Not logged inChampdogs Information Exchange

None of the farmers I know, Amos, have rifles. Shotguns, yes, but a shotgun isn't appropriate for killing a fox.
And with the new 'Right to Roam' legislation I predict the use of firearms being even more severely restricted.
By Trevor
Date 03.12.04 06:26 UTC

because of 'traditions' because 'you do not understand' because' it's our way of life' because 'it's part of our rural economy ( the dog farms), because 'we should have the right to do as we please', because 'outsiders should not dictate to us' - sound familiar ? - all these are reasons given to carry on this barbaric 'tradition'. Difficult to answer when our 'civilised' nation uses the same arguements to justify it's own homegrown form of anmal abuse !! :(
But we have had some success in Korea mainly due to our education programmes in the schools there and it is now generally only the older generation in rural areas that still do this - Samsung has worked with WSPA to try and change the Koreans attitudes to dogs and many young koreans are now disgusted by the dog meat market. worryingly we have found St Bernards crossed with the Jindo ( a native breed) on the dog farms and have been told that the St Bernards are sent out as breeding stock from Europe :(

Trevor, the moment foxes are killed by being blowtorched alive by the hounds I will be right behind you to have it banned. While they are killed in the most natural way possible (the exact same way they kill their own food, and in fact the way all animal predators kill) then I see nothing wrong, and comparing the two is a nonsense.
By Teri
Date 03.12.04 12:32 UTC

Hi Jeangenie,
Whilst not agreeing with your views, I can respect the fact that you genuinely believe fox hunting by hounds to be acceptable. What I don't see as relevant is the argument that this is natural for the fox
ie. >the exact same way they kill their own food, and in fact the way all animal predators kill then I see nothing wrong, and comparing the two is a nonsense<
Foxes and other UK wildlife do not hunt their own prey in huge packs as opposed to hunts with hounds. While anti-hunt posters may not have direct comparisons on the method of kill used, neither do pro-hunters so I think it's a little highhanded to use the word *nonsense*.
There are too many personally rude remarks made on threads like this (and I know not usually by yourself ;) ) - but as has been pointed out before it's uncalled for that anyone, regardless of their views on this or similarly emotive topics, should be subjected to abusive attitudes, name calling and dismissive tones.
Regards, Teri
By Carla
Date 03.12.04 13:01 UTC
Were wolves not the natural predator of the fox and do they not hunt in packs?
By Teri
Date 03.12.04 13:17 UTC

Yes, they *were*. However they are not exactly a current probem for the UK fox ;) Also, never heard of wolf packs numerically as large as hound packs nor being accompanied by dozens of riders and wolves in the past were as you say "natural predators" - not "man made" ones.
Regards, Teri ;)
By G30ff
Date 03.12.04 13:35 UTC
Hi Teri, I agree with you re. your point about abusive remarks, etc.... no need for it whatever your opinions & beliefs... well said.
As a non smoking, pro hunting, Lurcher & terrier (undocked) owning bloke I personally feel that none of the aforementioned things should be banned, freedom of choice, if I don't want to go into a pub where people smoke I don't go, I don't like football, so I don't go, I will be out with the hunt tommorrow tho'... as I'm sure you won't be, which is fine, I repect your opinion, the problem is there are too many people who want to force their opinions on me.....
One point though, when the hounds do catch a fox, they are very rarely accompanied by dozens of riders on horseback, the riders are usually lagging a long way behind & never see anything anyway... most of 'em are out for the ride...
Geoff :)
By Wolfie
Date 03.12.04 13:45 UTC
That's if some of the riders ever get there in the first place Geoff. LOL

