomically viable. I think people should be paying more for the privelage. And if the ban doesn't go far enough that's a problem with the legislation not with the ethics behind it.

 

[midori1999]

So are you saying you'd be happy to see the countryside turned into an eyesore, trees and land being destroyed in the process and meat prices rise purely so foxes needn't be hunted or killed in any form? It's not a very realistic view, IMO. Surely the building of huge fences all over the country isn't exactly environmentally friendly either?

 

[PeanutBean]

Why would the countryside be turned into an eyesore through not hunting foxes? Big fences wouldn't be environmentally damaging if made from sustainable sources but I'd rather there was just less animal farming. I care not if meat is priced as high as the sun. It's cheaper and healthier and better for the environment not to eat it.

Anyway this is turning into a discussion of foxes and vegetarianism which is hardly the whole picture of the original topic. I fear others will be excluded from contributing if it remains so narrow.

 

[midori1999]

The fact is, people do eat meat, people do want reasonably priced, affordable meat and that most of that meat is farmed. Another fact is that foxes are a problem for farmers and it is simply not practical for farmer to use fences to stop foxes getting onto their land, how do hey know they are not fencing foxes in for a start.

As for environmentally sustainable fencing that isn't going to look like an eyesore, suggest some?

The point is, you're against eating meat, you're against fox hunting, you're against culling foxes, which of course, you are perfectly entitled to be, but you don't seem to be offering that many alternatives, except that everyone should be a vegetarian and then the problem is solved. Oh, except where culling rabbits is concerned, because they destroy crops. How do we stop those being a problem without culling them?

 

[PeanutBean]

I wasn't aware this was a thread about offering alternatives that are acceptable to specific people, I thought it was a thread about people's opinions on hunting. Why exactly should I have to offer a different alternative to you than that which I think would be best for the world?

Besides which the only farming foxes have a real impact on is free range chicken/game. Hardly the most attractive of land anyway and not exactly visible to most of the population. Chicken is stupendously underpriced so once again yes I do think it's reasonable for farmers to he responsible for adequately protecting their stock by fencing and no I don't think hunting is a viable way of dealing with a fox problem.

With that I think I'm done with fox hunting.

Rabbits can be pretty easily fenced out. A one time cull with responsible fencing would do the job. Whilst obviously I don't engage in the activity I think it's pretty unlikely people going rabbiting with dogs or guns in big fields of crops.

Anyone interested in looking at the fishing as hunting question? The question was posed but I've been the only person to respond. Is that because people don't feel emotionally concerned with fish as they are with mammals? Whilst I don't eat them I can't confess to being very emotionally concerned however I am extremely environmentally concerned and would very much like to see unsustainable fishing practices banned whilst stocks recover, then only reintroduced with selective gear, closed seasons and areas and marine reserves. Does anyone else have any opinions on fishing?

 

[Pyrrhic]

In a nice Utopian world, we would be able to sustain our population as veggies with ethical and sustainable means of animal control. It would be nice, but it's never going to happen.

People want variation of diet, and they want it cheap. This is why factory farms sprung up, but are thankfully massively on the decrease. While we, as a country farm, pests have to be controlled. Whether that is weeds taking over vegetation, crop spraying for bugs, rabbiting with dogs or killing foxes. It is sad part of life that we have to protect our food sources, and we have done so for millions of years.

People have shown through this thread that they have a purely emotive viewpoint on the subject. The problem really, is that everyone thinks their opinion holds weight when they don't have any first hand experience of the issue.

How many people who have posted in this thread saying animal control is wrong, barbaric, for torture loving toffs, etc have actually lived and worked in the countryside? Worked on a farm? Own a farm? Anyone? How many people have actually seen a fox themselves? Seen a fox kill?

We need to be able to protect our crops, livestock and homes from vermin. If you have mice in your house, you have a choice of how to dispose of them. The government has not told you that every home in the UK must have a cat in order to keep mice populations down, because most traps on the market are inhumane. So the issue with people who live in the countryside, and have to deal with these issues day in, day out is that people who have no idea what goes on, think it's ok to suddenly tell a farmer how to stop vermin destroying his property.

What used to happen, is that some areas would have a local hunt. This hunt would drag hunt for fun/sport using a man dragging a scent behind him. If a local farmer had an issue with foxes, he would ring up the hunt master and a hunt would be scheduled on his land. The hunt would have permission to ride across that farmers land and a route would be planned from the foxes dens.

