Just wondered what those of you who maintain that hunting is the best form of fox control think of the article in Decembers shooting times. 'Research by BASC reveals that shooting foxes will result in the near instant kill, or immediate recovery, of at least 90% of animals.
This directly contradicts the middle way group study that was flawed in many ways, and appeared to be deliberatly designed to show that shooting foxes causes high levels of wounding'
Amos

That stillleaves 10% of foxes wounded and left to a lingering death.  With hunting with hounds it is e4ither the fox gets killed or escapes.

Slightly different but to the point is the way hunting of big game occurs in Scandinavia.  Elk)moose) hunting is carried out striclty on a quota basis, and the hunters have to have a shooting competency test at the start of each season.  An expereinced dog has to be taken on the hunt to track any Moose injured, even when the dog isn't actually needed to track the moose.

Any injured animal should be tracked and killed, but I can;t see this happening when a busy farmer shoots and misses a fox.

Who says it will be the farmers who so this? And if they do I think its a bit condecending to suggest that they wont bother following up injured animals.
A full report of this study will appear in the Feb edition of Shooting and Conservation and this will include the BASC code of practice which I believe does include follow up of injured animals by tracking with dogs.
Amos

I think Brainless actually said *Busy farmers* and I think that explains it. She wasn't being condescending at all :rolleyes:

Yep that is what I meant, and of course the farmer won't know where the fox has got to (or if he completely missed it) and he won't be allowed to take his dogs to track it even if they had the ability, as this is ilegal.

If one of our dogs takes of after game on a wlk we would also be3 deemed to be breaking the law.

"follow up of injured animals by tracking with dogs"

Surely a very thin line between tracking and hunting

It depends very much what you shoot them with Amos. A fox breaking cover on a pheasant shoot and being shot at by a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with No. 7 shot is highly unlikely to be a clean kill and anything more than a few meters away. The shot is just not heavy enough to peneterate to a vital organ. Trouble is, there is just not enough time from first spotting the fox till it is too late, to unload the gun and change cartridges. You then have the problem of legality. On a driven shoot with one dog in the beating line which puts up a fox can legaly shoot at it. If between the start of the shoot and the time of the fox appearing, another beater arrives bringing with him 2 more dogs so that there are now 3 dogs in the beating line then that constitutes "Hunting With Dogs" and the guns would then be breaking the law by shooting the fox. Even if the dogs were around the other side of the shoot bringing in a hedge half a mile away at the time!

Regards, John

With regard to flushing a fox on a shoot, I thought that it worked the other way round. i.e. that you would be obliged to shoot the fox, as not to do so would be 'hunting with dogs' rather than 'flushing for shooting'. I thought that this new law would effectively end the 'no ground game' rule on many shoots.

I am very possibly wrong, but have heard this from a few people which goes to show the complications and possible confusion.

I find it hard to believe that you could find enough people that would contemplate shooting a fox with a 4.10 to get a representative set of findings.

Given modern firearms legislation it is not likely that many farmers are wandering around with loaded guns ready to take a pot-shot at any fox they happen to see. By far the majority of foxes shot will be either part of a deliberate and planned fox control exercise (either by rifle or by shotgun with adequate ammunition) or less often, shot whilst in the process of hunting another quarry - say pheasant, pigeon or rabbit.

I am confident that the level of non-fatal wounding from the former is far less than the latter. I would be more than happy to see restrictions on the ammunition that you are allowed to shoot foxes with, which would effectively eliminate many of the wounding issues.

Also slightly different but waterfowlers in Sweden are requested to have a retrieving dog with them. 

Also, when you are out lamping foxes at night it can be really hard to follow an injured one. Sometimes they will disappear onto land where there is no permission to follow them & then you have to leave them & hope they die quickly as possible :(

John,we have had this discussion before but I reiterate : I would never suggest the best place for shooting a fox is on a pheasant shoot. Any one who knows the land they are shooting will be well aware, if they have any sense, where the fox runs are and where the best place to position themselves for a safe, accurate shot are.
This study used .410's as well as 12 bores the same as the MWG study. do you dispute the findings of this BASC study??

Even if a farmer was busy why should it be assumed that he/she would leave a wounded animal? so I still maintain that is a condecending comment.

Sam, perhaps it would be worth obtaining the permission of the neighbour to track an injured animal if neccesary, I am sure that is a reasonable request that most country folk would not object to.
Amos
 

This study used .410's as well

   for a fox??
Sam, perhaps it would be worth obtaining the permission of the neighbour to track an injured animal if neccesary 

this is not always possible for a multitude of reasons such as sheep, cattle, horses, gamebirds, houses, ignorant incomers, old family feuds:-0....the list is endless!

