Then watch this (one of many) before it is removed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPFJq1spYbs&feature=related

In that I see hounds getting a stag at bay, then huntsmen getting the hounds back while they dispatch the stag. The stag certainly wasn't 'torn apart' by hounds at any stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIV7bdnvMrw

for dog lovers to think this sport is humane is quite shocking.
Many of the hunts hounds suffer severe wounds too.

In none except the last is there any dogs tearing at the animal.  The huntsman get in there first.

Not sure if the deer isn't already dead in the last clip, could be that they had difficulty getting there quickly enough. 

After all the hunters want the Deer in one piece for the table, the dogs may get some too.

I don't understand why they need a pack rather than a single or couple of dogs as they do when using my breed in Scandinavia, could be the more open terrain needs more dogs.

Deer need to be controlled and culled, as they no longer have natural predators in UK, unless you count the predation of newborns by foxes.

each to their own opinion if they find hunting with dogs acceptable.
I do not.
You could argue that many of the clips do not show the "end".
What they clearly show is the stress deer are put under.
I am not against culling where appropriate, but trained marksman/game keepers would be my choice

Well I can see in the first clip that for at least 11 seconds the dogs are surrounding and pulling at the stags head, and then its actually not that clear what they are doing whilst the "professionals" struggle to get to the deer.

Surrounding, yes - just as nature decrees a pack of wolves would surround the deer they hunt. The difference is that in the wild the wolves would take many minutes biting and tearing at the deer whereas in the controlled hunting environment they're very quickly removed and stand back while the deer is killed by a human, very quickly - in this case most likely using a captive bolt killer.

Having seen the disastrous attempts by supposedly trained marksmen at killing tame farm livestock during the foot and mouth outbreak, this method is very much quicker for the animal concrned.

each to their own

> each to their own

but that's the point, the hunting ban does not allow that, it is the urban majority that have decreed that hunting offends their sensibilities, and that no-one else should do it.

Perhaps not JG - because I did say tongue in cheek - bring back hunting.  I suppose it did invite a discussion on culling fox numbers.   Shooting is all well and good as long as someone is a good shot and kills the fox outright - the most humane way I suppose.  However trapping a fox and then putting it down leaves a fox in a trap in fear until it is found - Is that humane?  I know many people think that foxes should live alongside us because we are taking away their habitat.  At least hunting preserved that - and gave the fox a reason to be wary of humans.  We can't have foxes roaming around our homes any more than we can have stray dogs.  I know that everyone laughed the other day at the report that children were kept in because a fox had been seen in the grounds.  In this morning's paper a child was bitten by a fox that was living in the grounds of the school/ nursery. 
And on another point - re; the story of the man who found a fox in his house that went on the rampage - you don't want to face a squirrel in your home either - they can get pretty nasty too and cause a lot of damage.

Goodness I got left behind with that discussion because I took too long replying

> decreed that hunting offends their sensibilities, and that no-one else should do it.

~And that the people who ride after the hunt are crazed blood seekers when most of them are youngsters who are there for an exciting ride across the countryside and never see fox or even the hounds! 

>However trapping a fox and then putting it down leaves a fox in a trap in fear until it is found - Is that humane?

Not in my view - traps need only be checked every 24 hours, and that's a very long time of terror for a wild creature.

>I know that everyone laughed the other day at the report that children were kept in because a fox had been seen in the grounds.  In this morning's paper a child was bitten by a fox that was living in the grounds of the school/ nursery. 

Exactly - foxes must be discouraged from coming anywhere near humans - to retain their wildness - for their own good and their own survival.

Oh for heavens sake - I cannot believe that people still make links between fox hunting and the controlling of fox numbers. They do NOT control the number of foxes. It is a sport which people partake in for "fun" with previous propaganda of "controlling". The fact that this is a sport and not a method of successfully controlling numbers is now held by most (and the findings of a 2002 study by Bristol University). So, please, let's not pretend that this is anything more than "fun".

There is NO need to control numbers of animals with the use of hounds. It is outdated, unnecessary and inhumane.

