Foxes: Vermin or fluffy little Basils

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Kiss
Although my instant feeling was "Oh my God how horrible!" the fact he shot the foxes was preferable to poisoning or trapping or worse still hunting them for fun.

I hate the way foxes were/are dunno

;-) hunted with horse and hounds...
I much prefer the shooting method...
By far and away quicker,more effective and certainly (in most cases) better (if there is a better way) for the fox..
* I know what I wanted to say but not sure if it looks right in text*

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

Although my instant feeling was "Oh my God how horrible!" the fact he shot the foxes was preferable to poisoning or trapping or worse still hunting them for fun.

I hate the way foxes were/are dunno

;-) hunted with horse and hounds...
I much prefer the shooting method...
By far and away quicker,more effective and certainly (in most cases) better (if there is a better way) for the fox..
* I know what I wanted to say but not sure if it looks right in text*
I think we are both trying to say the same thing. lol

12 Apr 2007

i have no issue with people killing foxes in a fast and painless as possible way if it is to protect their own livestock. fox gunting for pleasure is a whole different thing and i would happlilly string the hunters up by their balls.

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Ukwineman
... but what would the difference be if same fox was killed by its only natural predator the Golden Eagle ( yeah I know we not likely to see one) that would not care less where it was left or what state it was in when it had finished feeding?

To me, the difference is I can explain that to her, it's nature. Some animals prey on others for food, the killing of the fox by the eagle would not be unnecessary dunno

- and she will understand that. The shooting of a young fox for 'fun' because it happened to be a live target, no chickens / farmers etc in the equasion, just probably young lads with a shotgun and a £10 bet. I guess I'm pissed because it was so unnecessary & there is no way I can explain why to her :dunno:

The only thing I can say is it’s a good teaching lesson, but lets be honest we live in a civilized world.

do we? :dunno: wink

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Ukwineman
If fox’s are left alone and nothing done they will breed and spread (along with the diseases they carry) as they don’t have a natural enemy any more, for year’s humans hunted them and that has controlled the population.

Surely the number of animals in an area is dictated by the availability of food. If an area can only support 2 foxes when they breed their offspring have to leave the area or face starvation.
If an area can support 30 foxes and only 25 live there then they will be joined by 5 more. If 2 are killed then 2 more will replace them.
Natural predators are also controled by the number of prey. The more prey the more predators the fewer the prey the fewer the predators.
Hunting is a very short term solution and has very little long term effect. For hunting to be effective it has to be a cull. Every fox in an area. It is the availability of food that is the most important factor in survival.

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Darkfire

... but what would the difference be if same fox was killed by its only natural predator the Golden Eagle ( yeah I know we not likely to see one) that would not care less where it was left or what state it was in when it had finished feeding?

To me, the difference is I can explain that to her, it's nature. Some animals prey on others for food, the killing of the fox by the eagle would not be unnecessary dunno

- and she will understand that. The shooting of a young fox for 'fun' because it happened to be a live target, no chickens / farmers etc in the equasion, just probably young lads with a shotgun and a £10 bet. I guess I'm pissed because it was so unnecessary & there is no way I can explain why to her :dunno:

The only thing I can say is it’s a good teaching lesson, but lets be honest we live in a civilized world.

do we? :dunno: wink

You can explain to her that some people are bad and they think its fun, this is a good age to set good values and how children will see things in the future my daughter is 8 and I try not to hold back.
Compared to what happens in nature yes we do, and compared to whats happening in certain dark & dangerous places in the world again yes. Look around you right now and what have you got.

12 Apr 2007

As a wannabe Pagan, i think that nature should be left to its own devices, animals which do not spread disease such as rats (unwittingly i know but they carry some pretty nasty stuff), or that pose a real threat to other species survival in a particular area (such as the grey squirrel which kills out red squirrel populations that are in serious decline) all have a place here in the lovely British Isles.
I think that in this day and age, foxes can be tolerated by farmers as we have the technology and know how to build a decent fox - proof chicken coup surely? confused

We build bloody earthquake proof sky - scrapers!!
I know foxes kill chickens in a coup needlessly and only take one etc, etc but they act on natural impulse they dont "intend" to do it or know any better for that matter. We as the superior species of planet Earth do know better as we have developed a higher sense of consciousness and being through the process of our evolution and realise that killing animals needlessly, that are not for food, protection of other species or for the animals own well being is pretty much a careless act.
As for fox hunting i personally am totally against it and think that is barbaric, i do realise that there is some historic and social aspect to it all the "country set" and all that, but i just think that to me, its all wrong, nuff said on that little bit anyway.
To be honest, i may have an idealistic viewpoint but im all for Mother Earth, nature and the great outdoors, im not perfect, i dont recycle as much as i could or should and drive a sporty car (here's where i sound like a hypocrite lol

) but i do like to give something back, as Miss SRNE said recently, "getting outdoors and appreciating this lovely land is giving something back to nature in itself" (she has her moments of wisdom wink

),
But anyway back on topic, foxes rule!!