Now, I have been on a couple of fox hunts and never came across a fox. Hunts do not go out and get foxes every time. Even so, they served a purpose for dispersing the population. A fox is hardly going to make a den, mate and have babies somewhere that they know has predators, so sometimes the problem could be solved. However as now hunting with dogs is banned, that's out the window.

Also, foxes are still a prey animal. They may be top of the food chain now, but that is because we have wiped out their natural enemies in the UK. Because of that, we have a duty to control the spread of the species. Letting populations explode due to a lack of natural predation is just irresponsible.

So foxes are prey (as well as predator), which means that they are naturally programmed to understand chase by a predator.

If you trap a fox, they will eat their own leg off to escape through stress and shock. If you gas them, there is no residual remembrance of predation like I mentioned above when fox hunts didn't catch foxes. You also have the problem of killing any animals in the area and poisoning the ground. Shooting....pretty impossible. You're more likely to maim the animal if you manage to get a shot in, and it could take hours to die. Filling in dens...I'd say animals taking hours to suffocate is pretty inhuman.

So hunting. It fixes a problem for a farmer, and the fox is preprogrammed to understand the nature of the chase. Dogs come after it, it runs. If it's fit as a fiddle, a fox will get away and move area. If it's not, it will get caught and killed. Most people who are against hunting would have you believe that the dogs rip apart the foxes while they are still alive. In actual fact the alpha dog will deliver a blow to the spinal column, killing the fox instantly then the rest of the pack will arrive. I have been amazed at how clean dog kills are.

Foxes being chased by dogs (rather than wolves) is no more cruel that a cheetah chasing a zebra. It is what they understand are predator/prey.

The issue people have with hunting is that they think a bunch of 'toffs' go out on horse back for a splendid day killing fluffy animals. It just shows how easily programmed society is by the media. The reality is very different.

Foxes, and other vermin animals have a huge impact on farming and country life. Foxes don't just take chickens, I know a farmer who lives a couple of hours from me who lost lambs this year to foxes.

The fox hunting ban has in fact taken away the most humane way to kill foxes, and instead left farmers with the options of gassing, traps, shooting or den filling. If there is a better idea, I'm sure they would love to hear it.

The UK will never be 100% veggie, totally sustainable with a natural, self sustaining food chain and mores the pity. The fact is we need to deal with problems the best way we can, and it's people who have the problems, who live the life, who own the farms who should be able to decide for themselves.

 

[midori1999]

Foxes are a huge problem to sheep farming and there are sheep all over and visable to most people.

The reason farmers allow those who shoot on their land is because they view rabbits as a serious problem. Not just to crops, but to livestock who suffer injuuries when their legs/feet go down rabbit holes. In fact, one of the areas we have permission to shoot is the local cross country course, becauae the rabbit holes are a danger to the horses and the cows that graze there when not in use by horses/riders.

As for fishing, I dont like it as a sport. The life or suffering of a fish is no less than any other animal. Totally different if people are planning on eating the fish, but there is a real problem with over-fishing and it neecs to be dealt with.

 

[PeanutBean]

I've given my answer. Just because you think it's unworkable doesn't make it any less valid as an opinion. I set my moral code where I want it to be. It's not always workable in life but that doesn't alter my opinions. I'm also very left wing but it doesn't mean I know hoe to make communism a workable societal model. I'm not a meat eater or a farmer (though I did grow up in the country) nor a decision maker therefore I put my opinions where I like them. It is people with strong views that drive change in a given direction through voting and campaigning. I doubt anyone with a strong view will single handedly change the world nor necessarily have some fantastic answer no-one else has ever thought of before in the whole history of time but they can encourage others to think about issues and debate them as we are doing here. If there was an easy answer there would be no debate. All opinions are valid.

And no I haven't tried to change the terms of the thread. Again, the question was what's our opinion of hunting not if you don't agree with it give a perfectly socially viable alternative.