> people still make links between fox hunting and the controlling of fox numbers

Colliecrew - that is what I have been brought up to believe - from farmers and country people.  I always thought that a farmer would ask the hunt to come onto his land.  You have livestock you say - so maybe you are the right person to ask - does anyone control the numbers of foxes in your area?  How do they do it if they have to? 
I used to have sheep in the fields around me but since the farmer sold up the fields have been used for very little.   I remember years ago seeing fox cubs tumbling down the hillside behind my house and feeling priviledged to see them.  In recent years the fox has taken to coming into the garden and sitting there as if he owns it - in spite of me having a dog in the house.  From catching a glimpse of a fox very occasionally they are now common.  My son has to make sure both his cats are indoors every night after one was attacked as it sat on the window sill waiting to be let in.    

The estate on which I live and rent land from is a shooting estate (pheasant and partridge). So, the gamekeeper does carry out culling of both fox and deer to control numbers. I have to admit though, I perhaps only see him lamping for fox two or three times a year.

I live in North East Scotland and fox hunting has never been carried out within the region I stay. In fact, the only region of Scotland where regular hunts took place were in the Border region. From recollection, irregular fox hunting was carried out in an area in Fife (more central). It is simply not an effective way to control numbers. More importantly, it is not humane.

I rarely see fox here. Funnily though, I did watch one very early in the morning last week pouncing on mice in the field in front of the cottage :) Wonderful!

I have utmost respect for the gamekeeper who works this estate. He has an amazing respect for the wildlife that lives here and would be appalled for any animal to suffer in an inhumane way. He carries out his job efficiently and has a strong conservation ethos that drives the work he does. The estate have invested thousands of pounds to plant hedgerow to encourage wild birds and feeders designed for red squirrels. The gamekeeper works with the local school and he provides "tours" of the estate to show children the wildlife and plants and how they can enjoy this by respecting countryside codes.

It honestly devastates me that people still believe that hunting with hounds is humane and serves any purpose to the management of our countryside. Each person on this forum shows an amazing commitment to their dogs but, sadly (and not just from this thread) some have shown a lack of respect for our wildlife.

I am not some airy fairy sensitive fool with no understanding of the countryside. I live and breathe country life. It's my life, my income...my very being. Perhaps that's why I respect it so.

> it is the urban majority that have decreed that hunting offends their sensibilities, and that no-one else should do it.

I live in the countryside and so do most of my friends. They are all against hunting with dogs.
I also live on an estate where we have a well trained game keeper who is very into conservation. I often hear him at night shooting. A much more humane method.

>I often hear him at night shooting. A much more humane method.

There's no guarantee that shooting will kill something outright, especially at night. Being peppered with shot and allowed to die of gangrene several days later isn't my idea of a humane death. But as you say, each to their own.

> A much more humane method.

How is it more humane?  If he misses how does he track the wounded animal?  A dog has a nose, and can track the wounded game.

In Scandinavian countries a trained dog must go on hunts not only to track the game in the first place but also to track any wounded animal so it does not suffer a lingering death.

The dog/hound replaces the natural predator when working for us.

Being peppered with shot

Not true. In line with BASC codes, a gamekeeper will only take a shot when they can be assured of a clean and safe kill. I have 100% confidence that the gamekeeper on this estate works fully in line with these good practice codes. This isn't the scenario of a man shooting wildly in the hope one of the shots will kill the fox!!

However, why is this even a debate? Fox hunting does not control the fox population! Perhaps it would be wise to read the studies (independent studies) around this before championing a hunt! Unless, of course, it's acceptable to hunt down one fox for the pleasure of man?

And please, don't liken hounds chasing deer/fox to being predated by a pack of wolves. I'm sure I don't need to point out that we don't have wolves in this country and, as such, our fox population (as our largest predator and therefore only predated by humans) are not attuned to the "chase".

I am very concerned about wildlife - and I hate to see animals being killed unnecessarily.  I live in a semi-rural area with bits of land being owned by different people - most of it around me is not managed at all now since our local land owner (sort of farmer) gave up - probabally a reason why I see the fox more often.  But we do get many folks who go hunting as a sport - your game-keeper would call them poachers!  Too many people have air-rifles, ferrets, lurchers and terriers.  You are lucky that you live in a well managed environment - I don't. It does concern me that a fox can come into my garden and sit calmly and look at me at the kitchen window.  The hunt was the only thing that seemed to spell control around here that is why I cling to that 'misconception' I suppose.  I don't know what the answer is.

