Which is a longer ago than 1700's in  Australia !

It wasn't meant to make a point - just an interesting fact that not many people realise.
:)

I think it important to remember the time that it happened.

We had just come out of a long war during which so many people had died that there was few people's lives which had not been directly affected. Life was cheap! Witness the people who were used for experiments into "A cure for the common cold" at the germ warfare establishment at Porton Down. So a few died, who cared? Around that time the news papers told us about a fire at the electric power station at Windscale. I read everything I could about it. Nowhere did it say that we were on the brink of Armageddon! It was a fire for goodness sake. There were hundreds of them every night during the blitz! So there were loads of rabbits around, kill 'em! And if you stamp 'em right out at the same time, who cares! The rabbit problem will be gone!

As I said. I know what I saw. believe it or disbelieve it, it makes no difference now.

Regards, John

Hm A Conservative Government brought it in then, John ? Typical of them then !

I know lots of people died in the war I do not need telling 6,000,000 of my faith were killed just for being Jews They weren't enemies of Germany just Jewish

Investigations have proved the link between Delille & the desease spread & he opnly admitted that he used it in France to kill off the rabbits on his land. Not done by me but by independant scientific experts, however it you want to blame Winston Churchill go ahead I for one would not object to blame being laid at the feet of the Tories

You go political if thats the way you want to go Moonmaiden. I'm more interested in rights and wrongs. I feel I'm just wasting my time posting on this thread. Just make whatever capital you feel like but in future leave me out of it.

Does it matter a single jot who brought it in?

Actually yes it does, it appears 99% of the people on this forum are anti the current government & believe that the Government is trying to destroy the countryside

If against all the scientific evidence it was brought to the UK by the government of the day which was errrrrrr Conservative, so much for them being party to conserving the countryside by denying the country folk the right to kill & eat rabbits to supplement the rationing !

Deleted!

Hi John,

Go sit down with a glass of the good stuff, relax and remember that you're supposed to be enjoying your retirement ;)

Best wishes, Teri

Don't worry Terri. I reread my above post and realised it was not worth getting banned over. We all have our views and I try not to walk over other peoples.

Regards, john

Kinda figured that John - was just pulling your leg :)

Still, doesn't mean can't have a wee glass of something ..... I think I need one - purely medicinal of course :D

Teri

Just getting a wee dram now Teri. It seems like a good time. :)

Best wishes, John

Totally agree Trevor, although I suspect saying "it is difficult" is a bit of an understatement ;)

Teri

Well said Trevor - I know you're at the sharp end of these things and honestly don't know how you can cope with some of the things you see first hand and the mentality of the people you have to deal with, but thank God you do and others like you.

Keep up the good fight ;)

Regards, Teri

Yup i agree with you trevor what I fail to see is how these people can be dog lovers who go on and on about there hounds yet there so blood thirsty towards another animal . time will tell when the ban goes threw we will see what happens to there animals .

I thought you said you weren't contributing to threads that discuss hunting anymore - or did you forget? :)

No I said I wasn't replying to any more of that woman's rubbish she was spouting.....

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, I was talking to a friend on Wednesday who had been out the day before hunting rabbits with his two Lurchers, one of his dogs was chasing a rabbit which ran into a hedge, his dog reappeared with a fox, the fox had been shot (he thinks several days previous) in the head & half the fox's face & one eye was missing & it was very infected & smelly. Fortunately for the fox this guys dogs found him, god knows how long he'd have suffered...

Geoff :(

<No I said I wasn't replying to any more of that woman's rubbish she was spouting.....>

this is me I suppose what rubbish have I spouted ? Facts from my PhD thesis ? or facts that you chose to deny ?

I don't think Geoff was talking about you at all?

Moonmaiden....actually no I wasn't referring to you, in fact what you're saying makes a lot of sense... I was talking about someone from an old hunting thread, who actually doesn't know what she's talking about...

Geoff :)

p.s. 'cept the rats thing, foxes don't like eating 'em....

Well they were seen eating & killing them during a period of time when they had nothing else to eat ! Needs must especially when there is nothing else

As to the Arctic Foxes They were chased by a pack of 50 wolves were they ? If they threaten the wolf cubs or try stealing a wolf pack kill(very rare as their kill is eaten at speed)yes there might be confrontations. Were these UK made "documentaries ?

