[Hardfeather]

I'd rather they were shot without fear than be chased in terror then ripped to shreds!

That's an urban myth, I'm afraid.

Foxes are chased by wolves in North America, and they are often killed by them too. Unfortunately, if you ignore eagles, the fox has no natural enemies in Britain. It could be argued that the hunt is satisfying Vulpes vulpes need, as a species, to experience being hunted.

Foxes do not run in constant terror when being hunted any more than does a roe deer which is startled by a person walking their pooches. If foxes are caught above ground, they are under a certain amount of duress as the hounds close on them, but no more so than a mouse which is a temporary plaything of a cat, or a rabbit which has been hunted by a stoat.

The trouble is that a great many of the people who believe that hunting is cruel, and that the killing of foxes by hounds is unnatural, or that it's only toffs who hunt, or that hunting has nothing to do with conservation, are living in a bubble of ignorance and are unwilling to accept any educated argument in favour of hunting.

Those same people can't even acknowledge that the evolution of Homo sapiens was dependant on the instinct and ability of individuals to hunt. The desire to hunt is as strong in some as is the desire to make money on the stock market, or to farm, or to do bugger all, in others. It's genetic.

Genes are also responsible for crimes against society, and the desire to fight wars, and even the need to protest.

What I don't understand is why we don't see balaclava-clad anarchists out in force when children are abducted and raped or killed; or when women are seen in public with the marks upon them from a violent partner; or when children are savaged by badly managed dogs; or when politicians steal from their constituents while the economy collapses.

The ban on hunting had nothing to do with cruelty to foxes any more than had prohibition to do with drunkenness.

[Wizard]

I totally agree with you Aengus Og.You may have read in the past posts  The Greenies and The Bunny Huggers They are the ones causing most of the bother.NO I do not promote cruelty at all but, some times unfortunate things happen.A living thing with a head or heart shot is not in fear, its grazing and its dead.It's a pity it cannot be applied to some of the humans as you describe in your last paragraph Bloody dogs are thought better of than some people.In the UK anyway.

[Sandy]

Spot on!!!!

[doganjo]

I stand by my statement.  I am not a bunny or tree hugger, I am not a vegetarian, but quietly killed lamb tastes nicer than a sheep brought down by a dog or a fox with fear in its last moments.  Shoot them, in preference, but have your hunting games by all means, I have no objections whatsoever as I no longer have land that you can traipse all over, but don't be deluded that you are doing it for the sake of the fox!

[sheila]

hear hear!

[Hardfeather]

Actually, I don't hunt.

I followed the Fife on foot a few times some years ago, but that was really only to enter some young terriers. I almost went into hunt service as a youth, but lack of a driving licence at that time hampered me. My interest in training horses and dogs, coupled with my instinct to hunt would have helped me to enjoy that sort of work.

The reference to land which the hunt can 'traipse all over' is very telling, and is one of the main objections to hunts these days. Another is class bigotry. A few people believe that foxes are cute and cuddly and should not be killed by any means.

Unfortunately for the hunts, there are more non-country people living in the countryside now than ever before. Many of them bring with them their territorial and insular attitudes. Some of these people are openly opposed to hunting, while others operate on a more insidious level. Of course, there is nothing which says that all country people should support hunting. Neither should all town dwellers condone drunkenness and violence and intolerance.

Personally, if I owned land, which I don't (principly because I don't believe it necessary for me, but also because, as a Scot, I believe that all of Scotland belongs to me anyway ), I would probably allow the hunt to use it, if only to demonstrate my attitude of live and let live...except when it comes to foxes

[sheila]

nobody really gets down to the nitty gritty, which is "why do you feel pleasure. why is it thrilling to hunt something, anything,to the point where the animal is exhausted and terrified?" Does this possibly say something more about the hunter then the hunted? and no I am not a tree hugger. I would shoot the bugger if it came near my girls...........BUT I wouldn't enjoy it!

[doganjo]

I believe that all of Scotland belongs to me anyway

That's where you're going wrong, Angus - it's MINE!   And I still wouldn't want horses and hounds traipsing all over it!

[Wizard]

But you still want me to pay for it?

[doganjo]

Scotland has a Right to Roam policy - all land in Scotland belongs to someone.  There is no such thing as 'no mans land'.  Scotland belongs to its people.  NOT to foxes!

[Hardfeather]

It's impossible to explain to a non-hunter why one hunts. I have tried. I can't understand why anyone would want to run for 26 miles, or spend weeks on a mountain in desperate conditions, or fight for a living, or join the army, or work on old steam engines every spare hour they have...

I have friends who are musicians. They would be miserable if they could not express themselves through their music. They can't help the way they are, nor do they offer apology. Without the freedom to sing or play they would not be whole. They don't try to be musicians...they just are.

I am proud of my hunting instinct, and in the knowledge that I could feed my family if it all went tits up... which it will.

[Hardfeather]

Scotland has a Right to Roam policy - all land in Scotland belongs to someone.  There is no such thing as 'no mans land'.  Scotland belongs to its people.  NOT to foxes!

The people of Scotland have a Right of Responsible Access, which is a bit different from a 'right to roam'.

[Hardfeather]

But you still want me to pay for it?

As long as we have only one Tory in Scotland, yet we have our right to autonomy blocked by English voters, you should be paying for it.

[doganjo]

Now we agree, Angus!

[CameronS]

i am not wishing to inflame anything or cause grievances, i have followed this thread since it since it started and have decided to share a little bit of information i was ignorant to, until i researched the topic for a recent school persuasive talk, in my case to lift the hunting ban.

I'd rather they were shot without fear than be chased in terror then ripped to shreds!

It has been proven by many nerve doctors etc, that dogs killing a fox is far less brutal than it seems, the kill is quick and instant, the dogs revert to wolf manorisms, and "Stun" the fox by a quick bite to the neck, paralysing the animal and stopping it's flow of pain. Where as shooting is not allways instant, unless the animal is head or neck shot i can run on, or even escape and die slowly due to infection.

With hunting it is allways luck of the draw as to wether an animal is flushed, but if humans start using traps, baiting and calling, aren't we being unfair, getting them into a oneway situation, death??