> And please, don't liken hounds chasing deer/fox to being predated by a pack of wolves

Hunting in an emotive subject. Could you please explain the above?

All dogs I believed to be classed as hounds until we brought them inside as pets. It is their nature to chase/hunt and bring down an animal if they can, if we didn't feed them how do you think they would feed - yes scavange like the fox and kill when the opportunity arises.

Having seen the results of a fox in a chicken run, I don't believe that they kill only for food.

>> I remember as a teenager, stepping out of my front door to go to school. A cute little fox cub ran accross my shoe!!! A farm hand was trying to catch him. The cub had been orphaned by the local hunt, so was taken to the farm (by the hunt) to be raised & then released back to where he was found......
> really? how odd. hunts dont hunt once there are cubs of orphanable age!

Hmmm, many hunts hunt to April. January is the foxs mating month (gestation period of approx 52 days) with March being the peak cubbing month.

With cubs being born in March, how can they not be of 'orphanable age' ?

Lacy

When an animal lives in an environment whereby it is predated, it will hone and tune skills to avoid such predation (survival). Someone made the point that being hunted down by hounds on a hunt is no different to being hunted down by a pack of wolves. I am not making the comparison between dogs and wolves..I am making the comparison that in this country fox is not chased down by a pack of wolves and therefore has not honed such skills in survival.

Having seen the results of a fox in a chicken run, I don't believe that they kill only for food.

Then why else do they kill? A fox will kill when opportunity arises and return to that kill for food at a later time. A chicken run is one huge opportunity.

>And please, don't liken hounds chasing deer/fox to being predated by a pack of wolves. I'm sure I don't need to point out that we don't have wolves in this country and, as such, our fox population (as our largest predator and therefore only predated by humans) are not attuned to the "chase".

It's an exact analogy - the only difference being that the wolves would eat the carcase and the hounds dont.

We don't have wolves in this country any more, but we did up until the 16th/17 century, and they were the natural predator of the deer. Since they've been eradicated it's essential that we take over the role to maintain the natural balance. Foxes were believed to be predated on by wolves, and again, the hound is the logical alternative, although there is evidence that badgers (our largest predator, not the fox) will take cubs.

>In line with BASC codes, a gamekeeper will only take a shot when they can be assured of a clean and safe kill. I have 100% confidence that the gamekeeper on this estate works fully in line with these good practice codes.

Absolutely, but the majority of farmers don't employ a gamekeeper, and in the absence of being able to call out the hunt to deal with problem foxes as they used to will use their own shotguns themselves.

> There's no guarantee that shooting will kill something outright, especially at night. Being peppered with shot and allowed to die of gangrene several days later isn't my idea of a humane death. But as you say, each to their own.

you say this

> Absolutely, but the majority of farmers don't employ a gamekeeper, and in the absence of being able to call out the hunt to deal with problem foxes as they used to will use their own shotguns themselves.

then you say this?

well if you read my previous post you will see that I live on an estate with a trained GAMEKEEPER

I have little doubt that in the dim and distant past foxes were predated by wolves in this country. However, how can you equate weekly/fortnightly/monthly hunts with a natural food chain? It's ludicrous!!

I don't know how many times I have said this now - there is NO study that shows hunting with hounds as being an effective manner of controlling fox numbers! It's the exact opposite. It is NOT effective. Why then, do people insist on putting forward this propaganda of hunting performing something beneficial to countryside management?!!

As for farmers...I don't know a single farmer who culls deer or fox. Given that I am involved in contract shepherding for other livestock owners, I think I come into contact with enough farmers to say that with a degree of confidence.

However, I'm sure that there are some livestock owners who do shoot fox (I've seen someone say they do on this forum). In the circles I work, this is not the norm. Whilst it may make a case for tighter gun control laws (ooooh lets not open that can of worms eh?!) it does not make the case for hunting with hounds being effective.

