A stag dispatched in less than 30 seconds once it has stopped.
We have to leave people to die suffering and in pain for months and months.
I cant see whats the problem with the stag hunt :(
Puttimng live chickens in boxes in a lorry then people putting chickens on a conveyor belt by their legs and electrocuting them in a bath of water with electric current running through it is more stressfull than a hunt!!!! And yes, I still eat chickens even knowing how they are killed!!!!
Lea :)

Quote >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

You are dealing with living things NOTHING is 100% guarunteed. You cant even garuntee a clean shot with a clean shot on a NON moving target. Game keepers are trained YES, they wont do a half shot NO, but they are human YES and the animals can move!!!!!! They dont stand there when the game keeper says so and go hey look at me, shoot me. They move. There is no guaruntee that they will hit. I know some top Archery people and even THEY miss the PAPER target sometimes!!!!! And dont get the gold(bullseye) everytime.
Game keepers are only human. they miss more times than you think, because they are HUMAN!!!
Lea :)

Shooting of foxes, snaring and trapping all went on even when the hunt was legal. My preferred method is to leave alone completely. But this is never going to happen.

> Shooting of foxes, snaring and trapping all went on even when the hunt was legal. My preferred method is to leave alone completely. But this is never going to happen.

Thankfully!

thankfully the hunting with dogs is banned

> They dont stand there when the game keeper says so and go hey look at me, shoot me. They move. There is no guaruntee that they will hit.

This thread started after a fox was bold enough to walk into somebodys home, climb the stairs and attack two babies. There have been several posters testifying to the fact that urban foxes are getting bolder - to the point of not running away when they see people walking DOGS - the foxes will stand thier ground. These foxes can be got very close to by a person with a gun, surely people using guns to kill are not poor enough as to miss a target infront of them?
The hunt is not needed to chase these urban foxes, they are getting thierself within arms length of the public, plenty close enough to be shot cleanly.

I don't know why the fox's need to be killed by the hunt or otherwise, but it seems glaringly obvious that if these urban foxes are a 'problem' then shooting them can be done humanely.

It is also leagal for the hunt to use 2 dogs to flush out a fox in order for it to be shot so the argument that a  gunman can't follow the trail like a dog can is irrelivant. The hunt have not stopped, they just have a few more rules to stick to & my local hunt for one still has thier hounds.

>it seems glaringly obvious that if these urban foxes are a 'problem' then shooting them can be done humanely.

It's illegal to shoot in most urban areas!

> It's illegal to shoot in most urban areas!

Not with the land owners permission.

>> It's illegal to shoot in most urban areas!
>Not with the land owners permission.

I think you'd still be on a sticky wicket...

I don't believe foxes are classified as vermin - so you have fewer rights regarding disposal
I'm fairly sure there are laws about discharging a weapon with range of a public highway (50 metres?)
Also, in a town, some gardens are so small that you'd never be far away enough from neighbours not to cause alarm and offence - you'd be highly unpopular!

>I'm fairly sure there are laws about discharging a weapon with range of a public highway (50 metres?)

It's illegal to fire a gun (or set off a firework!) within 50 feet of the centre of the public carriageway.

Well then none of the houses around here should e allowed to have firework parties, and ti gets like Beirut.

I might be wrong but I think the law is slightly more complicated than that. It is an offence to discharge any firearm within 50 feet (not metres) of the centre of a highway if someone on the carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered. My husband has had to look into this before, so if someone was to use a firearm within 50 feet of a highway and it doesn't effect anyone else it is not illegal. Not sure how "interrupted" would be interpreted if there was a problem! Then of course there is the issue of carrying a loaded weapon in a public place again not illegal but proof of lawful authority or a reasonable excuse must be given. I would have thought in some cases a small centrefire rifle with a sound moderator (sorry if im getting too technical, I know to alot of people a gun is a gun) handled by an experienced shot, shooting out of a second floor window into a garden, school playing field, closed park etc. would do the job. By far the best way to control foxes in urban areas is to trap them and then shoot with a pistol, not release them into the as some do gooders might suggest!

Quite agree, with urban foxes getting them into traps shouldn't be too hard as they are already looking for food by scavenging in human areas.  Then they can be humanely destroyed.

not release them into the as some do gooders might suggest!