I saw the article and yes, a 410 was mentioned!! To me, that was irrisponsible! The weight of charge and weight of shot would make almost any shot at a fox out of range. I would go as far as to say that even a shot at a pheasant is not on with a gun of this bore! A 20 is fine for Pheasant and even a 28 acceptable but a 410? No! As far as a fox is concerned there is just too much body tissue before you get to the vital organs. To shoot a Pheasant a No6 or 7 size shot is fine, Duck and you are looking at No5 and you need something like 4 for a goose. To shoot a fox you really need something around a No4 but preferably a rifle. No person should ever shoot at anything unless they honestly believe they can register a clean kill. Anything else is inhumane. We all know that no one is perfect and that even the best shots occasionally miss but to use a gun which, with the best will in the world, you are only going to get a clean kill on rare occasions is not the way to do it.

Regards, John

Interestingly there is an article in this weeks Shooting Times where the BASC, contradicting the MWG, say that the use of a 12 gauge shotgun for shooting Foxes should be loaded with a 36gram load of No1 or No3 shot and range should be 30 meters or less!

Regards, John

I am assuming here that a farmer would be shooting the fox when they happen upon it raiding his chickens or finding it amoing his lambs and not specifically out to find and shoot vewrmin.  I don't think he/she would drop what they are doing to chase of trying to see if they had hit the fox or missed it.

A friend of mine hit a deer on the road. The deer was injured beyond hope but alive and obviously in pain. The police would not do anything about it so he went to the neighbouring farm to ask the farmer if he would shoot it. The farmer said he would not waste time and ammunition on it. Can you see this farmer tracking and killing a fox that he has already mortally wounded?

bullphi
So are you saying all farmers are like this? If so then I don't think you can know many.
Amos

No - I'm just saying that, like the rest of the population, there are those who care and those who don't - you can't say that all farmers will be reponsible in making sure that animals they've shot don't suffer.

My parents hit a deer which subsequently ran off, they assumed it had been injured so called a friend of theirs who has a gun for pheasant shooting, he called his friend who lived nearer and this guy came out straight away and found the deer suffering in a field nearby so he put it out of its misery (and then chucked it in his landrover to feed to his dogs ;) )

I think you will find true farmers/people of the land do care about animals suffering but I suppose there will always be the odd one who doesnt :(

I wouldn't of fed my dogs on it!  (if you get what I mean ;-) )
Dawn.

Sorry Dawn, am I having a blonde moment because I dont get what you mean :rolleyes: :D :D

She means she would have eaten it herself.
Cissy (a brunette :D )

Spot on Cissy!  (brunette here too!)
Dawn.

Apparantly it was too mashed up for that ;)

Stew? ;)

Pate? Bambi-burgers? ;)

Bambi burgers? :D :D :D lolololol

Someone I know was driving down a road when he came upon a man who had hit a deer...the deer was very distressed and so was the man and he wanted to take the deer to the vets...

After some reassurance the man who hit the deer went off under the impression that this acquaintence of mine would dutifully take the fatally injured deer to the vets for treatment...

My acquaintance killed the deer, took it home and ate it.

The deer would actually have been far more stressed by a trip to the vet in a car, so my acquaintance, IMO did the right thing - not that I could do it!

I agree Chloe, the less handling and moving a wild animal the better, whatever its condition, and Venison is beautiful!  very healthy meat too!
Dawn.

Quite right too! Wild animals are terrified by humans handling them, and to subject them to days of terror during vet treatment is IMO inhumane.

Besides, what's wrong with free, fresh, organic venison? Yum!

A lady I know came across a man who'd run over a rabbit in his car. The man was in obvious distress, crying,etc..  The lady went to her car & came back with an aerosol which she used to spray the rabbit. After a few seconds the rabbit got up, waved, & ran off, every few yards it would stop , turn around & wave at them until is dissapeared out of sight.
The man was amazed, & asked her what it was she sprayed..... she replied, harmony hair spray, brings new life to hare, with permanent wave.... :) :)

Geoff :rolleyes:

:D :D :D

Are you sure it wasn't Hare restorer!!!!!! :D :D
Dawn.

The trouble with the larger specie of Deer is that by law you can only shoot them with a large bore rifle or a captive bolt which a lot of farmers do not have. Also police rarely have the equipment and the only option is a vet. Some police forces keep a record the phone number of a friendly Deer stalker who can be called upon in an emergency to despatch a wounded Deer. Handling RTA animals is not always easy. A friend picked up a wounded Deer from beside the road and took it to her vets. This was at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak. The vet read the riot act to her pointing out that they now had to close the surgery and disinfect before reopening!

If you ever find anything like a deer in the road, leave it alone and contact the police or a vet.

Regards, John

A friend of mine has just pointed out to me the fact that you should NOT eat roadkill Deer because of the rush of adrenaline in a frightened animal affects the meat. For human consumption the deer must be killed outright with a powerful gun. Interestingly enough, she also points out that deer bought down by dogs were not effected by adrenaline in the muscles and is fine for eating!

