How do they get away with hunting foxes?

Foxes are vermin, just like rats and mice. I'm willing to bet that if you had rats / mice in your house, you would either:
- use traps to snap their necks and simultaneously drive a spike into their brains.
- use poison to cause an extremely prolonged, painfl deth from internal haemorrhaging.
- a terrier, to rip them limb from limb.

Really, it's no different.



As for this - there is one very big difference. Foxes are vermin. Whales, bears and bulls are not, so they would not be killed otherwise.

Foxes aren't vermin. There was a question in the Lords which asked this, and it was decided that there are no legal definitions of vermin, but there are 'pests' in various pieces of legislation, and the fox is mention in none. It is also native wildlife, protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996.

Hansard (the parliamentary records website) has an easily-available copy of this statement, but I can't find it <_< The best I could find was this:

http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/answers/pestcontrol/Foxinformationsheet-pcd.pdf

Councils do not define the fox as vermin, they are a semi-protected animal.

Wild mammals and birds that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, or game, or that carry disease, e.g., foxes, rodents, and insect pests

Google offers up the following definition for vermin:

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Avermin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gYg&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&q=vermin&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=jh__TvnbLMbL8QOUn_nWAQ&ved=0CDcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d7e744fa241f46c0&biw=1024&bih=434

Whilst you may be correct in saying that there is no legal definition of vermin, I was using the word in the way that is is commonly used. Given that there is no legal definition of vermin, I'm unsure of the grounds that Kirklees Council is using to assert that they are not vermin - other than the author's own opinion.

It wasn't hard to find copies of those acts:
The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 doesn't specifically mention foxes, and just appears to outlaw a few methods of killing mammals.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69

The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is less easily searchable, but I couldn't find anything specifically on foxes. The basic gist of the legislation is that it's illegal to set out to be cruel to a wild mammal. There are exceptions for pest control.

From these two pieces of legislation, I will summise that specific animals don't tend to be mentioned in pieces of legislation; rather, broader categories such as 'mammals', 'insects' and 'birds' tend to be used. After all, if they got into mentioning specific animals then they would get needlessly bogged down in trying to write an exhaustive list of all animals that they wanted to cover. When they'd tried to make an exhaustive list, there would be loopholes galore ("it's not a greater spotted woodpecker, it's a lesser spotted woodpecker!"). So really, your statement that foxes aren't mentioned as pests on Hansard (which you appear incapable of accessing) is meaningless. Foxes are no more protected than any other wild mammal - and all that protection says is that people should set out to be unnecessarily cruel to them.

As far as I can make out, your argument is not that foxes shouldn't be killed (seeing as you have previously told me to hire an exterminator). In fact, your argument seems to be based around some kind of class war, in which people with more money than you ("toffs") shouldn't be allowed to do things, primarily because they cost more than you can afford, even when their is a need for their actions.

I presume that you are a sixth former, living in the city, with no contact with farms, farmers, or anyone who works on a farm, but with a vague idea that foxes are 'cute' and 'fluffy', and that everyone who lives or works in the countryside is 'rich' or a 'toff'. This is the real world, and the real world is a pretty brutal place. If you don't like it, stop supporting farms - stop eating.

Really, your 'arguments' make me embarassed to say that I have any level of sympathy with the Labour party.

Fox hunting is sick and wrong. It doesn't keep the fox population down, as its higher in urban areas (I like how you've given up on that argument - being proven wrong so emphatically must be extremely embarrassing for you!). It's inhumane, and only sick people enjoy the tearing apart of an innocent animal.

No its not, **** off and get a a life

Fox hunting is sick and wrong. It doesn't keep the fox population down, as its higher in urban areas (I like how you've given up on that argument - being proven wrong so emphatically must be extremely embarrassing for you!). It's inhumane, and only sick people enjoy the tearing apart of an innocent animal

I presume that you are a sixth former, living in the city, with no contact with farms, farmers, or anyone who works on a farm, but with a vague idea that foxes are 'cute' and 'fluffy', and that everyone who lives or works in the countryside is 'rich' or a 'toff'. This is the real world, and the real world is a pretty brutal place. If you don't like it, stop supporting farms - stop eating.

Only 13% of foxes live in urban areas - they're just more densely populated (due to being smaller areas) so seen more frequently.

http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/faq/urbanruralfoxes.html

So yeah, you're completely wrong.

Oh look, a google definition?! Well, that certainly trumps UK law. Oh wait, no it doesn't. The House of Lords stated periodically that foxes are not vermin - and therefore, they are not vermin, no matter what google says
If there's no legal definition of vermin (as you said in a previous post), then you can't say that foxes aren't vermin. Just because something's not laid down in law then (assuming that there's nothing to contradict it in law) it doesn't mean it's not the case. It's a bit like saying that because there's no legally defined list of TSR users, you and I are not TSR users

As there's no legal definition, I went for the next best definition source - a dictionary

The W&CA1981 does indeed protect foxes, as they are mammals (unless, of course, you have a different google definition for the fox on this count too - because, as we all know, google > the law! ) from different types of execution.
I didn't say that the W&CA1981 didn't protect mammals. All I said was that they weren't specifically mentioned, hence they don't attract any more protection that mice / rats / rabbits, all of which are widely considered to be pests.

Ah, and now we get onto the personal attacks. Attacking my background, my political party, and trying to label me as an extremist hell-bent on 'class war'.
Given that you haven't offered up any alternative suggestions as to why you're so against fox hunting, but not trapping + shooting, or lamping (given that you have previously told me to "get an exterminator in").

