NationStates Jolt Archive

The whole issue is a bit dumb from the side of those who seem to lose their elite status of riding after a red canine... But hunting on horseback without fox is practised in Germany for example, and it works there. The role of the fox is played by another rider, and yep, it works, pretty good btw. Basically the only difference is that in Germany the course of the hunt is set, while in the old English style the fox was the one who decided where to go. You can even have a look att he course before the hunt, which isn't a bad idea, it makes it saver for everyone (and a good hunting horse is pretty expensive).

And well, there are foxes in Germany too, but the country's not getting over-run just because they're not hunted from horseback.

The argument of having the fox bleed to death with shooting it is... dumb. I duno about UK, but at least in Austria you actually have to be able to shoot and hit in order to get a hunting licence, it's part of the training for the licence.

Controlling populations should be left to specialists, not to amateur hunters. Also, UK, just like all other EU countries, is a modern country, not much wildlife that would need such a controlling left. I mean, they are controlling the ammount of deer and other creatures here too, but well those are a few kills per year, nothing important. Foxes aren't even really controlled here, and definitely not a problem for any chicken farmer.

But you see, at least foxes don't kill animals for fun, unlike humans...

The whole issue is a bit dumb from the side of those who seem to lose their elite status of riding after a red canine... But hunting on horseback without fox is practised in Germany for example, and it works there. The role of the fox is played by another rider, and yep, it works, pretty good btw. Basically the only difference is that in Germany the course of the hunt is set, while in the old English style the fox was the one who decided where to go. You can even have a look att he course before the hunt, which isn't a bad idea, it makes it saver for everyone (and a good hunting horse is pretty expensive).

And well, there are foxes in Germany too, but the country's not getting over-run just because they're not hunted from horseback.

The argument of having the fox bleed to death with shooting it is... dumb. I duno about UK, but at least in Austria you actually have to be able to shoot and hit in order to get a hunting licence, it's part of the training for the licence.

Controlling populations should be left to specialists, not to amateur hunters. Also, UK, just like all other EU countries, is a modern country, not much wildlife that would need such a controlling left. I mean, they are controlling the ammount of deer and other creatures here too, but well those are a few kills per year, nothing important. Foxes aren't even really controlled here, and definitely not a problem for any chicken farmer.

But you see, at least foxes don't kill animals for fun, unlike humans...

Hunts, amateurs? Not sure my local Huntsman who's been a pro for 30 years would be too happy with that description...... :rolleyes:

Hunts, amateurs? Not sure my local Huntsman who's been a pro for 30 years would be too happy with that description...... :rolleyes:

Being an experienced rider and hunter doesn't equal a 'good' killer. He might be great at jumping fences, but good hunting is about an efficient, quick kill.

And the fact is, the hunstman usually has nothing to do with the kill, that's where the terrier men come in. All this 'flushing out of older and weaker foxes for wildlife management' is bollocks. And where would cubbing come into that? How would you justify it?

Hunts can cross counties, travel miles and miles, and often when the healthy fox DOES escape, it's just dug out anyway. People's gardens are the saviour of foxes, when they jam themselves down behind a shed and the homeowner won't let the hunters in. Not long back one even ran through someone's kitchen door, up their stairs and into their spare bedroom.

So, pro hunters, which is it going to be?
Are foxes a massive pest that must be killed, in which case, the healthier the fox, the bigger a threat it is?

Or is it wildlife management, and the removal of older and weaker foxes?

I wish we had fox or rabbit hunting as a sport in Australia, the little bastards eat everything and kill our animals... :sniper: plus rednecks will have something to do on a weekend...

I mentioned the fact the red fox are not native to Australia previously and was blown off apparently. You also mention it, and you too were blown off. Apparently it was more important to turn this thread into a talk about pedophiles and anti-hunting rhetoric.

The un-controlling of various animals when their natural predators are no longer able to keep them in check is a danger to other species of animals as well as humans.

Australia is a prime example of what happens when a species of animal is introduced into an environment where it is not normally found they will take over from other species of animal because there is NO natural predator for them. The same can happen if certain other animals have lost their natural predators in their normal environment.

If as a result, the so called animal rights people get their way, and all hunting, trapping and killing of any animal is banned, then I will be happy to drop all of the "less than desirable" critters I live trap on your door step. You can take care of them. When you are over run by these animals, and they have spread disease, killed off all the other sources of food, and have now turned on you because you have become their food source do not come crying to me...

I'll be in my home free of critters eating all the Beef I want, because I saved up enough in my freezer for me before the "bad critters" killed off all the cattle...

Oh and I thought rednecks was only an Americanism.

Hunting is a form of socially sanctioned recreational violence
practiced by approximately six percent of the U.S. population.
Collectively, hunters resemble an army of under-trained,
unsupervised amateur killers roaming around destroying 200 million
animals a year, making it unsafe for hikers, campers and wildlife.
The wholesale slaughter includes millions of animals that are left
wounded and mutilated with their faces or stomachs destroyed. Many
will die a slow agonizing death. A hunter's lack of feelings
- empathy and compassion - for animals and lack of respect for
nature go hand in hand. As a result of hunting, millions of game
animals are wounded, wasted and mutilated. Entire ecosystems are
damaged by this grisly hobby. How can hunters kill, cripple, and
harass millions of animals without damaging the ecology?

Hunters believe that wild animals are merely moving objects waiting
to die anyway. So why not just shoot them? They also claim to be
providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife
populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer
actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting.
Of course, hunters encourage an overpopulation of deer. They want
plenty of big game trophies and an overabundance of big game
animals. Thanks to state wildlife agencies, this country's
ecosystems are manipulated to provide a surplus of deer and elk.

Adding insult to injury, hunters have no consideration for nongame
animals - including endangered species. Over half of this country's
National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting. And they're called
refuges! So-called "wilderness areas" which are managed with
taxpayer money, permit recreational wildlife killing. Typically, 71
per cent of hunting license money goes toward enforcing hunting
regulations. The remainder is used to improve and maintain state
lands for hunting use. Lottery and income tax monies are used to
supplement nongame programs because hunters don't want their
license money spent on these projects. Hunters are not concerned
about a balanced ecology or biodiversity and they'd love to see our
national parks turned into hunting preserves.

What a crock of... Where do you get your propaganda from? Hunters are not; " hunters resemble an army of under-trained,
unsupervised amateur killers" Most, if not all, states require all potential hunters to go through a hunter safety course at some time in their lives.

I do not in any way want to imply that these people are perfect, that accidents do not happen or that they all are of the highest calaber of individual.

"They also claim to be providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer
actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting." First, who's studies? I love how you all always say "according to some study".
Let me ask you this which is more humane to the animals? To allow an area, say a wildlife refuge, become so overpopulated with deer, or other species that they are dying of disease and starvation or to thin the herd through a controlled hunt.

You are quick to point out that National Parks, wildlife refuges, etc. are to quick to allow hunting. They must or the animal population will over run these places and will begin to die of starvation. Particularly in areas where their natural predators are no longer around.

You also imply that hunters are some kind of low intelligent individual.

Do you know who established the National Park and Wild life refuge system in the U.S.? Teddy Roosevelt. Do you know why? No, not because they needed to have places preserved for future generations although that is part of it. Teddy was an advid hunter. He wanted others to experience what he experienced, not just the hunting but the wide open spaces, the forests, etc.

So get off your high horse and try to be a little more flexable and look at the facts to see what can happen if certain species of animals are left to their own devices and not controlled.