Hunt campaigners lost...again!! Watch

This discussion is closed.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by Alexdel)
Don't you think killing foxes with chemicals or other ways is an easier and more efficient way if they are vermin as you say, rather than get on horses with lots of dogs dressing like it's Rio during carnival...
Are you suggesting that we leave vats of poisoned meat around the countryside? Think of the danger to other animals or children. Plus it also removes the 'killing the old and injured/weak only' effect - unless some foxes have a particuarly iron constitution.

Its a fair assumption - currently they shoot foxes and drag them behind the horses for the new form of fox hunting (which i believe is obscenely barbaric).
Even living amongst a long foxhunting tradition, I have never seen this being done. I imagine many former foxhunters would find it has obscene as you do.

(Original post by Goody1)
But letting a pack of dogs rip it limb from limb isnt in the least barbaric?
Not at all. Quick, virtually painless. And using professional hunters with guns? They're still inaccurate, would be very expensive for individual farmers (who would be tempted to do it themselves) and most importantly I'd like to see you shoot a fox in open countryside with a bloody rifle!

Im a tory voter but if they said theywould or did repeal the ban i would never vote for them again, poably jsut vote labour to get them out!
You're not exactly committed, are you?

(Original post by pepaim)
the fact that a sport is made of killing a living animal, it's disgusting and unhumane
I recall my first fishing trip with my father as a great childhood memory rather than a disgusting and inhumane event. More importantly, you're talking nonsense - I've shot deer, grouse and a peasant in my time. None of it was inhumane or disgusting.

Fair point but Fox hunting is barbaric and people taking pleasure in it is worse
No foxhunter takes pleasure in the death of an animal. Many of them are the greatest animal lovers you are likely to find.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
Well said LibertineNorth - it does appear there are more than 2 or 3 people on TSR who actually understand the environmental intricacies of foxhunting - have some rep...
0
loftx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
I don't hace much of a problem with foxhunting itself, but I don't like how its justified by the pro hunting lobby - If it's essential to keep the fox population down why bother getting dressed up and things, surely that makes it more of a sport.

If you consider it a sport I don't have a problem with that either - just admit it and don't make excuses!
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
Simple question really....why don't they go hunting other animals that are considered to be vermin if it's conidered to be keeping it under control? Why not hunt rats?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
(Original post by loftx)
I don't hace much of a problem with foxhunting itself, but I don't like how its justified by the pro hunting lobby - If it's essential to keep the fox population down why bother getting dressed up and things, surely that makes it more of a sport.

If you consider it a sport I don't have a problem with that either - just admit it and don't make excuses!
Bit of a strange position. Personally, I wouldn't call it a sport, but I'm sure a lot of people would. Why bother getting dressed up and the like? Well, have you ever seen a state opening of Parliament? It costs a lot, involves a lot of pomp and is totally unnecessary, but it's all a good bit of fun and allows us to make an undesirable and mundane task something to look forward to. Perhaps the fox ought to be a little flattered that we get all tarted up to chase after it.

(Original post by Alexdel)
Simple question really....why don't they go hunting other animals that are considered to be vermin if it's conidered to be keeping it under control? Why not hunt rats?
It ain't exactly practical. Moreover, there's not really much to hunt in the British Isles. Hunting a rabbit or something smaller doesn't really provide any sort of focal point (I suppose that's more amateur psychology, but I think it's a fair point), anything bigger can't really be pack-hunted like a fox. Deer and the like aren't widely controlled in this country.

Why not hunt rats? Well, they're only really a problem if they're indoors (images of a pack of dogs and horses charging through a branch of ASDA), they're not a big problem with us countryfolk (who tend to be the ones who actually bother to have community centred fun) and, quite simply, it's just a bit silly.

That said, I have seen ferreting (ferret... rabbit hole... scares rabbit... rabbit runs into net) - it never really held any great attraction for me. I suppose it might be more geared towards getting some dinner than the actual hunting though.
0
Tom H
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 13 years ago
#46
(Original post by Bismarck)
Why should the rights of animals be placed above the rights of human beings? Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
I didn't realise the right to tear an animal limb from limb for kicks was a human right. In fact, it every other case it has been illegal for years. Would you advocate that someone should be allowed to buy a dog, and mutilate it how they'd like?

Of course that fails to take into account the idea of pest control. But of course, fox hunting results in a tiny percentage of fox deaths anyway, so that isn't a valid argument. I have no problem with pest control, but why it can't be done humanely with a bullet I don't know. I have no problem with the new method of shooting a fox then trailing it behind a horse, after all it's already dead and not suffering.