Wolves were & are
NOT the predators of foxes<sigh>I have friends who live in Russia where there are both Wolves & foxes Wolves hunt prey such as Deer, Caribou, Elk etc & foxes take smaller prey like rabbits, hares, prarie dogs etc
My friends are wildlife reserve wardens & have a great experience & depth of knowledge of Wolves. foxes etc
I do not know pro hunters get the idea from the wolves hunt foxes as prey.
The problem with foxes increase in killing domestic animals goes by to the introduction of Myxomatosis from France in the 1950's Farmers actively encoraged the spread to "control"the rabbit population, taking away the nature food of the fox Add to this the spread of human habitation into the countryside
I have spent a lot of time researching the natural wildlife of both this country & abroad, not from books or the internat but hands on with some of the best & most knowledgeable experts, I do wish those who quote that Foxes are the natural prey of wolves would actually research what they say & not just repeat inaccurate facts given out by the pro humting lobby
Unless you have lived where there are both species & witneeses them both hunting prey animals you cannot really make such statements

The comparison with wolves is very fair, Teri. Wolves were eradicated in the UK in the mid 1700s (I believe) and until then they were the fox's natural predator. If the top of the natural food chain is removed it needs to be replaced by something or nature becomes out of balance. A pack of hounds is, genetically and behaviourally, the closest to a pack of wolves that Man can devise. Unless you think that free-roaming wolf packs would be acceptable in the countryside?
By Teri
Date 03.12.04 15:20 UTC

Hi again ;)
I've just received email notification of a reply from a forum member which does not seem to be on the board

Don't think that I should paste it on here as she may have deleted it herself. Anyway, the gist of it is that wolves have never been the natural predator of foxes and cites this as being hearsay or misleading info.
Hopefully the post will appear as it is very informative from the poster's personal involvement and experience with wolves, foxes and other wild species.
If the data is correct, the removal of wolves from our shores has made no difference to the fox population.
As to advocating free-roaming wolf packs in the country side - certainly NOT

I assume you mean somewhere in the countryside inhabited by humans and their livestock which would obviously mean they would be eradicated again PDQ. No, wolves belong in wild, remote areas and deserve to be left at peace from mankind - something which in the UK is sadly unlikely to ever happen going by recent events :(
Teri

It was my post I keep finding my posts have been deleted & not by me so I suppose Admin have their reasons please reproduce the post
The gist of my post was
Wolves have
NEVER been the "natural"predators of wolves. I have some friends who fo many years have been wildlife wardens inRussia here both species co exist. The wolves taking the large pray species-Deer etc & the Foxes the smaller prey rabbits hares etc
I have spent a lot of time with experts & specializts in wildlife studying wild dogs & wolves & foxes & no one repeat no one has ever seen a wolf pack hunt a fox It just not happen
This "fact"of wolves being the predator of the fox is unproven in areas where the species are alive today & not things of the past it is easy to say before wolves where "controlled"to extinction the fox was there prey when there ais no evidence
This fact is touted by pro hunters to cover the real reason ie man was responsible for the reduction in rabbit numbers
"The disease Myxomatosis was used in France by a physician to control the rabbit population on his country estate near Paris. The disease spread rapidly and was accidentally brought into Britain. Some farmers have used infected rabbits to control the population on their own farms"This has now been joined by Rabbit Viral Haemorrhagic Disease try this
link again man stepping in to "control"wildlife.
At these fact to the spread of human residency into the countryside cutting down the natural territory of foxes
To Admin if you have to delete my factual postings please let me know why

I apologise if you misunderstood my use of the word 'nonsense' as a noun, Teri. It does not mean 'stupid'; it means it does not make sense; a kill by one predator is no more 'cruel' than the kill by another. It is not logical to differentiate between them: it is non-sense. It shouldn't be considered abusive in any way. Sorry if you were offended.

<Wolves were eradicated in the UK in the mid 1700s (I believe) and until then they were the fox's natural predator.>
JG
Can you please give the source of this information as I am very interested that in the UK the Wolf was the Fox's natural predator when Current studies in areas where both species are currently living do not support this idea
By John
Date 03.12.04 15:38 UTC
If you are going to talk Wolves, I guess you do know that the millionaire Paul Lister, son of the man who started MFI has announced his plan to release Wolves onto his estate just north of Inverness. He is also intending to restore an ancient pine forest with the intention of giving visitors a chance to see the Wolves. (I think the Foxes may not be so pleased!)
Regards, John