Are there some advocating this? Certainly, the organisations which I am involved with who are involved in the rehabilitation of wildlife don't advocate this :)

I can't really comment on urban foxes as I have no experience at all of them. However, common sense would tell you that they wouldn't have the skills to hunt in the way rural foxes do if they have never honed such skills.

Isn't there a case though for "media-frenzy" with this urban fox situation? Fox attacks/bites are so very rare and, yet, we are seeing a public outcry of "something must be done to control these animals". How horrified would we all be if there was this level of public outcrying from dog bites which are, in comparison, far more commonplace.

I would also anticipate that bites/attacks from other animals are more common. My only experience with an animal attack was from a swan! My friend also reports daily attacks from seagulls at the moment lol!

Oh I thought this thread had run it's length!  And here we are again Colliecrew :-). 
Well I think urban foxes have equally honed hunting skills as rural ones - after all mice and rats are abundant in cities - even rabbits in the parks and roundabouts. 
Fox bites are rare thankfully but foxes entering people's homes are the main concern.  When I leave my doors open in this lovely weather I don't expect a fox to come strolling in - it is not something that had entered my head before it happened to my daughter.   There is nothing I can do to prevent this happening short of keeping all doors closed.  Dog bites are a whole different matter - humans look after dogs and can take preventative steps to stop that happening - but of course accidents do happen as in the last case in Shropshire when a bc was the offender (now I have a devil dog!!)
And as for a media-frenzy - it hasn't been in the papers that I read - and I did post this because I am concerned that this is a growing problem that needs to be addressed.   I don't want a fox thinking that I am it's best pal and come strolling in to see me. 

In the next street from me a very large fox attacked a French Bulldog one evening when the owner had let him out into the garden. The owner (who also happens to be my daughter's boss so I had the story straight from the horse's mouth) managed to get the fox off his dog by hitting out at it with a plastic garden chair. He tried just chasing the fox away but it was intent on hanging on to the dog's neck and wasn't at all bothered by the owner trying to free his dog.

The dog suffered wounds to his neck and had to be treated by a vet. The local paper ran an article on the incident and several other people then came forward to recount their experiences with the fox - those stories I can't vouch for as I do not know any of the people involved but if they are true then it would appear that there is a problem with a fox/foxes and that small domestic pets are at risk from them in my area.

Urban foxes, due to their close association with people, pets etc, are causing more and more concern in my area. I live on the outskirts of a small coastal town and very close to the countryside. We have always seen foxes around the area but in the past they have always made a hasty exit when encountering humans or dogs but that doesn't seem to be the case now. I personally believe that we are seeing far more urban foxes now due to the increasing numbers of foxes in rural areas - the lack of territories available in rural areas means that the increasing fox population has to move further and further away from rural areas in order to find new territories for them to hunt in and thus the urban areas will have more and more foxes encroaching.

Heeheee - yes, he we are again Ceejay :)

I'm not so sure that foxes would actually hunt mice and rats in cities when they have an abundance of rubbish (take aways, dust bins and people purposely feeding them (gggrrrrr)!) They will always take the easiest option and a rat ain't particularly easy nor as tasty as a kebab lol

Well, even with dogs being controlled by humans the statistics are way higher that you will be bitten by a dog...over 5000 dog bites in 08/09 compared with 2 reported fox bites.

I think the way forward is for us to change our ways. Whenever I am in town, I am appalled by the rubbish lying around. I wouldn't dare to leave rubbish lying around...not because of foxes but because of pesky rats! I don't want to encourage anything into my garden. I remember as a child going to the nearest "tip" in the days of huge piles of rubbish rather than individual skips etc. It was heaving with foxes! They will migrate to where the pickings are easiest.

> I personally believe that we are seeing far more urban foxes now due to the increasing numbers of foxes in rural areas

???

according to this link "the number of foxes has not changed after the ban on hunting"

Defra also have a report with the same conclusion.

This is very interesting and published by a local authority :)

Foxes first colonised our cities in the 1930s. At that time, land was cheap and large areas of semi-detached suburbs were built in the period leading up to World War II. This low density housing, with relatively large gardens, provided an ideal habitat for foxes and they quickly increased in numbers. From these new suburbs, foxes then colonised other, less favourable urban areas.
Most cities in southern England also have urban foxes, as do a few cities further north. For most towns and cities the fox population reached its carrying capacity (ie: the maximum number of animals the habitat will sustain) many years ago and contrary to popular belief, the population is stable, with no significant increases or decreases. There are only a few cities where fox numbers are probably still increasing and these are ones that have only recently been colonised.