The amazing thing is, that the number of foxes killed since the introduction of the "ban" has actually increased, by a factor of 2 or 3 in some reason, as that way every time they have a "succesful" hunt...
A point to remember is that the number of deaths that you are saying have increased are the deaths caused by fox hunting, which is a very small number anyway. Also, the foxes that would have survived a hunt could have just ended up being shot by farmers anyway, so unless you can say in total fox deaths have increased by a significant margin your point is almost invalid.

As I say, I have no problem with pest control, just why not do it humanely?

One more thing...they way fox hunting is being plied now, isn't in keeping with the environment. The traditional method results in the killing of the old and weak foxes, therefore furthering the principles of natural selection.
There's nothing natural about being chased through a field by tens of hounds followed by people on horseback. It is not natural selection, it is artificial selection, and nature is perfectly capable of doing its own selection without interference from us. So again, that point has pretty much been made invalid.

And to put the final nail in the coffin of the 'natural selection' argument, there is evidence that the trauma a fox receives, even after escaping a hunt, can lead to a fox's death.

Whereas, the foxes being killed now are just those stupid enough to wander across the farmers back gardens. Of the foxes they shoot, approximately 1 in 3 is shot but not killed, so limps off, dying a slow and painful death.
Okay, so 2/3 foxes that are shot get a humane death. That is actually mathmatically infinetley better than the 0/3 of fox hunt foxes that receive a humane death.

I wouldn't be too surprised that as a result of this you see a decrease in the fox population, possibly to the extent that they need to start reintroducing the fox to the countryside.
I would.

And to quote myself from earlier on:

(Original post by Me)
...unless you can say in total fox deaths have increased by a significant margin your point is almost invalid.
Moving on..

it is far more barbaric now, less environmentally friendly, and the system has equilibrated to hunting with dogs to allow it to be fair and productive.
it is far more barbaric now
Humane killing equates to barbarism? Don't think so.

less environmentally friendly
How an artifical action of killing can ever be considered environmentally friendly is beyond me. I might agree with pest control, but I don't kid myself it's helping the environment. It helps farmers. And if you're refering to the natural selction thing you were on about earlier, then see my response to that.

the system has equilibrated to hunting with dogs to allow it to be fair and productive.
I don't even know what that means? How can traditional fox hunting be considered more fair and more productive than shooting? And what the hell does that have to do with a system?

Hunting with dogs is the most humane way I can think of to kill the aforementioned creatures. What's the problem?
That you're actually stupid if you seriously believe hunting with dogs is humane?

How is shooting the fox - giving it at least the chance of a humane death - then dragging it behind any less humane? It's not.

theres also the whole natural selection thing which keeps the greens happy too.
I very much doubt you'd get a 'green' to agree with you there. Or anyone who actually understands natural selection for that matter.

It's artifical selection, damn it! It's only happening because we're interfering and it effects the entire ecosystem!!

The thing about killing with poisons, guns.etc., is that it is done indiscriminately, so therefore you do not kill the slowest, weakest, oldest.etc.etc.

This therefore has a detrimental effect on the population, and, as is being seen now, has resulted in the population dropping significantly.
*SLAMS HEAD ON TABLE*

Promoting the survival of a species artifically is not a good thing!! Why do you get the idea it is? Shooting foxes, which is effectivley random, would keep everything the way nature wants. It wouldn't cause a decrease in population (other than the ones you shoot)!

Also, it just occured to me, if foxes are pests why would you be doing something that encourages their proliferation (like artifical selection) anyway?? Surely it's better for you to do it randomly! (But oh wait, it's not as fun)

Despite its obvious flaws, it is still the best method for controlling foxes.
How can it be a better method of controlling foxes than shooting them? I don't understand the logic. I mean, you can kill more in a day with a gun than a day on horseback, it's cheaper, you give them a humane death.... how is traditional fox hunting a better method??

Its a fair assumption - currently they shoot foxes and drag them behind the horses for the new form of fox hunting (which i believe is obscenely barbaric).
How is it obscenely barbaric? And how could it possibly be called more barbaric than traditional fox hunting? The thing is shot, a more humane way to die. After that surely it's pretty much the same as attaching a piece of meat to the horse? How the hell is that obscene?

Im a tory voter but if they said theywould or did repeal the ban i would never vote for them again, poably jsut vote labour to get them out!

You're not exactly committed, are you?
It's not about commitment, it's about a passion to a cause.