It will not bother the foxes at all as they kill smaller prey that the wolves Why would wolves kill foxes who & do exist on killing RATS & such Hmmmm perhaps it there were more foxes there would be least rats just an aside
John can you quote me the source of your belief that wolves hunt foxes
By Trevor
Date 03.12.04 16:34 UTC

my comparisons were not on the method of killing, but on the justification for continuing to do so ! - the excuses used are exactly the same - it is difficult to tell another nation that their cultural traditions involving animals are repugnant whilst continuing with our own :(

That's where we differ, Trevor - to me the manner of the killing is vitally important. I have no problem with people eating dog meat if they want to (I prefer to eat herbivores rather than carnivores); or pig meat or cow meat or fish meat or whatever. But if the manner of slaughter is inhumane then it should be outlawed - whether it takes place abroad or in this country. Many of the traditional methods of slaughtering farm animals have been banned in this country, but those of other cultures have not. I see a serious hypocrisy in this, but that's another topic entirely.
:)
By Havoc
Date 03.12.04 16:59 UTC
Trevor,
Surely that arguement could be drilled down to any occasion where someone disagrees with a certain treatment of animals.
A number of people disagree with eating meat, and others disagree with breeding pedigree dogs or even owning pets at all. It could be argued that keeping a dog as a pet involves sufficient unnatural behaviour and restrictions to constitute cruelty. It really boils down to each persons definition about what is an acceptable use / treatment of animals.
Jeangenie
With regard to the issue of wolves eating foxes, I really cant believe that wolves would have ever provided a significant pedatory influence on the fox population. Whilst I'm sure some would be killed by wolves, in a natural environment a fox would be virtually at the top of their food chain. It seem unlikley to me that foxes would provide a significant prey species for a wolf. I'm not anti hunting at all, but am less than convinced by a few of the pro-hunting arguements.

I'm not saying for a moment that wolves only ate foxes, or that all foxes were killed by wolves. The fact remains that it is natural for predators to predate. Wolves (nearer the top of the food chain than foxes) may not have had a substantial impact on the population, but it would have helped to keep the balance.
:)

You are looking at two different food chains & only in times of real difficulty would a wolve live off rabbits as they hunt as a pack & the fox hunts as an individual. There would be little if any foxes killed by wolves & they would not have helped controol the numbers.
What you are all missing is in the wild if there is no food animals starve-so if there us little food the animals do not breed-proven fact strarving humans(think of girls who starve them selves with eating disorders-one of the first things that goes in the menstrual cycle which stops or becomes irratic).
However along comes man & nice plump chickens, ducks etc & what happens ? Nasty evil Fox kills the fowl, they do not kill for sport but chickens etc panic(being a prey animal)& the fox grabs anything that is moving. Rabbits freeze in fear & also go limp & appear dead when grabbed bey a fox or dog & frequently died of heart failure Chickens on the other hand do not & fly & run around in fear. They are also prone to heart failure through fear as are many birds
Why don't one of you pro hunters take up the challenge of being the prey ? & be tracked by one Sch H II trained dog after all man is a predator & enjoys hunting & killing so should enjoy being hunted
I reviewed a book written by a very very pro hunting auther & terrier man who & I quote"hunting foxes with a terrier & gun is the most effiecient method of control", he wants hunting to be kept for the enjoyment of the hounds, horses & riders !
By Teri
Date 03.12.04 18:55 UTC

Since none of us were around in the 1700's, isn't that a bit of an assumption to make

Teri

Not at all - that's what history is all about - learning from the mistakes (or otherwise) of the past. People wrote about what was happening then, which is how we learn.
Why wouldn't wolves in the UK have an effect on the wildlife population in exactly the same way as wolves in other parts of the world?
By Teri
Date 03.12.04 19:34 UTC

In the strangely disappearing post (can't quite follow Admin on that one

it was hardly controversial) it was pointed out that wolves don't dine on fox in other parts of the world, past or present.
I guess desperation following prolonged starvation may encourage a species to add something to it's diet on occasion (such as Pandas who if truly pushed will eat the remains of animal carcass) but don't see how this affects the fox if wolves are not their natural predators.
Regards, Teri

The post may have not appeared if it was written by someone who is banned from posting for some reason.