12 Apr 2007

"fluffy little Basils"? anyone who has seen an adult fox close up knows they are the size of a medium dog.
Fox proof chicken runs? You will also need fox proof lamb fields!
As a towny, my view on fox hunting etc has always been leave the farmers alone to deal with animals (and people) who damage their industry in whatever way suits them. biggrin

12 Apr 2007

Quote by keeno

If fox’s are left alone and nothing done they will breed and spread (along with the diseases they carry) as they don’t have a natural enemy any more, for year’s humans hunted them and that has controlled the population.

Surely the number of animals in an area is dictated by the availability of food. If an area can only support 2 foxes when they breed their offspring have to leave the area or face starvation.
If an area can support 30 foxes and only 25 live there then they will be joined by 5 more. If 2 are killed then 2 more will replace them.
Natural predators are also controled by the number of prey. The more prey the more predators the fewer the prey the fewer the predators.
Hunting is a very short term solution and has very little long term effect. For hunting to be effective it has to be a cull. Every fox in an area. It is the availability of food that is the most important factor in survival.
:thumbup:
All I can say is 'farmers, get a better fence'!!!
Now, what do you all make of the following?
I know a man who will trap a magpie, in order to attract more magpies to it so that he can kill them.
I'm not sure how he kills them, but he does it because the magpies 'kill the small hedge birds'
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?) then what right does he have to interfere?
I whole heartedly believe in survival of the fittest, if one animal has killed another animal, then the prey that died was not fit to pass on its genes- it was too slow to survive, just as if the predator is too slow to catch the prey, then it starves and should die and not pass on its poor attacking genes!
If we get involved, then we are upsetting this natural balance....
Why does this man think magpies are his problem to deal with?
And, does he know that magpies mate for life?!
mad

:x :x :x

12 Apr 2007

Oh, another point!
The point about foxes being barbaric and killing all the chickens in a coup but only eating a few- that's the farmers fault and comes back to survival of the fittest!!!!
If you place the chickens in an artificial environment, then you give them no means of escape/hiding etc.
The foxes natural instinct as well as to kill for food, is to develop his hunting skills, and what better opportunity than a whole roomful of chicks to practice on? This is just like the cats 'playing' with their prey, they don't callousley do it, they are genetically programmed to practice and refine their hunting skills, if they didn't, then they wouldn't survive.
The farmer has placed the chickens at a disadvantage!
Imagine a kid in an empty toy shop, he can do what he likes and take whatever he likes but only once otherwise he'll get caught...
Well, he's only going to be able to carry a few toys away with him, so he'll spend the time playing with what he can first, and then take away what he can carry- just the same as the foxes!
m xx

12 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
I whole heartedly believe in survival of the fittest, if one animal has killed another animal, then the prey that died was not fit to pass on its genes- it was too slow to survive, just as if the predator is too slow to catch the prey, then it starves and should die and not pass on its poor attacking genes!

Does this include humans? Should we stop using medicines and rely on the survival of the fittest to see who lives? Well it will cut down on the amount of money being poured into the NHS I suppose.
That person who interferes is undertaking animal/farmland husbandry. Do you think that the countryside in the UK has always looked like this? The landscape has been transformed by man to allow farming to feed the masses.
Dave_Notts

12 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
Oh, another point!
The point about foxes being barbaric and killing all the chickens in a coup but only eating a few- that's the farmers fault and comes back to survival of the fittest!!!!
If you place the chickens in an artificial environment, then you give them no means of escape/hiding etc.