Well said LibertineNorth - it does appear there are more than 2 or 3 people on TSR who actually understand the environmental intricacies of foxhunting - have some rep...
*BANGS HEAD EVEN HARDER*


Sorry for mammoth post, I wanted to address every issue raised that I disagree with.

In my mind, the only argument for traditional fox hunting is because it's a tradition, the way it has always been. And if we followed that logic all the time we'd be stuck in the dark ages.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
(Original post by Tom H)
Of course that fails to take into account the idea of pest control. But of course, fox hunting results in a tiny percentage of fox deaths anyway, so that isn't a valid argument. I have no problem with pest control, but why it can't be done humanely with a bullet I don't know. I have no problem with the new method of shooting a fox then trailing it behind a horse, after all it's already dead and not suffering.
I’d like to see you shoot a fox with a bullet! Even the most skilled marksman couldn’t accomplish that feat. Foxes and other animals of that size are brought down with a shotgun - so it’s multiple pieces of shot rather than a bullet. Covers a wide area, but of course the potential for lodging a couple of bits of lead in the leg is massive.

Just because it doesn’t contribute greatly to pest control doesn’t mean anything in terms of whether it should be illegal. It has a purpose, it is the most humane method I can think of to carry out that purpose effectively, it causes no-one any real harm. That’s why I think it ought to be legal.

There's nothing natural about being chased through a field by tens of hounds followed by people on horseback. It is not natural selection, it is artificial selection, and nature is perfectly capable of doing its own selection without interference from us. So again, that point has pretty much been made invalid.

And to put the final nail in the coffin of the 'natural selection' argument, there is evidence that the trauma a fox receives, even after escaping a hunt, can lead to a fox's death.
Humans are part of nature too. And yes, due to the extinction of certain native British animals within these Isles the fox has no natural predator. The equilibrium you see as the saving grace of your argument no longer exists.

Okay, so 2/3 foxes that are shot get a humane death. That is actually mathmatically infinetley better than the 0/3 of fox hunt foxes that receive a humane death.
I think extended suffering, with some shot lodged in you, is not a pleasant way to drift into death. The process could cause many days of pain, longer if it's simply an infected wound. A classic foxhunting death is far more humane.

That you're actually stupid if you seriously believe hunting with dogs is humane?
Yes. Death is quick and virtually painless once the fox is caught. If you’re going to talk about the fear it suffers from the chase, I put it to you that it is a rather pathetic and decedent animal that doesn’t feel a bit of fear now and again. This would happen in nature, and does happen to virtually every other animal.



Promoting the survival of a species artifically is not a good thing!! Why do you get the idea it is? Shooting foxes, which is effectivley random, would keep everything the way nature wants. It wouldn't cause a decrease in population (other than the ones you shoot)!

Also, it just occured to me, if foxes are pests why would you be doing something that encourages their proliferation (like artifical selection) anyway?? Surely it's better for you to do it randomly! (But oh wait, it's not as fun)
It’s a simulation of nature. Try reading a little bit about evolution. Why keep the species going? Because we want to maintain and preserve the fox to be hunted another day - turning the fox population into a shadow of its former self could lead to its extinction.

You must remember that a great number of foxhunters respect the fox as a beautiful and graceful animal… albeit one that eats their chickens given half the chance.


How can it be a better method of controlling foxes than shooting them? I don't understand the logic. I mean, you can kill more in a day with a gun than a day on horseback, it's cheaper, you give them a humane death.... how is traditional fox hunting a better method??
Again, it’s not a humane death for the large number of foxes that would go away injured rather than dead.


How is it obscenely barbaric? And how could it possibly be called more barbaric than traditional fox hunting? The thing is shot, a more humane way to die. After that surely it's pretty much the same as attaching a piece of meat to the horse? How the hell is that obscene?
I find it disgusting to be dragging carcasses around. It may not be logical, but I think my reaction is somewhat natural.


It's not about commitment, it's about a passion to a cause.
And you’re going to put some daft class war nonsense before the good governance of the country? Human beings have lives that will be improved by a Tory government being in power - if you’re a natural Tory voter, I’d imagine you’d agree with this sentiment. Meanwhile you’re basing your vote on what a person can do in the fields with some dogs to the detriment of some pest or other. Admittedly the fox hunting issue would affect my vote, but in such a tiny way as to be virtually insignificant.
0
DenverDiva
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by LibertineNorth)

I recall my first fishing trip with my father as a great childhood memory rather than a disgusting and inhumane event. More importantly, you're talking nonsense - I've shot deer, grouse and a peasant in my time. None of it was inhumane or disgusting.
But possibly illegal?!?
0
Snake
Badges:
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
(Original post by Bismarck)
Why should the rights of animals be placed above the rights of human beings? Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
Its not like they ar killing humans instead of animals.