Well I would have thought it would have been polite to tell me I am banned from giving factual information & homoeopathic information

The TV footage I've seen, of wolves hunting and killing Arctic foxes, must have been fabricated then.
By Trevor
Date 04.12.04 06:57 UTC

you are quite right Havoc - the definition of cruelty is a subjective thing - and in countries which have different attitudes to animals our condemnation of some of their practices is incomprehensible to them. BUT does this mean that we do not try and change those attitudes ? or are you saying that we should not 'interfere' in another countries traditions/cultures/economic freedoms ?.
Should we then do nothing about the 'souvenir trade in Rwanda ( gorrilla hand ashtrays etc)which is decimating the great apes there? after all the locals need the money. Should we not try and stop the practice of beating donkeys to death when they can no longer physically carry on ( common place in the poorer parts of the Middle East) Should we turn a blind eye to the rows of bears shackled in small crates with open wounds where their bile is being milked - it is after all part of China's tradition ? I do not wish to distress folk with these facts but believe me these are just the tip of a very large ice-berg.
Are you saying though that cruelty is defined by the country that it is carried out in - 'foreigners ' treatment of animals can be defined as unacceptable but our own practice of chasing and killing animals almost soley for the 'entertainment value' this gives is ok ? -
That we continue to make excuses for this is a source of shame to our so called 'civilised' country and makes it very difficult to try and change other forms of animal abuse around the world.
By Havoc
Date 06.12.04 13:07 UTC
Trevor,
You make a compelling case, and I respect your obviously heartfelt views. However my point was merely that you yourself take part in activities that some people find unacceptable (pedigree dog showing & breeding, pet keeping, meat eating?). I therefore believe that its better to treat each case on its own merits and set against the individuals value judgements rather than lumping them all together.
I usually try and save having strong opinions for things that I have a reasonable amount of personal knowledge on. I have seen the kind of mis-information that goes on (from both sides) on the hunting debate, so am not inclined to get overly worked up about what the rest of the world is allegedly doing.
My views have nothing to do with geography, and are largely based on pragmatism rather than sentimentality.
I would prefer that the Rwandans did not kill gorillas, predominantly because they are extremely endangered. If there was a harvestable surplus, and they were killed humanely I would have less issue with it. However, I find it difficult to criticise someone for finding a way of feeding a potentially starving family when I am sitting in a comfortable house, with sufficient food in an economically developed country.
Your description of the bears sounds extremely unpleasant and I intuitively dont like the sound of it, as I also dont like some of the commercial farming methods using in this country. However, I dont believe that all animal farming has to be cruel. I am well aware that we are not in a position to lecture the rest of the world, but then I'm not doing the lecturing. I wouldnt have a problem with the chinese using bears in 'agriculture' providing that they were treated humanely.
With regard to the hunting debate I am not sucked in to the points raised by either side, both sides of the argument has its flaws. I have no problem with someone enjoying hunting in the same way I have no problem enjoying a steak - both result in the death of an animal. My concern would be more that the animal had been able to live a quality life, its death was as humane as reasonable and that the future of the species or its environment was not compromised. That would be my idea of 'acceptable' wherever it occured in the world.
By John
Date 06.12.04 15:30 UTC
Well said Havoc. I agree 100%
Regards, John
By luvly
Date 07.12.04 14:25 UTC
ah but eating a steak is serving a purpose its being used for food at least .the fox isent being eaten by the hunts people its just wasted .
These people watch these animals killed could you do that with your cow before you eat it .
At least the cow will feed loads of people . the fox is wasted for a "sport"

The fox has led a natural life, there is a chance the cow hasnt :(
By luvly
Date 07.12.04 14:39 UTC
depends if you eat free range cows dosent it . or free to roam cows . most cows have a decent life doing what a cow does . for chickens its another story though :(

