Making the news today....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 minutes ago, MattyF said:

I’m nearly a 100% for fox hunting , I like seeing foxes from a distance but I don’t like having my chickens killed and I’ve seen desperate foxes cut themselves to bits going through wire in order to feed themselves and young a fit healthy fox won’t go near humans as it’s more than capable of hunting instead of scavenging and will out run the hounds every day of the week so the apex predator survives he will also keep other foxes out of his area..
Problem with shooting them is you will have a 100 young pretenders going for the spot of the fox you just killed and they will decimate areas until the hierarchy of apex predator is restored to a natural balance.. ask any keeper who has killed a fox and has to spend the next week shooting hundreds more for the ones coming in to take the prime spot next to the pheasant pens.. you need an apex predator not a marks man to wield out the week and keep a healthy population, that’s my argument any way.... I don’t agree with the boarding up of fox dens or digging them out.

That’s as close to a logical and rational argument as it’s possible to get and there are some elements of which I’d acknowledge as valid. 
 

It’s the only argument that I’ve ever heard that (partially) stands scrutiny and is very similar to a discussion I had with an elderly farming neighbour who presented a not dissimilar case. His view was that a young, strong, healthy fox will out run a hunt everyday of the week. The benefit of that is that it will likely be displaced (+/- 20 miles) and force a genetic diversity into the area in which it then settles thus enlarging the gene pool. Conversely, a weaker, older, injured fox may well fall victim - thus removing the weaker. 
 

No argument with that - other than the obvious illogical contradiction that a ‘process’ supposedly intended to ‘control’ a ‘pest’ being justified by an argument that relies upon the STRENGTHENING of the pest as a control measure. 
 

If we accept the element of the argument that relies upon the genetic diversification (and I do acknowledge it) are we then so constrained in our thinking and capabilities as to be unable to come up with a more humane and efficient method of achieving this?

 

Thats where it falls over in my view. 
 

 

[David Cropper]

38 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

?

 

F*ck off!

 

You know full well....

Ah, you can't beat a reasoned argument with a lightning fast riposte. I must remember this well thought out phrase of yours, Mr Johnson. What was it again? Oh, yes. F*ck off. That's quite enough of your salty talk on here, young man.

[David Cropper]

27 minutes ago, MattyF said:

I’m nearly a 100% for fox hunting , I like seeing foxes from a distance but I don’t like having my chickens killed and I’ve seen desperate foxes cut themselves to bits going through wire in order to feed themselves and young a fit healthy fox won’t go near humans as it’s more than capable of hunting instead of scavenging and will out run the hounds every day of the week so the apex predator survives he will also keep other foxes out of his area..
Problem with shooting them is you will have a 100 young pretenders going for the spot of the fox you just killed and they will decimate areas until the hierarchy of apex predator is restored to a natural balance.. ask any keeper who has killed a fox and has to spend the next week shooting hundreds more for the ones coming in to take the prime spot next to the pheasant pens.. you need an apex predator not a marks man to wield out the week and keep a healthy population, that’s my argument any way.... I don’t agree with the boarding up of fox dens or digging them out.

Good man Matty. Good well thought out and reasonable reply.

[openspaceman]

44 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

What point cant be argued? 

The hind leg bit can always be agued

 

 

[MattyF]

I still think a strong fox will go back to “its” territory than go on miles away... will a hunt really carry on for 20 miles ?

Thing is the leftist class war environmentalists do acknowledge the need for apex predators hence all the calls for lynx and wolfs to be reintroduced.. but that’s ok because it will only be killing the toffs sheep.

 

[openspaceman]

38 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

He manages a shoot, not a fox hunting group. The fox hunters are not his employer and they don’t own the land.

Then why does his employer allow them to hunt on the land?

[The avantgardener]

2 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Then why does his employer allow them to hunt on the land?

Who knows, they are probably friends.

[openspaceman]

4 minutes ago, MattyF said:

I still think a strong fox will go back to “its” territory than go on like a displaced refugee miles away... will a hunt really carry on for 20 miles ?

@MattyF I'm with you on that. I live in an urban area and foxes are one of the few indigenous land animals I see and as I no longer keep chickens nor geese and neither does anyone close by they can have a free run.

 

I have not been involved in fox hunting nor did I like the mess they made when they ran through but to make hunting with dogs illegal I was against. As my non  hunting anti bloodsports, clog dancing, barrister, employer used to say it's part of the "Pageant of the Countryside" so I would carry on working as the hunt floundered around and brer renard would slink by  feet away from me going the other way.

 

What seems far more wanton in my eyes is to breed a non indigenous bird, feed it with grain fit for the mill, drive it out of its home into the open and make it fly, when it would prefer to run, into a barrage of lead, then pick up all the bodies and bury them.

[MattyF]

I think it’s a shame to admit but the killing of foxes with dogs was outlawed and the main reason it’s still in the public’s eye and raising so much content as is its one rule for us and they can get away with breaking the rules....that’s fair enough despite how much I think it’s the best way to control countryside foxes, I think a lot of hunts conduct them selves in a manor which wins them no support with the majority of the general public too that does not help them ..but I’m more annoyed that because of this blowing up again the possibility of all other “blood” sports will suffer, I’m massively in to game fishing and I’ve returned well over 50 salmon and sea trout last season .. kept one early salmon but I care about the future of the species so returned all the others that I caught like most of the thousands of other anglers out there in the U.K...so find it unfair its in the blood sport category, game angling is changing massively and it’s only a few idiots who are irresponsibly killing fish in my view.

[openspaceman]

18 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

Who knows, they are probably friends.

Perzactly it's probably the same set of people that also partake of the shoot. The gamekeeper's sole purpose in life is to cater for his employers foibles. When I worked for a large land management company all the gamekeepers were employed by the forestry department, as those expenses were tax deductible.