JG you obviously never saw the program about how some "wildlife documentaries"were actually faked(not BBC recent documentaries) The "situayions were "staged"& one of the people involved was on the program showing how they made the situations appear real right down to filming some of the stuff in studios ! Even down some clever editing making it look like natural behaviour

I go by what experts who live & work with nature on a daily basis & who have no interest in viewing figures of TV programs(wild programs get high ratings. There was a "documentary" about bears & ALL the filming was done with tame bears(including the only polar bear trained for film work)

I will however concede that your armchair viewing of documentaries made to get good ratings gives you far more depth of knowledge than some mere wildlife experts who have spent 40+years studying wildlife in its rightful place, perhaps you can supply the documentary details so I can pass them on to enlighten them as to real wildlife situations. One should never stop learning

Your posts would make far more interesting reading if they weren't so drippingly sarcastic. What a shame you ruin your point.

But I do believe that people think themselves exoerts after seeing a program on the TV-been told so often enough on here I have spent lots of time studying dogs & their relatives(foxes are not the realatives of dogs of course)in the wild before I understood how the dog family learns, in the words of Mr Spook-fascinating. Which is why these pseudo documentaries are made to boost flagging viewing figures especially in the UK where we humanize animals way too much.

The only really untouched & real situation wildlife films about wilddogs was about the painted dogs in Africa during which they admitted they took a bitch that had been cast out of a pack(she had had a litter whilst not an alpha bitch & the Alpha bitch took her puppies from her then drove her out)& found another smaller pack to see if she would be accepted(which she was in the end) Most of the filmd about wolves & foxes include masses of staged footage

Well you know of course what Oscar Wilde said about Sacrasm ?"Lowest form of wit highest form of intelligence"

The Arctic foxes were being chased by upwards of 20 wolves, yes.

And no, you're right, I didn't see the programme about the staging of 'documentaries'. I don't watch that much television! (How much of that programme was also staged? ;) )

None of the BBC film was staged-they openly admitted to staging much of the early stuff including David A's Life on Earth

There was a flim made about wolves in the Steppes/Artic regions of Russia that was made in Spain & the USA this included some wonderful footage of wolves hunting their prey(never more than a dozen wolves tho' so the 20+ you saw must have been a huge pack as only half at the most usually hunt so you are talking of a pack of 40+ wolves which must have caused the film makers problems keeping track of so many wolves)only the "prey"was antelopes not found in Russia !

They even had Artic foxes hunting penguins only found in the southern hemisphere

JG you support hunting & I never will especially when a lot of pro hunters are open about hunting for excitement of the chase & kill nothing to do with conserving the countryside & wildlife.

As an aside my vet I saw on monday had been on call at the weekend & had had to go & put down two huntsmens horses that had been badly injured after being forced to try to jump a wall, were the huntsmen concerned, they sure were they both made sure the vet had the insurance claim forms before they continued hunting on other horses, They obviously were true animal lovers-neither stayed after giving the vet the claim forms hunting was far too important to them

There was never any secret that a lot of Life on Earth was staged - for 10 minutes or so at the end of every programme they showed how it had been done!

I think the documentary I saw was filmed by a Swedish company, but I'm not 100% certain. I know it was Scandinavian.

I never watched LOE so wouldn't know I don't watch any wild life on tv in fact I watch very little tv period

I know most of the polar films are from the same source & akk ckose ups are done with the"tame"polar bear belongong to an animal trainer(he admits it )

It is very rare for film makers to be able to fully follow animals hunting this is why most hunts & kills are staged.Even the guy who raised the cheetahx & released them into the wild never saw them kill or chase prey & they were tracked by satellites & GPS

A much more hands on study was done in Canada by a naturalist who spent a year living within shouting distance of wolves & eventua;;y as he was neither prey nor threatening he got very close to the wolves, his book was fascinating & not a single mention of vast packs of wolves hunting the foxes or coyotes, but food was plentiful so there was little competition except between the wolf packs

Like I said you viewing of this documentary is obviously what goes on all the time, not much meat on an arctic fox for a single wolf let alone 40+pack I would have thought the wolves would have found bigger prey

>not much meat on an arctic fox for a single wolf let alone 40+pack I would have thought the wolves would have found bigger prey

I suppose like all predators they go for whatever appears easiest at the time. Not much meat on a mouse, but a fox will still kill and eat one.
:)

Hi Jeangenie,

I think you're right about animals going for other *food* options, not so much as for >"whatever appears easiest at the time"< but more out of starvation forcing them.  So yes, perhaps *some* wolves *sometimes* dine on fox but on a programme I watched the other night (yes, I confess to watching nature documentaries but am not a slave to the telly nor all that it portrays :D) it mentioned that a wolf would eat up to (from memory) 20KG (but could have been 30KG) of meat/bone in one sitting.  Now that's just one wolf - he'd need to catch a helluva lot of foxes and lose a lot of much needed calories ;) - so could the solitary fox realistically be attractive to the average size wolf pack? 

Like I mentioned earlier, the Panda - obviously a natural vegetarian - will even scavenge on animal remains when hungry enough, despite his natural digestive system not being properly able to cope with that diet.  Desperation and starvation probably make all mammals turn to eating things that would not be normal to their diet but I don't think in sufficient quantities to have any affect on a specific species population.