I dont eat meat personally and yes I agree most cows are free range and have a damn better life than most chickens and pigs. It isnt just where cows live though, I wonder how many have had their babies taken away at a couple of days old?? thats not natural :(
By luvly
Date 07.12.04 15:26 UTC
what im trying to say is there not killed for fun ;)
By Havoc
Date 07.12.04 15:18 UTC
Lovelylady,
I can understand your point about the cow being eaten, but I am not compelled to eat meat and could choose to be vegetarian, I am therefore partially responsible for the death of the cow, as I have been part of the demand for the meat. I consider that it is just as natural for a human to hunt as it is to eat meat and consider both optional, but understand that others will not share that view.
I would imagine that both foxes and cows have very little interest in what happens to their bodies after they are dead and therefore i am happy with my criteria of :
"My concern would be more that the animal had been able to live a quality life, its death was as humane as reasonable and that the future of the species or its environment was not compromised. That would be my idea of 'acceptable' wherever it occured in the world."
Could I watch a cow killed before I ate it - Yes, i could. I would take no pleasure in it, but I am not so squeamish that I need to be protected from the realities about what it takes to put meat on my table.
I dont hunt foxes, I never have and have no wish to do so. However (although I dislike some of the practices involved) I find fox hunting far more acceptable within my own criteria than many modern meat farming methods.
Best wishes
By jas
Date 07.12.04 19:30 UTC
So would you then support hare coursing? The hares caught don't go to waste.

I heartily agree with your final paragraph :D

me too :)
By luvly
Date 07.12.04 15:30 UTC
but then you add on the fact the fox is wasted not much better is it .
So why let it happen if its not serving a purpose its only purpose is for people to get a thrill out of seeing this animal torn apart . see my point .
will say im glad you dont find pleasure in seeing animals killed :D

But its not wasted, its killed because it is vermin. Waste is when a fox gets into a chicken run and needlessly kills chickens :(
I dont take pleasure in anything being killed, and dont think I could bring myself to see anything being killed, not because im squimish but just because unless the animal is in pain it would upset me to see it being killed. BUT I do understand that foxes need to be controlled, the same as rats and even pigeons as long as I dont have to personally do it then I dont mind others doing it, and if they want to make a sport out of it so be it.
By luvly
Date 07.12.04 15:44 UTC
do you hunt blonde ?
If you read the numbers that farmers report kill there livestock you will see its a tiny amount .i wrote it on one of my previous posts .
If you couldent kill an animal yourself . try to imagen people who get there kicks out of seeing many dogs say round a fox with her cubs being torn to shreds .It would make my stomach churn and id feel the need to try and stop these people . what do you think to that ?
they are not killed straight away post mortems have shown this so what do you think about the pain they have to suffer . would you like to be killed ripted apart bit by bit by dogs or shot .
Put yourself in the fox's shoes just for a second and think if you was a fox how would you like to be killed . whats your answer ? and why :)

