to think that fox hunting ban might have been a mistake?

[lessonsintightropes]

I live in suburban South London and have done for donkeys. Over the last five years foxes have been encroaching a lot into our neighbourhood and have killed a couple of cats, and regularly torn up bins etc. I know at least nine individual foxes by sight. I'm in zone 3!

I was always rabidly anti-hunting on cruelty grounds when I was ill informed younger. My DBrother and DSis live in very rural Hampshire; she used to hunt and now they drag-hunt exclusively, but they lose a lot of chickens, ducks and cats despite stalagluft-style electric fences.

I've rethought my position over time and have come to the conclusion that town people shouldn't dictate to country people how to live, and vice versa. Especially when countryside vermin start inhabiting my street!

What makes me a bit anxious is the risk to children and domestic pets from a growing fox population. It's certainly made my cat anxious and makes me freak out a bit when I see something dog sized in my tiny suburban garden, but am also well prepared to listen to arguments the other direction (although I will always wish they don't rip up my recycling bags).

Would love to know what the MN jury has to say?

I blame Walt Disney.

ElBurroSinNombre I think you are wrong to say that hunts never cause harm to other people. Some hunts are lovely, and courteous to others using the land they hunt on. Others are not, and there are a few hunts who lack respect for private property and other people in the area- one advantage of laid drags or trails is that they can be limited to land where the hunt has express permission to be and avoid, for example, hounds running out into traffic.

I am also interest in those who suggest we need to control foxes as they have lost their "natural predators"- Do they mean wolves and bears? I don't think either of these would have hunted foxes as a matter of course, although they would have killed them on occasion. The loss of the wolf population has probably opened more niches to foxes, but I disagree they are out of control in the same way deer numbers are. I find it quite sad people want to eliminate our natural wildlife for human convinience.

I also dislike the assumption that all antis are hypocrites, who don't care about other animal welfare issues. I only eat products from humanely farmed animals, and I am a supporter of minimising the amount of animal testing in the drug industry, and improving the welfare of those animals.

With regards to the "rural poor", whilst I accept some people made money from hunts, in general, I think horse specific tradesmen, such as farriers and saddlers have suffered more from the recession and people either cutting back on their horses, or selling them. It is well known that in the UK sadly there are more horses than are wanted at the moment as a result of indiscriminate breeding and less people being able to afford to keep them.

But why do you need to impose your world view on other equally intelligent and coherant people who happen to think differently to you?

Where have I done that? I was under the impression that I was posting on a talk board, responding to points made by both those for and against fox hunting. I'm not "imposing my world view" on anyone, any more than anyone else is - surely we are just talking here?

I have as much 'experience' in this matter as, for example, LessMissAbs, we are just on opposing 'sides' so to speak. That doesn't make my arguement more or less correct than hers.

(I know you can get protein from other sources, unfortunately 'other sources' can be out of the price range of those struggling to feed their families - it's often cheaper to pick up a pack of 2 factory farmed chicken breasts that would feed (and leave full) 4 people)

Slow,
What you say about hunts is true but there were already laws that could have been enforced to protect people from the hunts that do not respect their property. It is not a good reason to justify the ban.

I do not say that antis are hypocrites and I applaud your stance, which is at least consistent with your views on hunting. But why should your world view prevail whilst someone who has an equally well thought out and coherant world view have their actions made illegal? As I said before, it is almost Stalinist to want to ban things that you do not like.

Dallas,

Making something that is essentially harmless an unlawful act is an imposition and you support that imposition.

essentially harmless

Not to the fox it wasn't.

It is equally an imposition to continue to do something that thousands of people are against.

It is equally an imposition to do something that is cruel and unneccessary simply "for fun". If there was a need for fox hunting, it would not have been banned.

What is next, ban shooting for instance?

That fits the criteria above. it is; cruel, unnecessary and simply for fun.

That is one example, there are many others. I really wouldn't like to live in your Stalinist world. As I said before I do not take part in these activities (fox hunting or shooting) but there is a principle at stake.

No, it's not "Stalinist" to want to live in a kind society that doesn't deliberately cause harm. That's normal, not "Stalinist"

As for other things in the world not being ideal, two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

I know a number of people that shoot (and fish) they all do it for food as well as sport.

The animals are cleanly killed and distributed amongst the hunt members to be eaten.

They are not torn to shreds and discarded.

I would not do it myself, but I grew up in a time where it was quite usual for my father to be 'paid' in rabbits, pheasant, pigeon and on one memorable occasion, boar, all provided by 'poorer' people who could not afford to pay my father in cash. If an animal is shot, cleanly and used to feed people then I have no issue with it, whether I would do it myself or not.

I've seen the suffering of the fox (and a vixen and cubs) and it disgusts me.

Who does fox hunting harm?

Foxes are not human beings.

The fox itself is a predator that will kill for the sake of killing and not just to eat. I would guess that it is for that reason that the ritual around fox hunting has evolved.

The fox itself is a predator that will kill for the sake of killing and not just to eat

You really need to read the whole thread.

I don't need to do anything thanks - perhaps at some future point you will try to make it illegal for someone to post without reading everything on a thread.

My point is this;

I accept that fox hunting is cruel.
But why should my views about this prevail over someone else's choice to hunt. That is the liberal view. And as far as I can tell you have not and cannot answer this point.