Regards, Teri

Wolves of course don't feed every day ! & will like other Canids take food back to feed the young & nursing mother & nurse maid dogs So a Pack of 40+ would need one hell of a lot of deer etc to feed they would have to kill several in one day to ensure that the young had food-this is were the "phantom"pregancy comes in Wolf females that have not had a litter can come into milk to feed the young whilst the Alpha s& more senior wolves are hunting. Foxes on the other hand tend to hunt daily taking more smaller prey & of course they are not pack animals & not of the canid genus

Foxes in the UK & outside of the Arctic are not of course the same as foxes that live in wooded & forest countryside, Non arctic foxes have a much wider choice of food, Artic foxes eat a hell of a lot of birds & very small mammals(Arctic plovers spring to mind but being at work without reference books I am quoting from memory) The same goes for wolves, the wolves in Russia below the Arctic circle are limited only by the food source & in a bad year there may be no young.

Moonmaiden, there are many sites on the web that 'perpetuate the myth' that wolves will hunt foxes - not exclusively (you'll notice I've never ever claimed that foxes were an important part of their diet - just a part): here for instance. There are many others. Perhaps they would also benefit from your input.

JG I have better things to done with my time, I am replying whilst waiting for a yet another problem dog to came in for retraining, you must have a lot of time onyour hands to waste it trawling the internet for sites aboiut wolves being the NATURAL predator for foxes, in the real world away from the net & TV programs your Natural predator would mean that the wolves main food was the fox, just as in Africa the lion & other large cats are the natural predators for antelope & zebra Although a big cat(or cats in the case of lions) could kill a young or sickly elephant it is accepted the only predator for the elephant is man

Surely a 'natural predator' is one that, in a natural situation, will predate on another species. Not necessarily as the main source of food, but as part of the diet. 'Main predator' is a different thing entirely.

And no, it didn't take a lot of time, Moonmaiden. There were several such sites on the first page Google turned up.
:)

In over 30 years with several different hunts, I have NEVER heard of a huntsman who asked a vet to destroy a horse!!! They would always do it themselves & even when hunting there would be a HK carried in a vehicle. Even my 4 vets....who all hunt :) would never put their own horses down they,  ask the huntsman to do it.
How incredible therefore, that in your area there were TWO hunts....both losing their huntsmans horse on the same day :0  We havent lost a huntsmans horse here in 5 years...so 2 seperate incidenses on the same day?????

As for forcing them to jump the walls....take it from me if the huntsmans horse had to be "forced" (not that you can ever force a horse to jump a wall!!)then it would have been sold a long time ago as unsuitable. A huntsmans living depends on the horse & all the ones I know have had their faithful favourites for many many seasons.
Final point....if the story even has a glimmer of truth in it...then as huntsman the person would have to continue his days hunting as its his living, so yes its feasable that they had had to continue on another horse....no one else can hunt the hounds afterall. However I smell arat.....infact a coypu its so huge!!! :) I have never heard of even a rider in the field having the vet destroy a horse, let alone the huntsman!!

I think this may be a case of misunderstanding of terminology. Doesn't the word 'huntsman' refer to a hunt servant? I think maybe the poster thought it meant 'someone out hunting'. Could be wrong though!
:)

Same Hunt same wall actually Sam however your huntsmen are perfect of course & all carry a humane killer in their pockets, not all hunterman are like that especially those who trespass on land they are not allowed to hunt across & want to get out of there PDQ( hence going over a wall or at least trying to that should not be attempted)to escape back onto the road before the farmer caught them !

Moon mnaiden, now I KNOW you are being told a fairy story because there is only ever ONE huntsman hunting hounds...never two! :)

Oops, you weren't talkin to me were you....... :rolleyes:

Geoff :)

No, but I decided to let it pass cos the comment was still relevant LOLOLOLOL :D

where on the sub of shooting fox's i was talking to trevor who seems to see things in the right light :D

I am not blood thirsty towards ANY animal :( and I love my hounds too....whats your point?

Sam the way i saw the point you were asking about is: How can anyone who claims to be an animal lover get pleasure out of a blood sport and enjoy seeing another animal being hunted down to exhaustion and killed.
Put their horses at risk and perhaps their hounds also etc. etc.

Please correct me if i'm wrong,but this is the way i interperated it.

Rose :)

Rose, people put horses at risk by riding them. The moment a rider is out on the road they are at risk from the pratty careless drivers who speed past them (and surprisingly frequently hit them). Hounds are at the same risk as pet dogs being taken for a 'proper' walk when they can go through undergrowth - pet dogs get onto railway lines, and hit on the roads. It's not exclusive to hunting.