im off home in a couple of mins so will have to answer your post another time as I dont have enough time to think about the answer. I can say that no I dont hunt, I would like to go on a hunt maybe just to see what happens for myself instead of listening to what other people have to say. I have seen the devastation a fox causes, my mums friend has all of his rare game birds either killed by foxes or stolen by gypseys ......... maybe we should start hunting gypsys with dogs too :D :D
I also dont believe all people who hunt are blood thirsty.
By Havoc
Date 07.12.04 15:55 UTC
Lovelylady
I can completely see your point - I just dont agree with it ;-)
The majority of those out hunting will not see the fox killed. I would doubt that many (if any) would get any thrill out of seeing a fox killed.
To set into context I dont hunt foxes but I do shoot game and rabbits. It seems to be impossible to explain to someone that has never 'hunted' (in the wider context) how someone can take pleasure in hunting or shooting but get no 'thrill' from the death of the animal.
Most of those that hunt or shoot have a love and respect for their quarry which just cannot be explained to someone that is intuitively 'anti'. We just have a different perspective on the natural balance and the way humans fit into the natural environment. I doubt that I can convince you of this, but I am sure that someone like John (sorry to drag you into this!) will know exactly what I mean.
There are 'bad apples' in every barrel, and the hunting and shooting world is no exception. There a few unpleasant individuals involved that I would like to see never take part. (Much as there are some 'antis' that just want to cause trouble!) However, the majority i have met have been extremely pleasant people with a love of animals and nature with a strong drive to put something back into the natural environment in the form of conservation.
By John
Date 07.12.04 16:39 UTC
It is so difficult to put into words Havoc. I truly love the countryside. I love it to the extent that I spend almost all my free time there. I love the birds on my shoot and am out just as often as I can, feeding and watering them. It is not unusual for myself and another to bucket 300 gallons of water out of the brook on a Saturday morning and transfer it to the pens. I stand there with my dog and watch the wildlife which the food I have put out for the Pheasants has attracted. I'm sad when I see a rabbit, blinded by Myxomatosis and knowing that I must dispatch it and at the same time thinking that some "Caring" politician decided in his wisdom that it would be a good idea to release into the countryside. He is not the person who must bring death to this poor creature!
I see the results of Buzzards killing my birds but it does not stop me from loving to watch them. By the same token, I've stood in awe, watching a fox running in the field. I do not want to get rid of the fox! Nothing is further from my mind! But I do appreciate that the country is a lot smaller place than it was when I was a boy! In those days I could travel to London through farming countryside. Now it is built up all the way! The same thing is happening all over the countryside. As humans multiply so the space left for animals reduces. This is a sad fact of life. Our government has decreed that so many thousand dwelling must be built in the southeast. Where are we going to see wildlife in the future? Where are the foxes going to live? Urban Foxes are all over the towns now. This is not their natural habitat but it is all we are leaving for them. The situation with Deer is fast becoming the same. What happens in the countryside when we build these new estates? The wildlife gets squeezed into a smaller and smaller area. Disease becomes endemic as always happens in this type of situation and who suffers then? The poor fox. Like it of not, animals numbers must be suitable for the area available for them otherwise nature takes a hand, and believe me, starving to death is worse than a bullet or a quick death at the hands of a dog!
Unfortunately it is us people who love the countryside who have to manage the countryside. We are the ones who have the blood on our hands. It is what we have to do so others can see the animals without soiling their hands.
I have a Pheasant for dinner tonight. I know how it was raised. I know how it was fed. It was not held in abnormal conditions, a box 2 foot square, with food and supplements pumped into it. It lived in a wood. It flew over the fields and drank in the running waters of the brook. It's end, when it came, was over in seconds.
Call me a nasty hunting shooting fishing person if you like but we are the people who keep the countryside for you to marvel at.
Regards, John
By Carla
Date 07.12.04 16:44 UTC
Thats an excellent post John. Made a lot of sense and very thought-provoking. Thanks.