You mean humans should be able to do whatever they like to animals..?
I don't suppose you have a dog i could hunt do you...?
Snake
Badges:
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
Originally Posted by LibertineNorth

I recall my first fishing trip with my father as a great childhood memory rather than a disgusting and inhumane event. More importantly, you're talking nonsense - I've shot deer, grouse and a peasant in my time. None of it was inhumane or disgusting.

And you no doubt ate them all. when was the last time you had fox for lunch?
Goody1
Badges: 0
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
Are you suggesting that we leave vats of poisoned meat around the countryside? Think of the danger to other animals or children. Plus it also removes the 'killing the old and injured/weak only' effect - unless some foxes have a particuarly iron constitution.



Even living amongst a long foxhunting tradition, I have never seen this being done. I imagine many former foxhunters would find it has obscene as you do.



Not at all. Quick, virtually painless. And using professional hunters with guns? They're still inaccurate, would be very expensive for individual farmers (who would be tempted to do it themselves) and most importantly I'd like to see you shoot a fox in open countryside with a bloody rifle!



You're not exactly committed, are you?



I recall my first fishing trip with my father as a great childhood memory rather than a disgusting and inhumane event. More importantly, you're talking nonsense - I've shot deer, grouse and a peasant in my time. None of it was inhumane or disgusting.



No foxhunter takes pleasure in the death of an animal. Many of them are the greatest animal lovers you are likely to find.
Well last time i checked i wasnt a trained marksman that might be jsut me, but there are plenty aroudn willing to do the job and well trained enough course you can.

Shooting deer, grous or peasant is a little bit different to setting a pack of dogs upon them isnt now?

Why do they do it then if they take no sense of achievement, pride of joy in what they've done, the whole point of taking a part in a sport, i find it ahrd to believe they take no pleasure in it.

Fishing you release them after or the ones you keep you eat, i have no problem with people hunting then eating what they kill, btu when they just do it to subject foxes to totrute thats when the problem arises.

This disscussion is kind of redundant as the banis inp lace thank god.
0
Scheherazade
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
(Original post by Goody1)
Shooting deer, grous or peasant is a little bit different to setting a pack of dogs upon them isnt now?
I don't think he's actually shot a peasant...
0
Snake
Badges:
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
(Original post by ayaan)
I don't think he's actually shot a peasant...
might have. Beaters are often poor people, and we don't know how good a shot he is...
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
Well last time i checked i wasnt a trained marksman that might be jsut me, but there are plenty aroudn willing to do the job and well trained enough course you can.
Not really - from doing this since the ban, 1 in 3 foxes shot has been hit but only wounded, therefore having a slow and painful death imposed upon it - sounds barbaric to me.

Shooting deer, grouse or pheasant is a little bit different to setting a pack of dogs upon them isnt now?
Not really - when shouting grouse you have seeking dogs which will retrieve the grouse for you. If one is shot but does not produce a clean kill, the dogs pick them up and bring them to you to prevent them being left injured.

Why do they do it then if they take no sense of achievement, pride of joy in what they've done, the whole point of taking a part in a sport, i find it ahrd to believe they take no pleasure in it.
They do it because it has to be done, and i'm sure you can imagine how enjoyable riding in a big pack of horses with all of your friends would be. Also, hunters do not brand it a sport - they would say it is a necessary activity.

Fishing you release them after or the ones you keep you eat, i have no problem with people hunting then eating what they kill, btu when they just do it to subject foxes to totrute thats when the problem arises.
If you claim a fast and virtually painless death is torture, then you have a very blinkered view of the world. shooting an animal in the leg and leaving it to fend for itself is torture - as you know it will not survive long, so it will starve to death, and if that does not happen by a fluke of nature it will die from infection. fun eh! No...