No, nowhere in my posts did I indicate ANYTHING to do with the social class of those who hunt. On multiple occasions, I stated that its because its sick and embarrassing for our country.
Yes you did!

Maddog Jones

Oh, and its normally the rural-area-posh-right-wing-tory types that are the first to complain about others breaking the law, and demanding the very harshest punishment for them - and then they think they're somehow above the fox hunting law.

Barbarianism, hypocrisy and stupidity. Back the ban!

Oh, and like I said, I live in Wiltshire - hardly a city boy like you try to paint me as. Basic geography lesson mate - there aren't any cities in Wiltshire!
Swindon, in Wiltshire, is larger than some cities, and even Chippenham (where you appear to live) is a big enough town for the people there to have no direct connection with agriculture, and it's harsh realities - harsh realities of which you seem completely oblivious.

Fox hunting is sick and wrong. It doesn't keep the fox population down, as its higher in urban areas Erm. If it's higher in urban areas, where fox hunting doesn't occur, surely that proves that fox hunting does work? Anyway, you've previously told us that there are more foxes in rural areas

Maddog Jones

Only 13% of foxes live in urban areas - they're just more densely populated (due to being smaller areas) so seen more frequently.

http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/faq/urbanruralfoxes.html

So yeah, you're completely wrong.

It's alright, I'll assume it was a typo, and (as I'm feeling generous), I'll assume that your figures are actually vaguely true, since the source has failed to cite any sources for their figures.

(I like how you've given up on that argument - being proven wrong so emphatically must be extremely embarrassing for you!).
If you read back through my posts, you'll find that I've never said that fox hunting is a particularly effective method of pest control, simply that it's one method of helping to achieving what needs to be done anyway.

You also appear to have ignored a number of my arguments, and rebuttals to your arguments. Very embarassing for you, I'm sure. Examples from earlier in this thread include:
- It's nigh on impossible to keep foxes out of fields, barns and coops
- There's a fundamental difference between whaling, bear baiting and bullfighting and foxhunting. The difference is that is that whales, bears and bulls are not pests, and they would not be killed otherwise, unlike foxes.
- If you had rats / mice in your house, you'd employ one of a variety of brutal / cruel methods to kill them (this argument prompted a diversion into semantics rather than an actual rebuttal )

It's inhumane, and only sick people enjoy the tearing apart of an innocent animal.





So presumably you are completely fine with foxes doing this to young lambs, who don't have any chance of escaping?

Only a negligent farmer would fail to protect his innocent animals from being torn apart.

Yay, fun, indeed.

Spoiler

Yay, fun!

I'm not sure this follows. Foxes may be difficult to defend against and control, but you can be sure that hunting doesn't have a significant effect on their population. Foxes are territorial, if you kill one another moves in to take its place. In any event, chasing a single fox with a pack of dogs and horses kept for that purpose is the most inefficient method of pest control I can imagine. The primary reason people hunt is to "enjoy themselves", not to control fox populations.

The best way to make people disagree with you is to patronise them. I don't understand why so many people take the line "city people don't understand", city people aren't so stupid that they can't understand the issues and they willl be sure to oppose you if you patronise them.

I'm not sure this follows. Foxes may be difficult to defend against and control, but you can be sure that hunting doesn't have a significant effect on their population. Foxes are territorial, if you kill one another moves in to take its place. In any event, chasing a single fox with a pack of dogs and horses kept for that purpose is the most inefficient method of pest control I can imagine. The primary reason people hunt is to "enjoy themselves", not to control fox populations.

The best way to make people disagree with you is to patronise them. I don't understand why so many people take the line "city people don't understand", city people aren't so stupid that they can't understand the issues and they willl be sure to oppose you if you patronise them.

Which of these aren't sick? I've put the images in a spoiler, because not everybody gets some sort of twisted pleasure from things like this

But why? it's so obvious, you got guys in red jackets on big horses chasing loads of dogs around. Surely all the police have to do is drive around in a land rover to look for any wrongdoing?

or is it because a) the police secretly supports it (their dads probs takes part in the hunt) b) nobody tells the police or c) the area of land is too vast and rural to cover and horsemen have the advantage?

Im just curious because I didn't know the rule of law was so weak out in the country. In the city you cant get away with anything lol (tons of CCTV and metropolitan gestapo)

Oh look, a google definition?! Well, that certainly trumps UK law. Oh wait, no it doesn't. The House of Lords stated periodically that foxes are not vermin - and therefore, they are not vermin, no matter what google says

Oh, and like I said, I live in Wiltshire - hardly a city boy like you try to paint me as. Basic geography lesson mate - there aren't any cities in Wiltshire!

Fox hunting is sick and wrong. It doesn't keep the fox population down, as its higher in urban areas (I like how you've given up on that argument - being proven wrong so emphatically must be extremely embarrassing for you!). It's inhumane, and only sick people enjoy the tearing apart of an innocent animal.

They "get away with it" because the police rightly understand that there are more important things to worry about (such as murder, terrorism; the list is endless) than catering to the whims of some left wing, anti, champagne socialists who have no understanding of how the countrside works.

So they're above the law?

Fox hunting is right its a tradition that's been going for many many years. Why stop it now ( I know it was around 2005 ). It was banned by people who had no idea what country life and field sport is about. I haven't been fox hunting although my mother did but I do shoot. It's not about killing for fun it's a social thing that has been going for a long time. You cannot understand till you have experienced it.


Posted from TSR Mobile