Regards, John

Thats interesting...does that assume the deer is not killed outright for there to be adrenalin in the blood? Assuming the deer were grazing and didn't see the car coming?

I don't know but my guess is that if the Deer had strolled out onto a road and been panicked by the traffic, had seen the car coming or was not killed instantaneously then it would have an adrenalin rush. If killed instantly without any panic I would have thought it OK to eat, but I'm not sure of my facts on this. The problem in any case is of course, knowing the exact circumstances of the death.
Regards, John

That's interesting, because it completely contradicts the theory about adrenalin tenderising the meat, which is used as a reason/excuse for torturing animals before killing them (popular in many counties :( ).

Hi John & Chloe,

"....... the more pain inflicted before death releases additional adrenaline into the soft tissue, creating a more potent medical benefit and enhancing the flavour of the meat ......."

The above is an excerpt from an article on why Koreans slowly torture captive domestic dogs before final death (they are generally skinned alive).   A lot more harrowing than an RTA obviously, but does comment on adrenalin surges and affect on flavour - although perhaps opinion on *flavour* is driven by cultural differences in this ghastly context :(

Teri   

Unfortunately I can verify what Teri says is true - this is the belief in countries where dogs are eaten either as an aphrodisiac or as a'health food'. I have been to the dog meat markets myself and the sights and sounds will stay with me for the rest of life :(

So why do Koreans kill dogs in front of other dogs
I beleive it to because the fear/adrenalin is supposed to tenderise the meat.
So surely your friend must be wrong??

or the koreans are...?

Edit: and how barbaric

Well I can tell you that roadkills and Deer bought down by dogs tastes just lovely!  No difference at all.  If we are talking fear adrenalin then there are a fair few Pigs, Sheep and Cattle going to have it in their systems too and nobody has ever questioned that!
Dawn.

I think the time between the kill, however that occurs, and bleeding and hanging the carcas will have more effect on the meat than anything else.
Amos

Imagine the adrenalin rush animals have in the slaughter house,just before they're about to get it.I would say that all animals killed in this way would be the same??

Oh my gosh those poor,poor dogs in Korea.It has brought tears to my eyes.How can this still be going on in the 21st century????

I know what you mean Rose - I literally sobbed when I first learned about it and websites which were carrying petitions to prevent it happening naturally showed some very graphic images too.  It beggars belief that this can ever have happened decades, even centuries ago, never mind being rife today   Sadly "dog farms" are a flourishing industry in Korea.

Teri

I assisted at an abbatoir (when studying meat hygiene, not for fun) a few years ago and while IMO the animals slaughtered feel little or no pain, I think they would certainly release a significant amount of adrenaline before death, as cattle are manouvered into a crush and sheep are penned in batches before being stunned, which I imagine is frightening.  I would guess that as they exsanguinate very quickly the adrenaline doesn't have a chance to enter any edible part.  I would assume that if a deer (or anything else) lives for more than a few minutes after a shock, then the meat shouldn't be eaten.  However, I'm not certain, venison may be prepared differently (isn't it up until it goes off, or did I make that up?)

My poor mother, who is generally quite squeamish, had a horrible experience last year.  She was on a walking holiday in the Scottish Highlands, in the middle of nowhere, and she hit a deer.  There was nobody around for miles so calling for help wasn't an option, but she couldn't leave the deer in pain, so she had to hit it with a car jack.  Eek!

Well said Trevor!.
In addition the shooting fraternity are all hunt supporters according to the pro hunt lobby but then all the excuses on this thread dismiss a study from BASC. Farmers are great when they let them on ther land yet are the evil people who wont be bothered to follow an injured fox or deer when it suits the arguement. The contradictions go on and on.
Amos

You misunderstand the shooting perspective, Amos. Nobody has said the farmers are evil for not following a wounded fox to dispatch it. Do you imagine every time anybody hits a creature with their car that they stop and make sure they've killed it? Or even when thet only suspect it's injured? No they don't, they carry on their journey.

The anti-gun laws mean that very few people have access to the type of weapon needed to kill a largish animal cleanly. Less powerful weapons for smaller game are much more common, so which do you think is more likely to be used?

Jeangeanie,
I dont think anyone needing a gun to shoot foxes has any trouble getting the necessary gun licence, I dont know anyone round here who has any trouble including my 14 & 16 year old sons. However I am sure there will be a few hunt supporters who now have a criminal record who may have a spot of trouble.
your other point just doesn't work either.
When somebody hits an animal in their car it is a little more difficult to track dont you think? especially as they may be someone who is dressed inher/his best suit, has children in the car, is elderley or just wouldnt have a clue how to track or dispatch an animal if they did manage to find it and without knowing the terrain alongside the road. Cant really compare that with a farmer dressed for the job on his own land carrying the correct equipment!
Amos