did anyone see the episode of top gear where they decided, given the ban on hunting and an attempted move by the ramblers association to ban off roading, to combine both off roading and hunting?

if not it went like this- jeremy clarkson got in a small and fairly sporty 4 wheel drive that was painted like a fox (though i think the hounds didn't care about that, still nice to make the effort :)) and was covered in fox pee. he set off across country and thundering after him came a hunt including a terrified Hamster (he's so little and cute :))

anyway, would seem a fun time was had by all and the only ones worse off from it were some flowers clarkson drove through.

i think this is a brilliant idea! looked tremendous fun, a good drive, a good ride (i imagine its faster than a normal drag hunt?), no dead thing

anyway, what do we all think?

saw it  and it was funny but completely pointless!!!

Didn't the vehicle get stuck in the end or something?  That coloured horse that the Hamster was on was a saint.  ;-)

can i ask what the point is of doing it with a fox?

i understand that to farmers the fox is a pest and needs culling, fair enough, but why not just go and shoot it? i'm sure i heard once that the majority of hunts never even manage to catch the fox, so if thats the case what is the point? surely tracking quietly and a quick shot is more humane and more effective?

> but why not just go and shoot it?

I have just spent a few days camping on the borders.  We were talking about the rabbit situation with a warden on one of the sites we used and he told us that they had greatly increased since hunting had been banned as the entire local fox population, instead of being controlled while continuing to deal with the rabbits, had been shot to extinction!

> had been shot to extinction!

obviously i would be in favour of culling to a level that does not through the entire eco system out of joint- i.e. leave a few for the bunnies :)

but surely if we left well alone it will sort itself out? foxes will have less to eat and some may die of starvation throug the winter, allowing the rabbit population to increase and so it goes again. nature is swings and roundabouts, and usually can sort itself out if we leave well alone. it has done for thousands of years.

I have just spent a few days camping on the borders.  We were talking about the rabbit situation with a warden on one of the sites we used and he told us that they had greatly increased since hunting had been banned as the entire local fox population, instead of being controlled while continuing to deal with the rabbits, had been shot to extinction!

well, thats one of the pro-hunt arguments thrown out the window then.
the one where they kept harping on about hunting foxes with hounds is more humane than shooting foxes, as the hunt is a clean quick kill, whereby too many foxes are maimed by inaccurate shooting, and die a slow painful death.
your warden guy's comments obviously puts paid to that theory!
like it ever held water (rollseyes)
basically, when you break down the arguement, the hunt were saying that even though foxes will peform the freeze instinct when you shine a light in their eyes, and the farmers are experienced at such things, and that they carry large calibre shotguns, that the farmers cannot shoot a fox dead instantly at close range!

did they ever discuss this with the farmers!
of course not, its was always a fake PR arguement!

i laughed my head off at the top gear episode. brilliant.
btw, did anyone actually see the Clarkson breeding on the Harry & Paul show?

>foxes will have less to eat and some may die of starvation throug the winter

No, they'll just turn their attention to other prey. And, of course, farmers don't want the rabbit population to increase! (Don't forget that rabbits are an introduced species, not native to this country.)

>whereby too many foxes are maimed by inaccurate shooting, and die a slow painful death. your warden guy's comments obviously puts paid to that theory!

How do you work that out? Shotguns are very bad weapons for killing foxes because the shot scatters - you need a rifle to be sure of a clean kill. Shotguns cause more wounds (which will become infected and the fox die a slow death) than clean kills.

Where the hunts controlled the foxes, the farmers didn't have to, so a balance was maintained. When the farmers had to do it themselves they killed (either cleanly or causing fatal wounds - not humane) far more.

> can i ask what the point is of doing it with a fox?
>
> i understand that to farmers the fox is a pest and needs culling, fair enough, but why not just go and shoot it? i'm sure i heard once that the majority of hunts never even manage to catch the fox, so if thats the case what is the point? surely tracking quietly and a quick shot is more humane and more effective?

I've grown up in the country with farms all around me (cattle farms), I never understood the purpose of the hunt. Foxes could be seen in broad daylight walking through a field of cattle and not one of them would even bat an eyelid at the fox. I remember stepping out of my house for school one morning and this little fox cub came prancing around my feet, turned out the one of the farmers had taken the litter in to rear after the hunt had killed the mother and this cheeky monkey had taken himslef out for a walk.

> and usually can sort itself out if we leave well alone. it has done for thousands of years.

For thousands of years we, and our hunting, were part of the balance.

