Why would it not be acceptable to control foxes in the towns? Whats NOT acceptable is catching them and releasing them into the countryside!

"staving"? Hounds are not starved - they are fed on fallen stock that the Hunt collects for farmers.

Well then what exactly was the point of traditional hunting ?- if it was really to control a 'pest' population then this new method seems much more efficient - opps silly me the whole point of tradional hunting was never about fox control but about having a fun day out - the longer that the poor animal could run the more 'fun' it was - no wonder the hunters are so dissatisfied with such a quick and efficient method of controlling numbers (bet they still go along to watch though !!).

And another point - hands up all those who have taken part in seal hunting ? no ? - bet you all think it's wrong though  and Badger baiting ? otter hunting? all animals which are regarded as pests by some - you do NOT have to take part in an activity to 'understand' that it is wrong.

How can you defend your 'right' to have fun at the expense of another creatures suffering ?

I would say that traditional hunts controlled the population - but now they are so much more efficient they are killing more and more foxes - meaning they could eventually over-control it.

I'd also take issue with you saying its quick by being shot at the end - I would imagine that is dependent on how accurately the fox was hit.

You know what - I'm not interested in talking to you any more regarding this - I shall ignore your posts in future - its a fuitless waste of time for me, and frankly, its boring.

I used to be very 'anti hunt', now, I can see the argument for hunting, but, it took me listening to another person to make me see the con's on stopping hunting with dogs.

Where I live, I'm over run with foxes. I'm sick of finding my rubbish strewn over my front garden (and I have a wheelybin), been kept awake at night because of the noise they make.

As Chloe has pointed out, what happens if the fox is only injured and not killed? Does that still make it humane? All that happens is the fox crawls off somewhere to die a very slow death.

Talking of wheelibins - our local ratty "friends" have worked out how to get in and out of our wheelie bins LOL

Jon was out doing the horses in the dark and he heard a scrabbling. Every time he flashed the torch on the bin the scrabbling stopped. As he walked toward the bin the lid lifted up and up popped a head and 2 lickle paws. Man & rat sized each other up before the rat jumped out and legged it.

I now have visions of them pumping iron to build their muscles and one holding the lid up whilst t'other jumps in :D :D

Lol. I haven't had rats yet, which I'm grateful for as the only rats that are seen near to me are the huge water rats.

If I saw one of those, I think I'd leave them to it.

Is that me personally or just anyone who disagrees with you ?

Trevor - I am always up for a good discussion but when the same points are being raised on both sides time and time again with no middle ground being met - whats the point? I'd rather just agree to disagree :)

Quite right Trevor.

What I find most galling here is the band of supporters who are ready to blatantly disregard the law just because it doesn't suit them.  How high-handed and arrogant is that?  A hunt entered my neighbours land last year -  well the hounds did and ponies were in the field result ing in  mayhem!  If hounds ever come in my land they'll get out quicker than when they went in or not get out at al.

>If hounds ever come in my land they'll get out quicker than when they went in or not get out at al.

There speaks a true animal-lover. Says it all, really. :rolleyes:

But JG ...the hounds aren't red and fluffy and cute ;) :D

Neither are the foxes Mel, or at least the one's round here aren't :D

Not here either but it is the only reason I could think of why someone would threaten to kill dogs like that :( (I am assuming here that *not get out at all* is a threat to kill them?

:rolleyes: Wow this topic is boring as hell now! 'im right' 'NO im right' ' NOOO IM RIGHT' 'NO NO NO IM RIGHT' ' I dont think so..... IM RIGHT'

Well thats a helpful post too Zoe :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

I always thought by joining a dog forum it was because you liked dogs. Didn't realise it included threatening them :-(

Yup :( PLUS they are only doing what they are bred to do

Man has hunted with dogs since the beginning of time, why's there a problem now?

OMG it was a joke Mel. Blimey!

Really? I saw it as a dig at a post that I made that wasn't even addressed to you.

You saw wrong then. Im not digging anyone, just thought it needed lightening up ALL OF IT because there was like 3/4 posts on the same flipping subject over the past week.

Well why read it then? :D If there is a subject that I don't like here on CD I just don't bother reading it ;)

Yer Mel cos you have never made any snide comments before for a JOKE? even when not answering properly? Forget it, I apologie for opening my trap it will not happen again unless I have something extremely helpful to add :)

Zoe love...yes I have made comments as a joke ...but I will always put a SMILEY ;) It shows it is a joke :)

YER honey :p but I didnt realise that a rolleys was always a serious one, it aint in my world lol (btw that :p is not meant in a bad way) nor this>>> ;)

Usually the rolleyes is a *sarky* smilie ...but if you think it shows its a joke, tell me why you didn't think MY comment to you was a joke? I put the same smilie as you did ;) :D

Oh and I have been on the net long enough to know that ;) and :p are not meant in a bad way :D

lol ok ok I give in im sorry, to chloeH too...my bad!

I agree the subject has been done to death though :D  even *I* am bored of it! :D

Me threee :D :D :D

Zoe ..how am I supposed to tell that it was a joke? There was only the rolleyes smilie, nothing else. I am a lot of things, mind reader ain't one of them ;)

Because you have been here longer than most and should realise not to jump down someones throat without asking 1st :)

She's supposed to ask if a post is a joke before responding??

Erm ...if you think *that* was jumping down your throat Zoe you haven't seen too many posts on here have you? ;) I simply said that your post wasn't helpful, nothing more and nothing less

LOL WOW!