>> There's no guarantee that shooting will kill something outright, especially at night. Being peppered with shot and allowed to die of gangrene several days later isn't my idea of a humane death. But as you say, each to their own.
>you say this

>> Absolutely, but the majority of farmers don't employ a gamekeeper, and in the absence of being able to call out the hunt to deal with problem foxes as they used to will use their own shotguns themselves.
>then you say this?

The two statements follow logically. If farmers are unable to call out the hunt to deal with a problem they'll deal with it themselves - and their method is unlikely to be as quick or effective. For a humane kill foxes should only be shot by rifles - which most farmers don't possess because of the must stricter laws.

>if you read my previous post you will see that I live on an estate with a trained GAMEKEEPER

Your situation is exceptional. The majority of landowners don't have gamekeepers.

>As for farmers...I don't know a single farmer who culls deer or fox.

I know plenty, so we'll have to agree to differ.

No Jean genie, since you are replying to MY post, you are assuming that I prefer foxes to be shot badly and die slowly.
Personally, I am absolutely against hunting as to me it is a sport and nothing more. As for shooting, it occurs on our estate by a trained gamekeeper.

Again, the whole point of fox hunting being ineffective is missed.

Gosh, you must wonder how any area of Scotland north of Fife have managed to control numbers given there has never been hunting with hounds in these areas. Of course, we are full of farmers roaming around shooting wildly at foxes and deer in the hope one of our shots kill them.

There is actually growing evidence that foxes control their own numbers naturally. However, let's not go there. It's hard enough trying to get people to see past propaganda, look at independent studies and see that hunting with hounds is nothing more than a "sport".

So what is wrong with it being a sport.  If it is so inefficient and so few foxes get caught anyway??

Shooting of hand reared game birds is still allowed, which to me seems far worse, especially as you can't guarantee the competence of teh shooter.

>you are assuming that I prefer foxes to be shot badly and die slowly.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out that the chance of a fox being injured and suffering a long-drawn out death from shooting is substantially higher than a fox being injured and suffering a long-drawn out death by the hunt. To prefer shooting is logically to prefer that risk.

Snaring is still legal, of course, and another option open for their control, but that's guaranteed to cause avoidable suffering.

This is absolutely futile.

agree

Me too. :-)

> Again, the whole point of fox hunting being ineffective

Wether it is ineffective or effective, I have no problem with hunting with hounds. A trap or a lousy shot with a gun for me is the greater evil.

Anything that involves an 'ism' will always invoke bitterness, anger and hatred.  Hunting was/is another example of an 'ism' and although they'll never admit it, a big reason the anti's wanted it banned was because they just despised the people that took part in it because, of course, they were all posh, cruel, lunatics who liked racing round the country on horses.  So many jumped on that bandwagon and then too many of the general public bought it. 

Anybody that has actually 'lived' hunting, shooting and actually seen (not on youtube) all the methods of animal control, both honourable and not so should be aware there are pros and cons to all methods but each had/has there own place.

Not every practice suits every part of the country or all types of terrain.  I've lived both in the South where it can be flat or rolling and in deepest, wildest Scotland.  One is more heavily populated and accessible, one is not.  Lamping is an excellent form of fox control and relatively straight forward (apart from avoiding human occupance) in most parts of the UK but there are huge swathes that due to the terrain, make it nigh on impossible to cover the area with the limited man/gun power.  When a farmer has lost lambs and wants a fox sorting out, more often than not in Northern England he would call out the hunt as they can pick up a cold scent in the morning and track it whereby a man and a gun wouldn't know where to start.  In other parts of the UK, this could possible be sorted out quite quickly lamping that night.

I've seen problem foxes shot within hours and the problem sorted.  I've seen foxes shot by competent, confident shots where they've not killed the animal outright and it's run on - not nice.  I've been hunting for years, I don't ride, I don't drink port and I don't wear a scarlet coat and top hat.  I support because I believe it has it's place, it doesn't (or NEVER has in my exeprience) maimed without killing and a hunted fox is not the overly stressed animal it's portrayed to be.  A truly wild fox will run and run from anything, not just a pack of hounds.  No it's not the most efficient form of fox control, the hunting fraternity never said it was but there isn't one perfect way and since it's been banned more and more foxes have been shot instead and that is far from necessarily the best thing.