This disscussion is kind of redundant as the banis inp lace thank god.
This discussion cannot be redundant as there is still a significant proportion of the population who wish to overturn the ban, and are striving to do so. It would only be redundant if it did not have a single supporter, and you are stupid and naive for thinking this is the case.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by Snake)
might have. Beaters are often poor people, and we don't know how good a shot he is...
My father worked as a beater when he was younger and was accidentally shot - but at a range of 200m, which is the minimum distance the beaters will stand at for this reason, only one pellet broke the skin and that was easily removed - hardly a trauma worthy of commenting on.
0
Tom H
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
I’d like to see you shoot a fox with a bullet! Even the most skilled marksman couldn’t accomplish that feat. Foxes and other animals of that size are brought down with a shotgun - so it’s multiple pieces of shot rather than a bullet. Covers a wide area, but of course the potential for lodging a couple of bits of lead in the leg is massive.
Where do you get these dead foxes to trail behind horses then? I presume they were shot. And according to biker more foxes are actually killed per hunt this way...

Just because it doesn’t contribute greatly to pest control doesn’t mean anything in terms of whether it should be illegal. It has a purpose, it is the most humane method I can think of to carry out that purpose effectively, it causes no-one any real harm. That’s why I think it ought to be legal.
Fair enough, but most people don't think it should be illegal (well not me anyway) just because it kills foxes. It's the manner of the death. I think we'll have to agree to disagree or not on whether it's a humane way to go. But even if it was, there are still gonna be a lot of people who find the idea of a body being ripped to shreds by dogs disgusting, even if it's slightly illogical. Just like how you find the trailing of a dead body disgusting.

Humans are part of nature too. And yes, due to the extinction of certain native British animals within these Isles the fox has no natural predator. The equilibrium you see as the saving grace of your argument no longer exists.
Sorry I don't get that? You're saying if foxes were left to their own devices they'd do fine on their own as they have no natural predator? So why do you need to impose this artificial selection? What have they got to adapt to? Evolution happens in response to a selection pressure, if there isn't one it doesn't happen. That's natural. Forcing the animals to adapt when they would have otherwise no need to is unnatural.

Killing randomly imposes no selective pressure, and means the only selection pressures that effect the animals are natural.

And I still don't understand why you would want to do something that would encourage fox numbers to grow anyway.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
Where do you get these dead foxes to trail behind horses then? I presume they were shot. And according to biker more foxes are actually killed per hunt this way...
They shoot them, hence for every two foxes they kill to be dragged for the hunts another is injured and dies slowly and painfully.
Also, originally only 1 in 10 huntes yielded a kill, therefore 10x the number of foxes are being killed than before.

Fair enough, but most people don't think it should be illegal (well not me anyway) just because it kills foxes. It's the manner of the death. I think we'll have to agree to disagree or not on whether it's a humane way to go. But even if it was, there are still gonna be a lot of people who find the idea of a body being ripped to shreds by dogs disgusting, even if it's slightly illogical. Just like how you find the trailing of a dead body disgusting.
We are not claiming it is completely painless, but it is significant preferable to starving to death or dying from a gangrinous infection. Hence it is the best way to kill foxes, as we sacrifice the complete painlessness of a bullet in the brain to the few seconds of pain before death (although as i have stated many hunts use the method of training the dogs to surround the fox, allowing the lead huntsman to shoot it at close range, therefore being as good as this method with even less discomfort for the fox).
This is all still preferable to starvation.
Also...foxes kill sheep - and when its one on one that could entail hours of agony while the sheep breads to death....just thought i would mention it.

Sorry I don't get that? You're saying if foxes were left to their own devices they'd do fine on their own as they have no natural predator? So why do you need to impose this artificial selection? What have they got to adapt to? Evolution happens in response to a selection pressure, if there isn't one it doesn't happen. That's natural. Forcing the animals to adapt when they would have otherwise no need to is unnatural.
The reason we need to hunt foxes is because we now rear sheep on the countryside in a much larger proportion than there naturally would be, and as a result the potential food for foxes is greater. Since foxes traditional food is rabbits, the number must be kept in check with this, to prevent overhunting of rabbits, since when young the increased numbers of sheep on the fields allow more foxes to survive through to adulthood than traditionally would, creating an exponentially increasing population, that if not controlled will result in a desecration of the food chain.

Killing randomly imposes no selective pressure, and means the only selection pressures that effect the animals are natural.
Exactly!
0
Tom H
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
(Original post by bikerx23)
They shoot them, hence for every two foxes they kill to be dragged for the hunts another is injured and dies slowly and painfully.
Also, originally only 1 in 10 huntes yielded a kill, therefore 10x the number of foxes are being killed than before.
Surely, if your aim is to kill foxes for pest control, that's a good thing? If the numbers get low you can have less hunts as there would be no need for as many.

Also, your figures suggest that all the foxes that escape survive, whereas some will die indirectly from the trauma (although I think the numbers that do die this way are arguable).