FFS,

The fox itself is a predator that will kill for the sake of killing and not just to eat

Nope wrong and annoying to see this lack of understanding still going on,

Imagine you were in the middle of the Canadian wilderness, living in a cave with your children, having to find your own food,

you are wandering through the woods, and you come across a gaggle of geese, you manage to trap them in a gully,

You kill one, but they are huge, and you will only be able to carry one back to the cave, do you;

A. kill one and let the rest go.

B. kill them all and go back and forth to carry them back to the cave, and have food for the next week.

C. kill one, take it back, come back and hope to find the others to kill.

If you find a fox has killed all your poultry, if you do not disturb the scene or the fox you will see it come back and take one after the other, every single time,

When people make statements about animal behaviour it worth remembering, it is never illogical , if you don't understand why an animal is doing something watch more carefully, eventually you will work it out, but making up answer is silly, or look it up.

Foxes are not human beings.

Who said not wanting to cause harm should be restricted to human beings?

The fox itself is a predator that will kill for the sake of killing and not just to eat.

Even if that were true, the difference is that human beings have morals and choice.

I do not look down on anyone due to their social standing, intelligence (or lack of). I do look down on anyone who chases foxes whilst on horseback and allows baying hounds to tear foxes to pieces for their enjoyment

EXACTLY!!! I couldn't have put it better myself!!!

Lt eve Dallas. I did not 'lead anyone to believe that I was Scottish' be being 'rude or dismissive' of another poster, nor because I said I had hunted in Scotland. I was surprised at the assumption I was Scottish It really is very multi cultural here. I've also hunted in Ireland, and I would be equally surprised if someone assumed I was Irish from that single fact.

I am also surprised that the poster in question, who constantly used the term 'zoologists' throughout her post in order to give the impression that he/she was one, saw no dichotomy in someone referring to another by their alleged job title, and by someone simply by their (assumed) nationality or racial origin.

Neither am I happy that you have said that we have the same experience on the matter. I do not know your particular experience, but you gave a very misleading impression that draghunting is the same as foxhunting but without foxes. It is an entirely different experience for the horse, much faster, much less educational, and while I would take a young horse foxhunting, I would not take a good horse draghunting. and thats a pretty standard viewpoint, and yes I have done both.

And yes, it is a Stalinist trait to tell people what they should think.

Ever seen the carcass of a skinned tiger hanging from a tree? It wasn't eaten, just taken for it's pelt. I have in South East Asia. That is called 'hunting' and it is cruel and despicable and just the same as fox hunting.

Blood sport is the right name for it. Eat the bloody fox if you want to hunt it down and kill it so brutally.

Doesn't sound the same to me, Ruby.

it is a Stalinist trait to tell people what they should think

No-one has told anyone what to think. This is a debate and so you'll come across opinions which are different to yours, which others are as certain of as you clearly are of your own views.

Yabu.

Fox hunting is barbaric. It was a hobby for a particular type of wealthy person. The kind who liked terrorising a small animal.

Cats are legally considered vermin also. But there would be an outcry if people were calling for them to culled for killing wildlife.

Well I believed that you were Scottish when you posted about foxes in Scotland in your rural area. I apologise for that assumption if it has caused you any distress.

Olidus used the term zoologist twice in her epic post, not constantly. Trying to belittle her now is very goading and demeans you. There is no reason for you to cast aspersions on her or her career, you do so simply to sneer because she disagreed with you, and very eloquently too.

I said we both had experience of fox hunting simply because other posters had posted about people who didn't have any experience of it being 'for' or 'against'. I believe I am experienced enough to be able to debate this subject, as do you.

You say that I give a misleading impression of drag hunting. I don't believe I do. In the same way that you stated that 'blooding' and 'tailing' doesn't happen, but it does. We have different experience, but we still have experience.

I am not telling anyone what to think. I am simply expressing my opinion, as are you.

Urban foxes are very different to rural ones. Even if hunting was allowed I can't see it making any difference to my local foxes and I live within 1/2 miles of open countryside.

Foxes are better if you can persuade all your neighbours not to feed them. Urban Badgers can be more of an issue, and they are cleverer - they get into out local food recycling bins. Then the Urban deer are getting cleverer too!

You are trying to control the debate LtEve by inserting subtle misrepresentations which you think will sway people to your own restrictive viewpoint.

Why would I be distressed about being called a Scot? What an odd, leading use of tbe word 'distressed'. Believe me, im not that emotionally frail. The word I used was 'surprised', so use that.

Unless I were a Scot and it was said in a way so as to mirror a perceived (and entirely unintended insult). In fact the poster made so much of what zoologists said and did, and presented their views as so compelling, that it is not unreasonable to assume that she was happy to be referred to as one. Which I'm pretty certain she isn't. The rejoinder that she would call me a Scot clearly had a racist element. Otherwise why mention nationality in comparison to a profession. And by making such a nationalistic reference, the poster sought to subtly exclude me from the discussion.

Your experiences equestrian wise are entirely different to mine. I grew up riding in a country where it was simply considered a nice thing for girls to do, not part of some mark of class membership. I've been brought up to respect and accommodate others views, to legislate by facilitation rather than banning. To act for the good of society as a whole, not to appease differing factions. Ie to co-operate, while allowing individuality to stand.

That is why I also find your views Stalinist.

Mummytime, we live right next to open farmland and woods - our garden fence is alongside it. We have rabbits so made sure to fox proof their hutch/run. Our dog is forever growling and barking running along the fence line, so we thought we'd done the right thing expecting foxes to be on the prowl.

Imagine our surprise one morning to find two deer in our garden - and not pretty little bambi thing - scary ones that ran at me to escape! The dog was useless - skirted straight back inside with her tail between her legs.

Didn't imagine we'd need to 'Deer proof' for one minute!

I am sick of hearing about it.

People are dying horrid deaths in privately run nursing homes of thirst and basic needs ditto those with disabilities, and yet the whole country seemingly gets worked up about the foxes!

Priorities.

Ghastly.