Controlling urban foxes is difficult, expensive and never successful. In the past, a number of local authorities tried this, particularly in London but most have now given up any form of fox control. The problem is that foxes have been in urban areas for so long that they have reached a state of equilibrium and regulate the size of their own population. A large proportion of the foxes do not breed each year and litter sizes (average just under five) are comparatively small.

The moment you increase the mortality rate, the foxes compensate by increasing the number of vixens that breed. So you do not reduce the number of foxes in the area. What you do achieve, however, is a disruption of the fox population, so that new foxes move in to try to take over the territory of the animal that has been killed. Invariably more than one fox moves in; there are fights over the territory and hence more noise and fouling of gardens. This is because calling and scent marking with both urine and faeces are used to lay claim to a territory. On top of this, having more itinerant foxes in an area is likely to lead to more killing of pets and more general nuisance.


This relates quite nicely to something I said earlier about foxes controlling their own numbers :) This includes the rural fox.

Yes mastiff, a similar study on fox numbers was carried out following foot and mouth where hunts were suspended. There was no increase to the fox population.

> When I leave my doors open in this lovely weather I don't expect a fox to come strolling in - it is not something that had entered my head before it happened to my daughter. There is nothing I can do to prevent this happening short of keeping all doors closed.

You could try insect screens? I never leave any windows wide open that can be reached by an animal due to getting fed up with a tom cat coming in my house and spraying everwhere Those windows are left open enough to let air in, but not a cat (or a fox!). If I am in a room I will leave the windows/doors open, but then I can shoo away any unwelcome guest (a water pistol/jug of water works a treat :) ).

There is no way it would be legal (nor would I want to), for me to destroy the neighbours cats to stop them getting in my home, but there are things I can do to stop them getting in without needing to kill 'em :)

It's such a shame that as the most inteligent species on the plant, the only solution to stop unwelcome animals getting in our homes is to kill them :(

>the only solution to stop unwelcome animals getting in our homes is to kill them 

Or to remove their desire to - to make proximity to us so unpleasant that they keep away.

You know what I have found most difficult about this thread is how statements about hunting, controlling fox numbers etc can be made so defensively without any actual facts to support them :(

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.

Great post!!!!

field margins and hedges have been left for hunting which may have otherwsie been torn up for farming

Environmental Stewardship provides funding for farmers for such countryside management :)

thankfully the hunting with dogs is banned
And so is docking by anyone other than a vet and the animal must be microchipped by a vet, but it still goes on behind closed doors and DEFRA don't want to know (believe me we've tried to report illegal docking, they don't care), so what makes you think that just because its banned it still doesn't go on? Hunts still meet up and down the country, they say they are drag hunting but who's to know? Does the law even care?
The cynical part of me thinks that it was only banned to gain votes anyway, and just likc the anti-docking rule no doubt there are loop holes.

Off on a slight tangent - but are there any ways to deter foxes from coming near human habitats? Was reading on another site tonight about a chap who has a fox visiting his garden which sends his dog into barking frenzy for hours.... he's thinking of maybe using an anti-bark collar for the dog   ......surely he should be sorting the problem at source instead?

Absolutely! That's incredibly cruel to the poor dog. :-( The dog isn't the problem - it's fulfilling its traditional role as watchdog, alerting its owner to trespassers on the property. It would be wicked to punish it for that.

> Absolutely! That's incredibly cruel to the poor dog. The dog isn't the problem - it's fulfilling its traditional role as watchdog, alerting its owner to trespassers on the property. It would be wicked to punish it for that.

Totally agreed there.... what's worse is that idea came from a behaviourist he's spoken to - admittedly it was mentioned as a Last Resort - but the approach is just wrong from the start.... don't fix the dog, there must be ways of deterring foxes in the first instance.

That's just so wrong. :-( Was it Barkbusters, or someone worse?

When we kept chickens we used to make sure that, when we went away on holiday with the dogs, there was plenty of dog poo placed at strategic positions on the boundary. It seemed to work because the foxes (which we'd chase off in broad daylight) never struck while we were all away.