Oh and another thing, hunting is beneficial to the countryside actually as on three estates I've lived on, grass rides, field margins and hedges have been left for hunting which may have otherwsie been torn up for farming, everybody surely knows they benefit wildlife no end.  And obviously it brings it plenty of money to the community, i.e. livery yards, saddlerys, farriers, feed suppliers etc etc  And provides jobs.

As for the child at the school injured by foxes... Hard to believe but I'm a country girl ;)  but that is the problem, this cute fluffy animal image is what's caused this.  They left the foxes alone as they thought they would do no harm (and they were a cute novelty)... I'm sure if it had been a rat colony or hornets nest they would have been well gone, but of course rats don't have the same rights as foxes as they're not cute ;)

Oh, and plenty of farmers shoot foxes and deer when they feel the need to.

Good post Molezak! 

> Shooting of hand reared game birds is still allowed,

Yes Barbara - I have often seen large numbers of pheasants just sitting around in a most unnatural way - talk about a sitting duck!

a big reason the anti's wanted it banned was because they just despised the people that took part in it because, of course, they were all posh, cruel, lunatics who liked racing round the country on horses.  So many jumped on that bandwagon and then too many of the general public bought it.

Perhaps so. However, I do consider myself to be able to make informed choices based on my lifestyle and experiences.

I will not debate this any longer. The studies are available if people wish to read independent views (and not from someone/a group of people with a vested interest in hunting) on the subject of the effectiveness of hunts. Of course, you are quite entitled to champion hunts based on outdated and unproven beliefs.

Luckily, the masses don't view it in quite the same way :)

> Luckily, the masses don't view it in quite the same way :-)

but the masses don't have to hunt if they don't want to, but why ban others from doing so. What happened to freedom of choice, bearing in mind that foxes are not endangered and are often at pest levels. 

If it isn't the most effective way of controlling foxes, so what, and people get enjoyment from riding after hounds, what's the problem? 

Lots of people earnt a living connected to hunting, from stables, to tack, to pub landlords, farriers etc, an often vital part of the rural economy.  Hunts also provided a service by removign fallen stock, which made up part of the hounds diet..

Thankyou Colliecrew for your views - this is an emotive subject but the debate has continued in a reasonable manner and I have been interested in hearing from someone who is at the sharp end of things who does not support hunting. 

colliecrew

Your quote: >I do consider myself to be able to make informed choices based on my lifestyle and experiences

When you choose to debate issues, such as hunting, online and in a forum where very few of us know each other, it's important to accept that each person brings a different point of view and that others are equally entitled to make choices that are informed by their lifestyle and their experiences.  Those choices are no less valid than your than your own, even if you disagree with them.

I think we've been here before with the pet bunny debate and once again you are announcing your intention to leave the discussion, whilst not quite actually departing, and whilst denouncing many of the participants for their outdated and unproven beliefs.

There's no need to be so high handed.  If you genuinely hope to educate and inform then I for one would prefer not to be spoken down to.  Do I agree with your point of view?  In the main no: although there are one or two points I'd be willing to explore further.  Do I support your right to have an opinion different to mine?  Absolutely :)    ...and don't forget you don't need to 'win' every debate - you just need a winning way of dealing with people!

Thanks ceejay :)

and thanks dog-a-babe for your mini character dissection :)

Just lovely :)

> Lots of people earnt a living connected to hunting

Well they did!  I know there is something called drag hunting?  Is that right? I don't know if any hunts carried on doing that - never hear anything.  However we certainly don't have less horse owners then before - people still ride, so the farriers get plenty of work. 

The meet was a spectacle though - all the horses with the hounds milling around - it has gone.

Oh and going back to the raising of game birds for shooting - another case is stocking the river with fish so that they can be fished out again - as soon as the fish have been released the fishermen are there trying to catch them - that doesn't seem quite fair on the fish either!