> whereby too many foxes are maimed by inaccurate shooting, and die a slow painful death.
>

but die they do, so not sure where the theory falls down.  Roll eyes, sigh, whatever you like :-)

>looked tremendous fun, a good drive, a good ride (i imagine its faster than a normal drag hunt?), no dead thing

It was very entertaining, but the vehicle did an incredible amount of damage to the ground (which of course is why off-roading is so unpopular with conservationists)!

thats true.

i think she ment the theory that its more humane?

but i would say that in the most part it probably is. i used to know i guy who did shooting for the farmers in the area, if they had a bunny or fox issue they'd call him and he'd go out at night and take care of it (along with his young son). i think he used a rifle but know naff all about guns so could be wrong :) didn't look like a shot gun though.

he also used to shoot ducks and would bring them for my boss :)

from my point of view i'd rather be shot and bleed to death than be chased for miles and ripped to bits...

> from my point of view i'd rather be shot and bleed to death than be chased for miles and ripped to bits...

Now I would be the opposite :-).  I'd rather have the chance of getting away if I am at the fitter end of the population and if I am caught I'll know little about it and yes I know she meant the theory that it is more humane and, like I said, the comment that they were all shot does not give any indication that they were all shot cleanly and humanely.

> I'd rather have the chance of getting away if I am at the fitter end of the population

but also have the terror that must cause?

> I am caught I'll know little about it

unless the dogs don't make a clean kill

the thing is if a decent shot is taken then its 'bam, your dead' and you don;t know about it, where as with a hunt its 'scared, scared, exhausted, scared, oh god their on me.... rip..dead'

not a nice way to go. 

> not a nice way to go. 

A natural way to go, as  nature intended the weak and less fit weeded out  and the fit and healthy live to breed  and continue providing the best genes for survival.
> 'scared, scared, exhausted, scared, oh god their on me.... rip..dead'

human thought process :-)

> unless the dogs don't make a clean kill

Why wouldn't they?  They are bred to do this and they do not work alone. "rip..dead" is just it :-)

> 'scared, scared, exhausted, scared, oh god their on me....

These are human emotions.  Animals are designed to work with adrenalin, both the hunter and the hunted, of which the fox is either.

you think the fox would not be scared?

> A natural way to go, as  nature intended the weak and less fit weeded out  and the fit and healthy live to breed  and continue providing the best genes for survival.
>

in red coats and riding crops? i don't think wild dogs hunt foxes do they? its something we have bred them to do. besides, just because somethings natural doesn;t mean it is the right thing to allow to happen.

>but also have the terror that must cause?

When you have no concept of the finality of death, or of what might happen, then there is little terror. There is the instinct to run (which is of course exactly the same instinct (or terror?) that any prey animal feels) but that's Nature's plan to ensure the survival of the fittest.

>unless the dogs don't make a clean kill

Even a slow kill by the hounds is mere seconds, unlike the weeks of illness due to infection, gangrene and starvation.

>if a decent shot is taken then its 'bam, your dead'

If a bad shot is taken it's "ow, ow, ow, ow that b****y hurts, ow ow ow" that never stops.

>where as with a hunt its 'scared, scared, exhausted, scared, oh god their on me.... rip..dead'

Exactly what the rabbit feels when hunted by the fox?

by accident, of course they are bred for this but i am sure in the long history of hunting a dog has missed the mark.

fear and exhaustion are not just attributal to humans.

why is killing them this way more effective than shooting?

>in red coats and riding crops?

I never realised that the fox took any notice of what the people were wearing - or even that the fox was aware that people were even there!

>i don't think wild dogs hunt foxes do they?

We don't have any wild dogs to keep the fox population under control ...

> why is killing them this way more effective than shooting?

Because hounds never leave them injured.

fair enough about the kills but i really don't understand the reference to nature in all this- this is not natural, its a bunch of people on top of another animal running around with trained dogs chasing a fox, its not natural.

fox hunting by people is not the same as a fox killing a rabbit- for one thing they eat them. its getting dinner, not a sport.

though i also appreciate that some foxes do appear to kill for sport.

>why is killing them this way more effective than shooting?

When shooting foxes, any (or all) are shot. With hunting, the older, slower, sicker, less fit ones are easier prey, leaving the young, healthy ones to survive and breed.

>fox hunting by people is not the same as a fox killing a rabbit- for one thing they eat them. its getting dinner, not a sport.

Man (as a species) is a predator and hunter. It is natural for Man to hunt, just as it's natural for cats to hunt, for dogs to hunt, for lions to hunt, for foxes to hunt ...

i was pointing out that its definately not natural, not the sartorial preferences of the fox or indeed the lack of presence of animals further up the food chain than foxes in the uk. however in other areas of the world with both foxes and wild dogs they don't tend to hunt each other.

>> why is killing them this way more effective than shooting?
> Because hounds never leave them injured.

a fair point.

>> why is killing them this way more effective than shooting?
> When shooting foxes, any (or all) are shot. With hunting, the older, slower, sicker, less fit ones are easier prey, leaving the young, healthy ones to survive and breed.

you don't have to shoot all of them. but i do see your point.

I think it is natural.  In less developed parts of the world there would definately be animals higher up the the food chain than foxes.  Man has removed all others from the UK but we were always there as part of the chain from the first day we picked up a rock to stun a rabbit.