This site might help.

> That's just so wrong. Was it Barkbusters, or someone worse?

Don't know, but could find out. It's a forum where 'proper' behaviourists/trainers are always recommended [read: rammed down people's throats! lol], but of course people are free to do as they wish.

Does anyone know if Reynardine actually works? Of course I don't know all the background, for all I know the chap could have been throwing chicken legs in his garden for the foxes for months *roll eyes*. I have the greatest respect for foxes but like anything in life, if encouraged then  nobody has the right to moan if it gets to be a problem.

ETA: ta for the link :)

In the meantime he can always have the dog in his bedroom for a while so that he can stop it barking immediately.

> In the meantime he can always have the dog in his bedroom for a while so that he can stop it barking immediately.

Has been suggested apparently.... but the dog has been a bit freaked and they live on the ground floor. Keep the suggestions coming - with the recent news items, I think a lot of people will be searching the net for advice on how to resolve dog/fox issues or ways to discourage them.

Fox deterrence helpline:   01892 51 48 63

> field margins and hedges have been left for hunting which may have otherwsie been torn up for farming
>
> Environmental Stewardship provides funding for farmers for such countryside management :-)

We are heading slightly off topic but I think you will find that the majority of farmers/estates in lowland england that fully commit to stewardship options have an interest in Hunting, Shooting or both and are usually some way to the required points for schemes before joining.

We are heading slightly off topic but I think you will find that the majority of farmers/estates in lowland england that fully commit to stewardship options have an interest in Hunting, Shooting or both and are usually some way to the required points for schemes before joining.

I was just making the point that plenty estates are still committing to margins and hedgerows in spite of the hunting ban :) I live in Scotland, in an area where hunts never happened even prior to the ban, and am glad to see the planting of hedgerows on the increase on all estates which I contract on :) So, I don't think it was correct to say without fox hunting we may lose this :)

> Fox deterrence helpline:   01892 51 48 63

Thank you :)
I'm beginning to have more sympathy for the guy, though - I couldn't sleep last night and a friend had just finished his night shift, so we took our dogs out for a lovely moonlight walk. At 3am we discovered a fox sitting on someone's front wall screaming its head off non-stop. The house was facing a park surrounded by houses and the screams were echoing around for more than 100 metres. We sent the dogs over to politely chase him off, which they did, but he only came back and carried on screaming up & down the park and nearby streets. I felt sorry for the local residents especially if they have dogs, but I guess if this is reagular (the foxes are believed to be denning in a local garden) then maybe the dogs are used to it by now.

> I was just making the point that plenty estates are still committing to margins and hedgerows in spite of the hunting ban :-) I live in Scotland, in an area where hunts never happened even prior to the ban, and am glad to see the planting of hedgerows on the increase on all estates which I contract on :-) So, I don't think it was correct to say without fox hunting we may lose this :-)

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. 

Where does it say we will lose this? You are now seeing an increase, because there is decent money being paid. The point I was making is a lot of hunting farms and estates kept, planted, or managed hedges, woodlands, grass rides prior to the money being available. If you remember there was a time when arable farms were actually paid to take hedges out to increase productivity- those that didnt take the money were generally hunting and shooting farms.

Early 90's saw the introduction of Countryside Stewardship with the intro of Environmental Stewardship in 2005. All were set up to encourage uncropped margins, wildlife corridors and planting of hedgerows amongst other things in arable fields.

Your statement of "hunting is beneficial to the countryside" implied that a loss of hunting would see a loss of margins and hedgerows (otherwise, it wouldn't be a benefit lol)

Anyway, I digress :) It still remains my opinion (and I reckon pretty well supported by studies) that fox hunting brought no benefits whatsoever aside from a limited amount of the population having "fun".

>It still remains my opinion (and I reckon pretty well supported by studies) that fox hunting brought no benefits whatsoever aside from a limited amount of the population having "fun".