JG

Anyone trespassing on my land will not be made welcome - they have no right to be there.  Moving them off is no indication of not being an animal lover neither is keeping them in until the fox escapes but then here we go again twisting what is said to make out it's something else.   Reminds me of those who think the ban on hunting foxes with dogs is all about a class war.

If hounds ever come in my land they'll get out quicker than when they went in or not get out at al.

Direct quote from your post Suzique...no twisting involved. Please explain what you meant by ' or not at all ' ?

Look at the response to JG

Your post referred to hounds on your land, suzique, not people. What are you threatening to do to them?

It doesn't answer my question. I am happy to apologise if you didn't mean you would kill the dogs but I am having a hard job finding another explaination at the moment

Melodysk

Then start apologising!! 

Nowhere in my post was there any suggestion that the hounds would be in any way harmed, injured or killed, that is a massive and incorrect assumption on the part of JG and you.

If hounds cane onto my land there are several things I would do
a) drive them off
b) pen them in and confiscate them (they are on my land!!) possession is nine tenths of the law!
c) if they had damaged livestock I would pen them in a call the police to confiscate them under the Dog Act (not DDA) which deals with dogs on private land where they had no right to be.   Under this law the penalties are similar to the DDA and the law would do as it saw fit. 

Whether hunting with dogs is banned or not, under the law of trespass neither huntsmen or hounds have a right to enter my land and I would use whatever law it took to deter or detain them.

You should be very, very careful when you start jumping to conclusions and making ill judged assumptions about people.  After all, there are other laws in place which can be used - libel and slander come to mind.

>b) pen them in and confiscate them (they are on my land!!) possession is nine tenths of the law!

So you'd steal them?

Why say "they wouldn't get out at all" if you meant they'd be released later? The two statements are entirely incompatible. We give you the credit for saying what you mean (and meaning what you say) but it turns out you don't at all ... why should anyone believe anything?

JG

How could I steal what arrived without my prior knowledge or permission?   But I would confiscate them until the law arrived. 

Don't you use figures of speech which you don't expect to be taken literally?  Be honest now JG.

It is obvious here that all you are doing is trying desperately to score points.  Now you are implying that I am a liar and nothing I say can be taken as true.  Really JG, you are scraping the barrel now.

If a person keeps what doesn't belong to them it is stealing. That's quite simple. If it is returned, all well and good. If it isn't returned ("they won't get out at all") ...

I'm delighted to hear that you wouldn't harm them. Thank you for the reassurance that you aren't like the protesters I witnessed hitting hounds with large sticks and whips, and scattering broken glass around their feet.

I apologise for thinking you might be the same as those evil people. I'm sure you wouldn't want an apology for my believing what you wrote.
:)

JG

But not releasing them does NOT imply that they would be harmed or killed and that is what Melodysk stated I'd do and you implied.  NEVER in anything I said did I give room for this interpretation to arise.  These are the assumptions you made and they are unfounded. There is no ambiguity except in your head - I have explained what I meant and still you refuse to accept it so nothing can be gained from going over this further.  This is my last word on the subject.

 

I will apologise to you then with no worries . I don't believe that I jumped to conclusions however Suzique, if you make ambiguous statements and are asked about it then I think that is a fair call :)

Threatening with libel (as I haven't spoken to you it isn't slander ;) ) is really not relevant in this case, I had to ask you to clear the ambiguity up twice before you did :)

Melodysk

Apology accepted.  Our last posts crossed over in the writing.  Sorry!

To be honest Suzique the laws of trespass are very vague and probably wouldn't be of any use to you in this instance, unless fences were damaged and there were witnesses to that effect.

Sorry the laws on trespass are NOT vague Trespass by humans is now a criminal offence

& dogs can trespass no mention of hounds but gundogs are covered by the law & Hounds come under the other dogs part according to my barrister

The law says that you should never send your dog over the boundary of your shoot, unless you have permission of the owner of that land.  In other words, if you shoot a bird in the air over your own shoot and that bird, dead or wounded, finally lands over the boundary, it cannot be retrieved by you or your dog without the risk of committing and having an action brought against you for trespass, unless you have obtained permission from the owner of that ground.  The same applies in the case of a rabbit or a deer.

Now comes the tricky part.  If you, as the owner of the dog, send your dog onto the land of another without permission, a trespass is committed(sending the hounds on whilst hunting is covered by this).  If, on the other hand, your dogs strays over the boundary of 'its own accord' then the owner, under civil law, is not responsible for trespass!

This situation is a problem which is usually well recognised by those who shoot and they will normally take the necessary precaution of making sure that they have the required permission from adjoining landowners before shooting.  This in turn means that they can be confident about 'bringing to bag' everything that they shoot and they can comply with the unwritten law about immediately following up any quarry which is wounded so that it can be quickly and humanely despatched.

Owners of dogs which are not used for shooting should be aware that actions for trespass can be brought if they allow their pet to wander onto land where they may disturb game and the owner or occupier of the land has the right to physically remove a trespasser using ''as much force as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances''.

Melodysk

Just as a footnote to this I would say that it never entered my head to inflict harm to any animal and naively I didn't expect anyone else to think this either.  I have been posting on this forum long enough for people to be aware of where I stand regarding the rights and welfare of animals.

I think both you and JG took a really cheap nasty shot in what you implied and you should retract what you said without question.