> Man (as a species) is a predator and hunter. It is natural for Man to hunt, just as it's natural for cats to hunt, for dogs to hunt, for lions to hunt, for foxes to hunt ...

indeed, but why do they have to do so by this method?

also the ones you listed hunt for food, now i'm an adventurous eater but not sure how keen i'd be to try fox... a bit gamey perhaps? :)

> fox hunting by people is not the same as a fox killing a rabbit- for one thing they eat them.

It is, however, akin to animals high up the chain killing those just down from them in the interest of removing competion for food. 

> In less developed parts of the world there would definately be animals higher up the the food chain than foxes

that would hunt them frequently? such as?

i imagine you get the odd lion or whatever picking off the occasional old or ill african version of the fox (is it the bat eared fox?) or something similar but carnivores don't tend to hunt other carnivores, only really take advantage when its going easy.

i should imagine because its harder to kill another carnivore who is rather better equipt to fight back, even only a little, and wild animals tend to take the path of least resistance to retain energy reserves.

> but why do they have to do so by this method?
>

I thought we had already covered that one. :-)

have you an outwith species example?

>indeed, but why do they have to do so by this method?

Why not? It's easier than running, they way they do with beagles and bassets!

> carnivores don't tend to hunt other carnivores,

They do when competition for food dictates.  If the fox, or lower hunter, population remains low there is probably enough to go round.  If their population proliferates and they start popping up at the water hole too often in desperation for a kill the local big cat is not going to just shoo them away.  This is the model for the way hunting of foxes operated for centuries.  Now, according to my camping warden fella in at least one little pocket of the UK, tradition has been cast aside and the whole population has been removed.

>> but why do they have to do so by this method?
>>
> I thought we had already covered that one. :-)

yes when they catch them its always a kill, but they don't always, or i understand often, catch them, so surely its less effective overall than stalking them?

seems to me that the only things going for hunting are 1) the definate kill if fox is caught (big if) 2) the run for the dogs and the ride for the horses and 3) the excitement for the riders. seems a bit unfair to the fox to get your fun and excersize out of killing it. its a nasty, but essential, job, but i don't feel comfortable about anyone having fun killing something.

Wild animals have no concept of a safe comfortable easy life they live in a world of constant  fear to a greater or lesser degree they are either prey or a hunter and in the greater scheme of things man developed into the being at the top of the food chain for how long no one knows (but thats a much bigger question)and therefore a hunter. Rightly or wrongly we kill to eat and to protect our resources just as any animal does and that is what nature intended.
So do we try and stick to nature and only kill the unfit weak specimens or do we not distinguish and shoot any that cross our paths? Which is ecologically more sound.

> but they don't always, or i understand often, catch them, so surely its less effective overall than stalking them?
>

That is part of the efficiency of the method.  People who hunt love the countryside and believe it or not love the animals in it and this ensures the fit and healthy are the ones that survive and continue the species.

> Now, according to my camping warden fella in at least one little pocket of the UK, tradition has been cast aside and the whole population has been removed

which sounds seriously over done to me and not all that sensible of the shooters- surely it makes sense to leave a couple? look what happened to the dodo after all lol :)

> They do when competition for food dictates.  If the fox, or lower hunter, population remains low there is probably enough to go round.  If their population proliferates and they start popping up at the water hole too often in desperation for a kill the local big cat is not going to just shoo them away.

thats teritorial fighting and isn't the same as hunting. and if its within species they tend not to eat them anyway as that leads to the likes of mad cow disease (similar abnormal protein presence and reaction being found in animals, and humans, who conume within species dead)

anyway, am going to stop debating this with you all now, interesting as i'm sure it will continue to be as i'm off in half an hour and won;t be back till next week. :)

> That is part of the efficiency of the method.  People who hunt love the countryside and believe it or not love the animals in it and this ensures the fit and healthy are the ones that survive and continue the species.

gah, you tempt me to reply!

darwin says nature does that without the help of the local hunt :)

> So do we try and stick to nature and only kill the unfit weak specimens or do we not distinguish and shoot any that cross our paths? Which is ecologically more sound

very good point, but i wouldn't suggest shooting any that cross your path, just those that are needed rid of, as we do with deer and bunnies :)

> they tend not to eat them anyway

That's why I used it as an example of us hunting foxes :-)

Unfortunately what you sugest and what is now happening are two different things as Isabels warden can testify :-(

>just those that are needed rid of

How do you know which ones are 'needed rid of'? If a farmer has a fox problem then he'll go out one evening and shoot as many as he comes across. He doesn't have the time to do an in-depth study of the age or health-status of each fox.

> darwin says nature does that without the help of the local hunt

The local hunt is nature :-)

> Isabels warden

My campsite warden ;-)  I don't actually have a warden yet :-D