 

[Sarahkka]

I am not as familiar with the issues of fox-hunting, but I do think the debate about culling vermin species is really interesting. (This may be sort of off-topic with hunting, but bear with me! )
As an ecologist, I agree with PB that our definitions of what might be counted as "vermin" are troubling. I come from a farming province and while I haven't worked in agriculture, I have done a fair amount of conservation research - out of doors and studying ecosystems and how we impact them. I have lots of peers in agriculture and have had some great discussions of finding ecological, ethical and economical solutions to very similar problems to what you describe. Replace rabbits with ground squirrels and foxes with coyotes, and the issues are pretty much the same, I'm guessing.
I do eat meat, although I was a veggie for many years. Living in the grasslands of Alberta, I think eating free range beef and bison is eating a lot closer to the ecosystem than eating the products of grain farming. It's local and it's what the land has supported for a very long time (think vast herds of bison and antelope).
I agree that we need to eat and that the hypocrisy of city folk crying about cruelty to animals, yet wearing and eating products from factory farming, might be a little hard for farmers to take.
As an ecologist, though, I don't think we have very sustainable farming practices worldwide. I agree with PB - the market needs to reflect the true cost of meat (and of imported goods like coffee and sugar - how much per pound would they be if we priced in the ecological cost of rainforest destruction?). Is claiming that indigenous creatures like ground squirrels and coyotes are vermin that destroy crops and herds fair? Is culling them the answer?
Personally, I don't think so.
Did you know that culls are a band-aid solution in most cases? For coyote (and most other animal) populations, sudden drops in population density typically lead to population booms that are worse than the original problem. Nature abhors a vacuum, right? If an ecosystem can support so many coyotes per kilometre, it will. The coyote hunt has been ongoing in Alberta and Saskatchewan for decades and there hasn't been any real drop in their populations.
I also scratch my head on that one because coyotes are very effective predators of ground squirrels. But instead of letting them and our raptors take care of the ground squirrels, we just go out and kill everything with bullets, poison, etc. I think there is a better way. I think we need to have better understanding of ecosystem dynamics and of what we are trying to do with the land. Work with the ecosystem, not against it. Adjust our productivity expectations, and have all of us bear the cost, not just farmers.

There are a few cases of ecosystem interference that I agree with and those involve invasive species. Even there, biological pest control often comes up with more effective population controls than shooting, trapping, and bludgeoning.

 

[Sarahkka]

Sorry, I should specify. By biological pest control alternatives, I am talking about looking at ways to make the species infertile, or finding a predatory solution within the ecosystem.

 

[PeanutBean]

Thanks Sarahkka for making the rational case that parallels my emotive one! For some issues my heart takes over my discussion abilities!

 

[amygwen]

It makes me sick. On Facebook I have friends that post pictures of them with a dead deer holding it with blood splattered everywhere. It's just disgusting.

 

[PeanutBean]

DH reminded me earlier of the news the other day, the biggest, oldest stag was shot. He said the hunters were on tv saying it was humane because he was old and would've struggled over the winter. Hm.

 

[amygwen]

^^ That's so sad!

 

[kiwimama]

I wasn't aware this was a thread about offering alternatives that are acceptable to specific people, I thought it was a thread about people's opinions on hunting. Why exactly should I have to offer a different alternative to you than that which I think would be best for the world?

Besides which the only farming foxes have a real impact on is free range chicken/game. Hardly the most attractive of land anyway and not exactly visible to most of the population. Chicken is stupendously underpriced so once again yes I do think it's reasonable for farmers to he responsible for adequately protecting their stock by fencing and no I don't think hunting is a viable way of dealing with a fox problem.

With that I think I'm done with fox hunting.

Rabbits can be pretty easily fenced out. A one time cull with responsible fencing would do the job. Whilst obviously I don't engage in the activity I think it's pretty unlikely people going rabbiting with dogs or guns in big fields of crops.

Anyone interested in looking at the fishing as hunting question? The question was posed but I've been the only person to respond. Is that because people don't feel emotionally concerned with fish as they are with mammals? Whilst I don't eat them I can't confess to being very emotionally concerned however I am extremely environmentally concerned and would very much like to see unsustainable fishing practices banned whilst stocks recover, then only reintroduced with selective gear, closed seasons and areas and marine reserves. Does anyone else have any opinions on fishing?

Thank for bringing this back up. I thought my question had been ignored and wasn't interested in being involved in yet another debate about fox hunting, 1 - because I'm not in the UK, so has nothing to do with me and 2 - because it's been debated sooo many times already!

I don't eat much fish, because it's so expensive and more recently because I am not happy with the way in which it is done. Until recently I didn't know how bad fishing was, from an environmental perspective. Maybe that is why no one has an opinion on it, because they don't know about the practices that go on out there? There needs to be a total ban on bottom trawlling altogther, I can't believe how devastating that is to the sea environment. Fishing, I would think, would have the biggest environmental impact on the earth than any other animal farming practice. Life at sea is precarious at the best of times, without the overfishing and destruction of all the sea life that humans are responsible for.