Not quite correct - it reduces the numbers by a certain amount (often by taking out the old and/or unfit foxes who wouldn't have survived long anyway) and also helped disperse the population. Both of these would actually contribute to a more healthy, if slightly less numerate, fox population, which is beneficial for both species.

it reduces the numbers by a certain amount

Not according to the studies Jeangenie. I must admit though, I have never heard hunters yet say that fox hunting is actually beneficial to the fox population by taking out old or unhealthy foxes! Foxes have a rather limited lifespan anyway - average of 2-3 years compared to 10 in captivity. I don't think foxes need human support to "disperse" the population. Just as in wolves, a less able fox will lose their territory to a more able fox. Naturally, foxes will travel a fairly large area to claim a territory and, as such, I can't see what benefit a hunt would bring to this.

I'm sorry but there really doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to support any benefits to fox hunting.

I've been drag hunting in Germany and it's great fun--it's a social day out. The only trouble I can see is that certain people would feel that they hadn't had a 'proper' day out unless animals were being killed as part of the spectacle.

If there is a compelling justification for culling animals then by all means make the argument, but pretending that fox hunting is an efficient or sensible approach to reducing numbers just doesn't stack up. Scores of people, dogs and horses running down a fox to rip it apart is barbaric and reducing the issue to one of class warfare (stereotypes of 'posh, cruel' people and the skanky antis) is conveniently sidestepping a much bigger acknowledgement of animal rights--not just for the cute furries we like, either.

After having followed this thread and looked at various websites I have to agree with colliecrew:   Found the following from a website which has already been posted on this thread:

http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/foxhunting/hunthistory.html#q6

Have taken a sentence from the above website "foxhunts killed foxes in one of two ways: roughly half were chased until they went to ground, after which they were dug out with terriers. This was particularly cruel; the underground battles between terrier and fox could be protracted..........."

What they are saying is that the Hunting Act was an Animal Welfare Issue -  it needs to be read.

Our property consists of 7 acres.  We are surrounded north, east, west and south by farmland, some arable, some wooded some grazing.   We have lived here 22 years and since foxhunting was banned we do not see any more foxes than before, this year I have only see a fox once.  As we walked across the fields early morning he saw us and sat down in the long grass, the dogs did not wind him, and as soon as we passed by he was up and away.  We see far more badgers, and even see the deer more often than a fox, especially in the autumn when they enter the orchard to eat the windfalls.  The wildlife here has ticked over all these years with very little human intervention, a few wood pigeon, a few pheasant, buzzards that nest in the tall beech trees - the occasional fox passing through, badgers that have a set in the woods, the only time that we get over-run with wildlife is roughly every 3-4 years and that is the rabbits, my daughter calls it 'watership down'.  We then have to have someone in to cull them, if we do not they contract myxamotosis, and that is a long protracted death.  Once a year the farmer goes lamping on his land to cull the rabbit population.

What I am trying to say is that the numbers of foxes in my area do not seem to have increased since the hunting ban, and I find it  a shame that we are unable in this day and age, to live side by side with the wildlife of the UK, without having to resort to destroying it, once gone it will be gone for ever.

I have gundogs, in the early days (when I was young)I was all for the so called 'sport' of shooting and hunting, now I fail to see the point of shooting animals for the so called pleasure of 'sport'.  I would much rather watch the ducks on the pond/river, or a few pheasant strutting about the wood and hearing their call last thing at night or early morning.   I like to hear the wood pigeons, I find it quite a peaceful sound.  And I completely fail to understand why anyone would want to raise birds in their hundreds if not thousands, then to gain pleasure by shooting them in the name of sport, I have to say that I can appreciate years ago, and I am talking a long, long time that it used to be necessary to shoot to bring home something to put in the pot but nowadays it is not necessary, so taking my logic on it is also unnecessary to hunt foxes with dogs by humans on horseback or on foot as a so-called sport, until they go to ground and then are dug out by huntsmen and the terriers are sent in.

Just my feelings and opinion about it all

>in the early days (when I was young)I was all for the so called 'sport' of shooting and hunting, now I fail to see the point of shooting animals for the so called pleasure of 'sport'.  I would much rather watch the ducks on the pond/river, or a few pheasant strutting about the wood and hearing their call last thing at night or early morning.   I like to hear the wood pigeons, I find it quite a peaceful sound.  And I completely fail to understand why anyone would want to raise birds in their hundreds if not thousands, then to gain pleasure by shooting them in the name of sport,

Because they taste nice! Our local butcher does a good trade in gamebirds; they're good free-range, organic meat. And pigeon is lovely.

>>it reduces the numbers by a certain amount
>Not according to the studies Jeangenie.