This is what farming introduced 8000 years ago. An artificial environment where people did not have to be nomadic and could settle down. This was the starting point for civilization. Something we all enjoy today. Unless we all want to wander the planet and grub around for food.
Dave_Notts

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
Even now, the tundra in Russia spews out more green-house gasses than the industrialised world so mother nature is trying to change the world as well.
Dave_Notts

Hmmmmm according to what I have read and watched and listened too the perma frost is no longer perma frost not due to mother nature but due to global warming caused by us. Yes its spewing out lots of green house gas but its cus the influence we have already had is melting it. Many experts now think that due to this green mesaures are a waste of time as we have already done the damage.
This is the chicken and egg scenario.
Was it mans influence over the past 200 years of industrialisation? Or is it just a natural cycle of events. This world has gone through global warming and ice age a number of times. The antartic used to be a jungle. Now it is a cold wasteland. Mans influence or natural selection?
Dave_Notts
Yeh agreed the world goes through change all the time but I do think at this precise moment we are having an effect on the ozone layer and global warming to our own detriment. As its us who will pay the ultimate price for it then it doesnt really matter biggrin

12 Apr 2007

Dave wrote
Some stuff that included this: Management of land will include culling some animals from that area to allow other things to flourish or the local eco-system will be loaded too much with one or the other. The one that springs to mind is the deer park in this area where they know that the land can only hold so many deer, so they cull the excess in Novemeber-ish.
Seems the same will go for foxes. How do you do it humanely?Well hunts are gone, so it seems that it could only be poison (long, slow lingering death), trapping (long, slow lingering death), or shooting. But seeing that most farmers or country folk are not snipers then this results in wounded foxes that experience a long, slow lingering death. Any other ideas how to do it humanely?
Why do people have to kill? Well land husbandry springs to mind. Also prevention of them killing farm animals (chickens or lambs). Is this just an excuse by the farmers or does this really happen?
o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o o0o
In answer to the first question. In my opinion the only really humane way of killing (if killing can ever be called humane) is by gun by someone who is trained to shoot.
In answer to the second question. Again in my opinion, it is'nt something we HAVE to do it's something we choose to do. If other animals are killing farm animals then those farm animals should be made safe and inaccessible to the wildlife around them. The wildlife is entitled to live, the same as we are. There are countries over populated with too many people. What shall we do ? cull them dunno

12 Apr 2007

Quote by keeno

If fox’s are left alone and nothing done they will breed and spread (along with the diseases they carry) as they don’t have a natural enemy any more, for year’s humans hunted them and that has controlled the population.

Surely the number of animals in an area is dictated by the availability of food. If an area can only support 2 foxes when they breed their offspring have to leave the area or face starvation.
If an area can support 30 foxes and only 25 live there then they will be joined by 5 more. If 2 are killed then 2 more will replace them.
Natural predators are also controled by the number of prey. The more prey the more predators the fewer the prey the fewer the predators.
Hunting is a very short term solution and has very little long term effect. For hunting to be effective it has to be a cull. Every fox in an area. It is the availability of food that is the most important factor in survival.
Which is the reason foxes come in to town because its an unlimited food source, and the reason they they go for farms. Food is readly avaulable and they have no natural predators.
Now lets all coup but the chickens to protect them from the bad fox which is only doing whats natural. I thought everyone wanted free range eggs and chickens because they taste better dunno

you cant have it both ways.
I'm sorry but I have to dissagree on the hunting having very little long term effect on a species, uncontrolled it has made some extinct.
I'm not saying that hunting is not barbaric to some people, and to a degree I would agree. But its been going on for centurys in a controlled way and and its been fine, but call me cynical (and I'm not going to win and firends on this ) but IMO the ban has more to do with winning political votes than the goverment believing it to be barbaric blood sport.

12 Apr 2007

humble opinion and all that:
anything that can be labeled a blood-sport...
yup; Ban It!
lp

12 Apr 2007

Quote by LondonPlaything
humble opinion and all that:
anything that can be labeled a blood-sport...
yup; Ban It!
lp

well theres all the country hotels and retreats closed down then.

12 Apr 2007

why?....
if there's no blood to be spilled, and death to be dealt... hotels close?
are they all run simply for the Hunting Pinkers?
lp

12 Apr 2007

not saying i agree or dissagree, just theres a lot of money spent by people in those areas as most sports are done in the country side. simple fact of economics