JG, Where I live the roads are mostly country lanes, and car drivers and horses are at risk from pratty, careless, toffee nosed, horse riders who think they own the roads and don't give a damn about anyone else.
You slow right down for them, and they have their noses either stuck up in the air to be bothered to
acknowledge you, or they are riding 2 side by side, and they are that busy gossiping to each other that they don't see or care that you have had to go into the hedgerow to get by them. One woman in particular does not like riding on her own and so a male friend cycles on a mountain bike at the side of her, the two together take up more width than a vehicle but are THEY bothered when cars actually have to stop for them and a queue builds up, causing a traffic jam further down the road. This one lane in particular is used by people going to work. So perhaps some horse riders are putting themselves at risk by their own actions.

Not all horse riders are like that. I thank and wave to every single person, whether they slow down or not, and never ride 2 abreast in heavy traffic and always move over if a car comes.

However, please remember that some folk may be riding a young horse and may not be able to take their hands off the reins at the moment you are going past.

Some may be teaching a young horse to get used to traffic - and 2 abreast may be essential the first couple of times - but that shouldn't inconvenience car drivers by being done in a narrow lane.

That said, horse riders have as much right as car drivers to be on the road, so a little consideration on both sides is the best way to exist. I have some lovely folk drive past us round here - the only bad one being an RAC driver who shot through a bridge leaning on his horn and told me to eff off when I asked him to slow down. Me and my horse would have been the ones injured or killed had he hit us.

If you meet riders who don't thank you - wind the window down and give them an earful about how they are giving other riders a bad name :) I actually find cyclists far worse....

Much as I hate to say it, horse riders in the far south seem to have worse manners than those in the Midlands (I have no experience of those in the northern half of the country, so can't pass comment). There is a very high horse population in my area, with many studs, riding schools, private owners and a large agricultural college which has a very large equine department. The manners instilled into horse riders there are very high, and car drivers are invariably thanked for their courtesy, even when each rider is in charge of two horses, riding one and leading another on their inside.

Personally I expect to have to drive on the opposite side of the road, and at about 10 mph, when I pass a horse and rider - and closer or faster would IMO be foolish and inconsiderate. I never forget that roads aren't just for cars, and I, as a driver, have no more right to use them than horseriders.
:)

"Personally I expect to have to drive on the opposite side of the road" ................have I said I don't expect to either?  but when they are riding 2 abreast especially on a blind bend (then you just wait)or a horse and cycle at the side on a narrow lane, the motorist ends up in the side of the hedge or ditch, for the sake of them riding single in certain areas. What are car drivers supposed to do, travel at 5 mile an hour for the next few miles so the 2 horse riders can have their morning gossip? These are all experienced riders not novices, haven't really seen any youngsters about, and I know that all horse riders aren't the same; as car drivers aren't all pratts.  The worst offender is a 47 year old female who has ridden from the age of 3, she has had her horse for a few years, but will not ride  unless someone is at her side, which is fair enough when there is no traffic about, but there should be give and take on both sides.
I would not dream of winding my window down to shout at them either, I might frighten the horse and cause an accident. I always slow down and give the horse a wide space (and expect to), but what I am trying to say is that perhaps some horse riders could cause the accidents themselves, and not the pratty car driver.  By the way I live in Staffordshire which IS the Midlands.

Well, I'm not a horserider, and haven't been for 25 years, but I've seen far more idiot drivers passing horses (some even hooting) than riders being inconsiderate. Maybe this part of the Midlands teaches riders better.

JG I did experience an idiot driver/instructor? the other day. I was driving along the lane where I see all the horse riders; I was approaching the T junction, a L driver had turned left into the lane but took the turning far too wide and actually came round and onto the wrong side of the road. Also they must have lost it completely as the car was swerving from side to side along the lane, I had to brake. Yes an L driver and everyone has to learn, but what do you think the instructor was doing? rolling around in the car laughing. Now just before the turning there is a big sign which says BEWARE HORSES CROSSING, as they go over the road and into Forestry Commission land. Not only that but this lane has no footpaths and people walk with their dogs, and sometimes children, especially this time of the year as Father Christmas is in the woods. Surely the instructor should have prevented his pupil from taking the corner too wide in the first place, had there been a horse or whatever in his path it doesn't bear thinking about. I couldn't believe it when I saw both pupil and instructor laughing
their heads off. I couldn't get my window down quick enough, bit I did shout "I don't think it's funny"

I agree entirely - that is poor driving, and as you say who knows what could have been hit? Children on bikes (we get a lot of them on our lanes)? People walking dogs (I have myself been knocked down by a car in just those circumstances)? If it was a proper driving-school car with dual controls that should never have happened.