Each one killed reduces the population by one ... ;-)

I agree with you Jeangenie, game birds, pigeon, rabbit duck, grouse etc., all taste nice, but that is not reason to shoot them in their hundreds in the NAME OF SPORT, and to take pleasure from such kills.   However, for pigeon, even duck there is so little on it, it is all rather pointless for something that tastes nice - I still maintain that I would rather see them in their natural habitat, much more pleasure to be gained from that, might as well have a bar of chocolate if I want something that tastes nice :)

A pigeon has enough meat for one person, and a duck will feed three comfortably.

Not in this house it wouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is what I like to see that happens on my land to the wildlife - i.e. there is room for both us humans and the wildlife and I for one will not be doing anything to alter that.   On your land it is your choice what happens to the wildlife, shooting, hunting, trapping, all your choice and I would not interfere with that either.   Only that hunting is banned, it was banned for a health and welfare issue for the foxes, I imagine it is considered to be a barbaric and cruel sport and that is all you can call it 'sport' as it has never controlled the fox population, which is what I was trying to say in my original post,  again my opinion, to which I am entitled.

We have to agree to disagree, it is an emotive subject, and it is just my opinion, you may bring any argument that wish to this but it will not change my mind, likewise I would not dream of trying to change your views on the subject, it is your opinion and that you are entitled to, the same as I am entitled to mine.

Jeangenie

Just out of interest...did you see the part...

The moment you increase the mortality rate, the foxes compensate by increasing the number of vixens that breed. So you do not reduce the number of foxes in the area

Yes, you may temporarily take one fox out of the equation but it serves no purpose in the bigger picture of "controlling numbers".

I was reading an interesting research paper created for the Scottish parliament regarding the fox ban. Even if you go with the hunting fraternity mantra of "controlling numbers" (which research shows foxes will do themselves) and, by their figures of the number requiring culled, hunts only accounted for 1% of that number. Hardly a convincing argument (even if I ignore the fact it's flawed in the first place!).

Dogsdinner, what a beautiful and moving post and long may you continue to enjoy the wildlife which shares your land :) You are so right that people are entitled to their opinion. It just saddens me that opinions can be formed with no substance to the "why".

> Have taken a sentence from the above website "foxhunts killed foxes in one of two ways: roughly half were chased until they went to ground, after which they were dug out with terriers. This was particularly cruel; the underground battles between terrier and fox could be protracted..........."
>
>

I do love people who try and make arguments without knowing or understanding the true facts. This is where your argument falls apart, this "particularly cruel" bit is still allowed under the Hunting act. If the act was genuinely just a welfare issue surely this would have been banned and not just hunting the foxes.

> What I am trying to say is that the numbers of foxes in my area do not seem to have increased since the hunting ban, and I find it  a shame that we are unable in this day and age, to live side by side with the wildlife of the UK, without having to resort to destroying it, once gone it will be gone for ever.
>
>

Yet you have someone in to control the rabbits, why? I presume they cause you problems.

Fox numbers need managing as do other pest and predator populations (including badgers and buzzards in some areas but that is another debate). Take a look at any of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust research into predator control. On some reserves the RSPB will even control foxes (and corvids) but do not like there members to know this. As colliecrew likes to point out money is being given to farmers to improve habitat for wildlife however despite millions being spent in many areas many species are in decline. Songbirds, waders, grey partridge, hares. By the time people like you wake up to the fact the countryside does not work like you would like it to, a lot of species of waders, songbirds  and grey partridge will be gone, as you say once gone, gone for ever. Natural England are now acknowledging and working with the GWCT to produce long term policies to halt the declines- there has even been discussion about using schemes to help pay for "management" of predators.

No one who shoots or hunts/hunted foxes wants to see them totally destroyed! It is about sensible management. Yes colliecrew in some ways the population does manage itself, I would recommend anyone genuinely interested in foxes gets a copy of "Running with the Fox by David MacDonald" but you are in Scotland where the density of foxes is far less than in parts of England. However if sensible and regular culling is used on a large enough area the population can be bought down to a sensible level.

Take a look at the original Langholm Grouse Moor project. Hen Harriers were encouraged on a very productive Grouse shooting moor. Then the keepers were taken off the moor and Harrier numbers fell relatively rapidly- they are ground nesting birds.....