12 Apr 2007

Quote by flower411
Fox hunting was a sustainable way of protecting livestock from predators. The local hunts also provided jobs for many people in country communities.
The hunts often brought communities together and were a social meeting of landownwers and workers, where people could discuss local issues.
Many of the people who have been affected by the hunting ban were already struggling, working long hours on low pay. In a lot of cases their livlihood has been destroyed.
Everybody wants cheap food in their shops and now somebody has suggested building fox proof enclosures for chickens and lambs !!!!! Do you have any idea how much that would cost ???
Farmers are now expected to work all night shooting and trapping foxes.
I heard on the radio today that Richmond Park in London no longer has any hares or ground nesting birds because of all the dogs being excersized there.
Should we ban dogs from Richmond Park ?
Somebody has already mentioned the cat owners, who keep an animal that will happily torture other smaller animals to death with no intention of eating it. Personally I find that barbaric but it appears to be socially acceptable. And what about the fish torturers ? I cannot believe that people actually get pleasure from going out and hooking fish by their mouths with barbed hooks and torturing them before throwing them back !!
That really is cruelty of the highest order and is done for pleasure, there is no intention to protect livestock or anything else, it is barbarism for the sake of it.
And to the people who go on about fox hunters enjoying the hunt. What did you expect them to do ? Ride around looking miserable ? I am sure that there are plenty of farmers, sitting out on cold nights with a gun protecting the eggs and chickens and lambs for the supermarket shelves, that are looking pretty miserable now. So that people can sit in their centrally heated houses watching telly and feel all smug because fox hunting has been banned.

It is a strange paradox I know, but all of the anglers I know love fish. Don't ask me to explain this because I do realise it's odd. Barbed hooks are now banned on most waters, but I'm not trying to claim that barbless hooks necessarily make catching fish OK. I have struggled with this question for quite a few years, as I love fishing, but do wonder whether it's cruel. A final point: get rid of fishing and you can wave goodbye to most of the small waters in this country; they're only there because anglers take on their upkeep.

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Ukwineman
not saying i agree or dissagree, just theres a lot of money spent by people in those areas as most sports are done in the country side. simple fact of economics

very true Mr Wine... it can also be said that a lot of people enjoy the countryside simply for what it is... without having to bring in these so called sports as a reason for thier spending.
could be wrong, >again< but prices could perhaps fall for accomodation etc in some areas, if they werent reserved for the *higher-end* sports >salmon/trout fishing< and may well encourage as a result more visitors that are otherwise priced-out...
I run the risk of sounding *classist* here also if not carefull... and am aware that there are many more elements to the countyside dynamic than I understand...
lp

12 Apr 2007

Quote by LondonPlaything
not saying i agree or dissagree, just theres a lot of money spent by people in those areas as most sports are done in the country side. simple fact of economics

very true Mr Wine... it can also be said that a lot of people enjoy the countryside simply for what it is... without having to bring in these so called sports as a reason for thier spending.
could be wrong, >again< but prices could perhaps fall for accomodation etc in some areas, if they werent reserved for the *higher-end* sports >salmon/trout fishing< and may well encourage as a result more visitors that are otherwise priced-out...
I run the risk of sounding *classist* here also if not carefull... and am aware that there are many more elements to the countyside dynamic than I understand...
lp
its the high-enders that keep a lot of places going, in an ideal world..........
Put a different spin on that thought for a second. theres a lot of people want to ban porn, but the internet would not be as it is today with out it.

12 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
Oh, another point!
The point about foxes being barbaric and killing all the chickens in a coup but only eating a few- that's the farmers fault and comes back to survival of the fittest!!!!

So its the foxes fault for getting shot....
Should have worn a bullet proof vest... rolleyes

12 Apr 2007

Quote by Ukwineman
not saying i agree or dissagree, just theres a lot of money spent by people in those areas as most sports are done in the country side. simple fact of economics

very true Mr Wine... it can also be said that a lot of people enjoy the countryside simply for what it is... without having to bring in these so called sports as a reason for thier spending.
could be wrong, >again< but prices could perhaps fall for accomodation etc in some areas, if they werent reserved for the *higher-end* sports >salmon/trout fishing< and may well encourage as a result more visitors that are otherwise priced-out...
I run the risk of sounding *classist* here also if not carefull... and am aware that there are many more elements to the countyside dynamic than I understand...
lp
its the high-enders that keep a lot of places going, in an ideal world..........
.perhaps a more accessable countryside would negate the need for the high enders... we could all come out to play... blood free?
ahh..hehe...the *ideal world*... I have one of those on the drawing-board... but would never rally for the revolution... for as Ideal as I believe it to be, I also know that it'll never work, as people are involved... and plans are fine, untill you bring in the people.
lp

12 Apr 2007

Quote by flower411
Fox hunting was a sustainable way of protecting livestock from predators. The local hunts also provided jobs for many people in country communities.
The hunts often brought communities together and were a social meeting of landownwers and workers, where people could discuss local issues.
Many of the people who have been affected by the hunting ban were already struggling, working long hours on low pay. In a lot of cases their livlihood has been destroyed.
Everybody wants cheap food in their shops and now somebody has suggested building fox proof enclosures for chickens and lambs !!!!! Do you have any idea how much that would cost ???
Farmers are now expected to work all night shooting and trapping foxes.
I heard on the radio today that Richmond Park in London no longer has any hares or ground nesting birds because of all the dogs being excersized there.
Should we ban dogs from Richmond Park ?
Somebody has already mentioned the cat owners, who keep an animal that will happily torture other smaller animals to death with no intention of eating it. Personally I find that barbaric but it appears to be socially acceptable. And what about the fish torturers ? I cannot believe that people actually get pleasure from going out and hooking fish by their mouths with barbed hooks and torturing them before throwing them back !!
That really is cruelty of the highest order and is done for pleasure, there is no intention to protect livestock or anything else, it is barbarism for the sake of it.
And to the people who go on about fox hunters enjoying the hunt. What did you expect them to do ? Ride around looking miserable ? I am sure that there are plenty of farmers, sitting out on cold nights with a gun protecting the eggs and chickens and lambs for the supermarket shelves, that are looking pretty miserable now. So that people can sit in their centrally heated houses watching telly and feel all smug because fox hunting has been banned.

It is a strange paradox I know, but all of the anglers I know love fish. Don't ask me to explain this because I do realise it's odd. Barbed hooks are now banned on most waters, but I'm not trying to claim that barbless hooks necessarily make catching fish OK. I have struggled with this question for quite a few years, as I love fishing, but do wonder whether it's cruel. A final point: get rid of fishing and you can wave goodbye to most of the small waters in this country; they're only there because anglers take on their upkeep.
I think you`ll find that a lot of people who used to hunt foxes have a great deal of respect for them ! " not sure that they love them !! )
But fox hunters do not deliberately torture the fox, this is a possible by product of the event !!
Anglers have no other reason for putting hooks into rivers . There can be no other outcome but pain and discomfort for the fish !!
And don`t get me wrong. I wouldn`t ban any of these pursuits !! I just hate hypocrits !
For a lot of anglers, catching a fish is a by product of a day out in the country. I've never been that fussed whether I caught a fish or not. I just like, or liked, sitting by the side of a water watching the life go by. Someone much wiser than me once said if you want to see cruelty, just look at the meat on your plate.

13 Apr 2007

The fox does less harm than good in both town and country. It is the main control on rabbit population. Rabbits eat far more human food than foxes. I know of at least one hunt that imported live foxes to improve the strain. Is this the act of someone dedicated to the control/iradercation of a pest?
Where a fox becomes a problem, kill it.

13 Apr 2007

Quote by flower411
Everybody wants cheap food in their shops and now somebody has suggested building fox proof enclosures for chickens and lambs !!!!! Do you have any idea how much that would cost ???

I wonder if all the money spent on keeping horses/hounds and those fancy clothes was spent on building safer coups etc how much dosh would be left over.

13 Apr 2007

Quote by Kiss
Everybody wants cheap food in their shops and now somebody has suggested building fox proof enclosures for chickens and lambs !!!!! Do you have any idea how much that would cost ???

I wonder if all the money spent on keeping horses/hounds and those fancy clothes was spent on building safer coups etc how much dosh would be left over.
I wonder if all the money spent on advertising toys that make kids sit on their arse all day or the food adverts that encourage them to eat junk food was spent on education on healthy eating or sport facilities etc how much dosh would be left over?
Same thought but both parties have to be seen as seperate enterprises. The food industry is not responsible to its consumers if they do have health issues later on in life. Same as the fox hunters and the farmers. Why would fox hunters give money to the farmers? It isn't their business. Farmers don't put in those measures because someone already mentioned that hens that are free range need a vast amount of space to wander about in. Battery hens are more protected but people want humane food stuff. The cost far outweighs any benefit for the small scale farmer to introduce fox proof areas. Cost efficiency will result in smaller enclosures and no more free range. Then they lose thier customers.........thus shooting themselves in the foot.
Dave_Notts

13 Apr 2007

Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

13 Apr 2007

Quote by Kiss
Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

Not to mention the chaos and damage caused by them rampaging across the countryside ...