Another point is that traditional fox hunting kills so few foxes anyway in relation to total fox deaths that even a number that is 10 times greater would make nowhere near that big an impact on total fox deaths.

We are not claiming it is completely painless, but it is significant preferable to starving to death or dying from a gangrinous infection. Hence it is the best way to kill foxes, as we sacrifice the complete painlessness of a bullet in the brain to the few seconds of pain before death (although as i have stated many hunts use the method of training the dogs to surround the fox, allowing the lead huntsman to shoot it at close range, therefore being as good as this method with even less discomfort for the fox).
This is all still preferable to starvation.
Again, I suppose it's a matter of opinion on how painful traditional fox hunting is for the fox, and whether you'll allow arguments of disgust seeing as Libertine mentioned earlier a reason for his dislike of trailing a fox is because he views it as disgusting.

Also...foxes kill sheep - and when its one on one that could entail hours of agony while the sheep breads to death....just thought i would mention it.
Hopefully we're above a fox when it comes to morality and humanity.

The reason we need to hunt foxes is because we now rear sheep on the countryside in a much larger proportion than there naturally would be, and as a result the potential food for foxes is greater. Since foxes traditional food is rabbits, the number must be kept in check with this, to prevent overhunting of rabbits, since when young the increased numbers of sheep on the fields allow more foxes to survive through to adulthood than traditionally would, creating an exponentially increasing population, that if not controlled will result in a desecration of the food chain.
Again, as I said, I have no problem with foxes being killed for pest control.


Exactly!
So why are you arguing that traditional hunting, which isn't random and does impose an unnatural selection pressure is the best way?
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 13 years ago
#59
Surely, if your aim is to kill foxes for pest control, that's a good thing? If the numbers get low you can have less hunts as there would be no need for as many.
If you kill too many, you will then have too many rabbits.etc.etc., so its important to get the right balance - we dont want to force the fox into extinction either.

Also, your figures suggest that all the foxes that escape survive, whereas some will die indirectly from the trauma (although I think the numbers that do die this way are arguable).
I cant say i have heard this argument before...I wouldn't say, if this occured at all, it would be a number worth more than a moments consideration.

Again, I suppose it's a matter of opinion on how painful traditional fox hunting is for the fox, and whether you'll allow arguments of disgust seeing as Libertine mentioned earlier a reason for his dislike of trailing a fox is because he views it as disgusting.
True - I also dont like the idea of dragging a carkas behind a horse as "bait".

So why are you arguing that traditional hunting, which isn't random and does impose an unnatural selection pressure is the best way?
Traditional hunting (with hounds) which I believe is the best way forward kills the old and weak - this is selective and follows natural selection pressures, and is positive for evolution, so maybe you have your wires crossed with that quote...shooting foxes is the unnatural one, because all it has to do is wander across the bottom of a farmers field at the wrong time - indiscriminate of age, health.etc.
0
Tom H
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 13 years ago
#60
(Original post by bikerx23)
If you kill too many, you will then have too many rabbits.etc.etc., so its important to get the right balance - we dont want to force the fox into extinction either.
Then don't kill too many, impose a quote on the numbers to be killed. I'm sure this is already done with other species.

Also, you might have missed this point, as it was an edit, but I also suggested:

(Original post by I)
that traditional fox hunting kills so few foxes anyway in relation to total fox deaths that even a number that is 10 times greater would make nowhere near that big an impact on total fox deaths.
I cant say i have heard this argument before...I wouldn't say, if this occured at all, it would be a number worth more than a moments consideration.
Well to be honest, I can't put up an argument here as I honestly don't have a clue of the numbers suggested by people or the reliability of the sources. Just thought it was worth a mention.

Traditional hunting (with hounds) which I believe is the best way forward kills the old and weak - this is selective and follows natural selection pressures, and is positive for evolution, so maybe you have your wires crossed with that quote...shooting foxes is the unnatural one, because all it has to do is wander across the bottom of a farmers field at the wrong time - indiscriminate of age, health.etc.
Yeah, I have no doubt traditional hunting would favour killing the weaker and slower foxes. And just because it's a form of selection, it doesn't make it natural selection. The only reason the foxes are having to adapt is because you're forcing them to. Nature is quite capable of sorting out what direction evolution should go in without our unnecessary intervention.

If you were to shoot foxes, their deaths would be random. This would mean you wouldn't exert a selection pressure and would allow nature to carry on with what it's done for millennia without any help from us.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (66)
20.06%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (132)
40.12%
Nope, not that interesting (131)
39.82%

Watched Threads

View All