<I'm sad when I see a rabbit, blinded by Myxomatosis and knowing that I must dispatch it and at the same time thinking that some "Caring" politician decided in his wisdom that it would be a good idea to release into the countryside. He is not the person who must bring death to this poor creature!>
John I have to question your believe that a politician brought Myxomatosis into the UK from all the reserch on the subject I have done over the past 20 some years & far from being a politician's idea I keep coming back to this
The rabbit population had similar effects on the environment as in Australia, particularly causing much damage to the national forests of France by eating seedlings and damaging young saplings. In 1952 Dr P.F. Armand Delille inoculated two wild rabbits at Maillebois in northern France. From these two rabbits myxomatosis spread all round Europe, including Britain and Ireland, and as far a field as North Africa. Once more the main means of transmission of the virus was the mosquito as well as the rabbit flea. The disease had the same result as in Australia, the majority of the wild rabbit population of Europe was wiped out, including an estimated 90% of French and British rabbits, however about 40% of domestic rabbits produced for consumption in 1953 and 1954 were also killed. It was not unknow for the farming community to "assist"the spread by releasing infected animals into an area known to house a community of wild rabbits
Delille released the infected rabbits onto his own estate he was not a politician & it came to the UK via this good Doctor.
However rabbits are now again being targetted by the Australians
The Australian government is at the moment sponsoring tests of the rabbit calicivirus, which causes rabbit calicivirus disease (RCD), or viral haemorrhagic disease (VHD) as it is also called, on Wardang Island as a method for rabbit control. It is a naturally occurring virus, prevalent in the northern hemisphere, that was first noted in China in 1984 and Europe in 1986. The virus only infects O. cuniculus and causes death in greater than 80% of the rabbits 30 to 40 hours after being infected. but they are supported by the farming community of Australia & if successful no doubt will be used here to get rid of the wild rabbits
Sadly man has a tendency to cause havoc where ever he spreads to, there is actually no reason for more houses to be built into the countryside as there are sufficient brown field sites for houses to be built on It is many people's ideal of country that makes them think they want to live the idyllic lifestyle but with all the modern conveniences
I know a local landowner whose estate is totally organic the farms etc & his personal estate lands which previously included a shoot is now a wildlife estate. no jobs were lost(in fact he employs more people)no pheasants etc are grown, but there are game birds on his land & if the there ia bad weather he tries to ensure as much of the wildlife survives as possible without too much human intervention.
It was onto his land the hunt"strayed"the other weekend, the master claiming he "forgot"it was no longer hunting land(it has been d=so for 15 years now)& two of his followers tried a short cut to get back onto the road that cost them their horses(they are both cuty traders who were born & brought up in the country)
It is not just the hunt & shooters who preserve the countryside John & the gamekeeper is now a senior park warden using his skills from gamekeepiing to preserve all the wildlife instead of preparing the birds etc for shooting. He has pursuaded his employer to put on a horse cross country course so that people who trully only follow the hunt for the ride can still do so just without killing the fox at the end, i am told by riders it is actually a better ride than any to hounds as they know the ground & jumps are horse friendly
By John
Date 07.12.04 18:26 UTC
I can only tell you this Moonmaiden.
In 1952 I was 9 years old. All of my free time was spent playing with my mates in the fields behind where I live. Even then I had a love of the countryside. We would watch the rabbits out in the fields. At that time it was usual at harvest time to cut the corn, (There were few combined harvesters around in those days) starting around the outside of the field so that with every circuit of the field the uncut area in the middle got smaller and smaller. At a certain point the area left to cut was so small that the rabbits it contained were forced to break from cover and into the sights of the farm workers guns on the tractor. Next day there would be rabbit for dinner! You have to remember that food rationing was only just coming to an end and fresh meat was both dear and not always of the best quality! Rabbits were so prolific that the damage they were doing in the fields at that time was significant. Particularly when you remember that food production was still on a low following the war.
My memory of Myxomatosis was of an article in the Daily Mail at that time which, as I remember it, stated that Myxomatosis had been brought over from Australia and released into the indigenous rabbit population in order to reduce the population and thereby reduce the damage done. I can still remember the masses of dead and dieing rabbits out in the fields! It was terrible! Of course it was made worst by the fact that so many had been partly eaten by birds and insects! Not nice at all! This was my memory of the time, that it was deliberately released to cull the rabbit population. Certainly for quite a few years afterwards we never saw a single rabbit, although of course, a few must have survived to re-establish the population. When this subject last appeared on Champdogs I asked my mother, (now 92 years old and with all her marbles!!) how she remembered the start of Myxomatosis. Her answer was exactly as I remembered it.
No, I'll never be able to prove it (Although there must, I would have thought, been records of the Daily Mail at that time) but in my mind I know it to be true.
Regards, John

I was around then too & a friend losing all her pet rabbits to it made me interested to find out why ! I spent a lot of time talking to a very elderly now deceased shepherd & he remembered his employer a local Lord High Sheriff telling him if he found any ill rabbits to leave them to infect the others as they harmed his ornimental gardens ! He actually disobeyed & dispatched the poor things & burnt the bodies, he too used to add the odd rabbit to the pot during rationing, unlike his employer who never went short of anything !
Delille deliberately infected the rabbits & then came to the UK & at the same time Myxomatosis came too. I think it was not realized that it would kill domestic rabbits as well. I have a very strong suspicion that what is being trialled in Australia will also end up here also by"accident" I can see the point in Australian of getting rid of the rabbits as they were brought from Europe & not a native Australian species

Rabbits aren't a native species to the UK either. They were introduced as food animals by the Romans. (We have them to thank for nettles, too!)
:)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill