• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.



Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Please Vote To Save Fox Hunting

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rkramedjian:

    Just the though of leaving an animal to die in slow misery upsets me, but the thought that these so call friends of the fox actually advocate

    I've been reading about & thinking a lot on this subject, and I think it's because they can't SEE it. People can SEE a mounted hunt, they see the horses and see/hear the hounds and think about the fox. When they're poisoned and trapped, people won't SEE it so it's like it's not actually happening. I don't know how otherwise to explain this clamor against mounted hunting and yet NO ONE seems to be saying anything against the trapping and gassing over there.

    Also, apparently the city & town folk in England do live-trap the town foxes and dump them in the country, frequently a number of them being collected and dumped at once. Again, they don't SEE that they're dumping animals into territory that is already claimed by other foxes and that they are probably sentencing these animals to great difficulty in trying to find food & unclaimed territory. The increased risk of fights & disease is also not thought of because not seen. All they think of is "I set it free in the country" instead of understanding the reality of a fox grown up scavenging trash bins suddenly removed from it's source of food and plunked in an area where other foxes are saying, excuse me, but this is mine, now GET OUT. But the fright & hunger of the dumped fox is not seen and so they don't think they've been cruel at all.


    • #22
      To build on Mr. Kramedjian's point, that is why going out with a foot pack (don't know if that's proper terminology) of beagles or bassets is so interesting - you can see the hounds really working up close.

      Moreso with the beagles. The one time I saw a demonstration of a basset pack I was laughing too hard (albeit not too loudly, I didn't want to be rude) to watch them work. Honestly, those big long bodies on those little legs, crying out in long sonerous we're-so-dignified-despite-our-funny-looks-really-we-are tones - it was a hoot. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


      • #23
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bgoosewood:
        [BOY do you sound elitest!! AND that is the major rift in the British Foxhunters v. the working class city dwellers. It's a class issue. You can kill the foxes, just not on horseback.....how classist is that?
        "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
        - Martin Luther King, Jr.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

        You're right, it's a PERCEIVED class issue. It is definitely classist to say you can kill the foxes, just not on horseback. Ridiculous, isn't it? Shallow understanding, you got that right.

        However, as the daughter of a coal miner I don't think Mr. K sounded elitist about the deer hunters. I think he sounded like someone who wants the gun hunters to know how to properly shoot plus track wounded game when needed. That's the least they should do. My coal miner forebears wanted the same thing. Nothing elitist about that.

        P.S. Did you know that there's the Banwen MINERS hunt in Great Britain? Foxhunting there has always included people from ALL classes of life, either mounted or on foot, and it still does. In reality it probably is much more inclusive of people from different economic and social backgrounds than any other institution I can think of. That's one of hunting's great things. One of horseback riding's great things, too. At the barn where I board there are people who could buy up most of my neighborhood without denting their banking accounts, there are middle-class people, there are people working 2 jobs and driving an old beat-up car just to support one little pleasure horse they get to ride once or twice a week, there's nurses & heart surgeons, all at this one barn, and you know what? We all get along great, the love for our horses bringing us all together and no one thinks anything at all about it. I think foxhunting folk are the same. They come from all kinds of backgrounds. Look and see.


        • #24
          Although getting a little too close to actually personal attacks from some of you, I love this type of conversation.... just stay away from the nasty, personal comments PLEASE and so will I.

          Let's discuss this topic and I won't call you names if you don't call me OR ANYONE else names !!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

          I LOVE the fact that Ronald E Rkramedjian took the time to become a member and post his reply. I personally thought it was a GREAT reply, and even though it did mention my name MANY TIMES, he was respectful of the fact that I had voiced an opinion and that I had a right to do so.


          As for the hounds...I am well aware of the breed and what they are bred for...I also know first hand and have seen the way they are trained. Yes they are trained to "run the fox to ground" BUT they also tear the bugger to shread when caught.

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> khobstetter is someone who hunts to ride and is focused on the pleasure of riding itself not on the pleasure of hunting. I make this observation because my experience is that people that hunt to ride spend little or no time studying the art of fox hunting, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Contrar dear man, I did "hunt to ride" but I also spent lots of time studying the sport.


          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> yet profess to be great experts at it.

          DID NOT PROFESS TO BE AN "EXPERT"...ONLY OFFERED MY OPINION..SOMETHING THIS BB IS ALL ABOUT.....getting a bit close to personal.. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

          I can only tell you from personal experience what I know about the daily working and training of the hounds, and the "sport" of fox hunting. AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN....

          Thanks again Ronald for coming "on Board" (get it..on Board [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ) and joining us here...I appreciate your candid, forthright way of discussing this "very touchy" subject. As this thread goes along, lets see if everyone else can do the same.

          Sounds like you are either Staff or something with one of the hunts... which one??



          • #25
            This is an excerpt of an email I sent to someone inquiring on opinions on the hunting ban in the UK for a school ( in the US ) project.


            You have picked an interesting and prominent topic - congratulations!
            The most interesting thing about this issue is that it actually is not
            what it appears to be - an animal rights issue. I have many friends in American
            Foxhunting and in the UK and I have been kept current about this issue for
            the past few years.

            I have included a very enlightening article for your review from the
            British paper " The Daily Telegraph " written by a former Member of Parliament
            Brian Walden ( like a U.S. Senator or Congressman ).

            It turns out that this foxhunting issue in the UK is more a 'class warfare'
            issue than an ' animal rights' issue - strange as that may seem. The proponents
            of the hunting ban and the politicians that they have garnered support from
            ( at a great cost of campaign contributions I must add ) are generally
            from the cities in the UK.

            The groups opposed to foxhunting seem more opposed to the lifestyle of those
            that hunt and the surroundings of mounted foxhunting ( horses, hounds , clubs
            scarlet coats ) than the actual treatment of the fox - although the treatment
            of the fox is what they decry to the public.

            It appears to be a case of if you have some money, and are enjoying a sport
            that I personally do not enjoy - I see no reason that you should be permitted
            to do it.

            Proof of this lies in the fact that those opposed to Foxhunting are not
            trying to outlaw the hunting of foxes or even the killing of foxes, just
            the hunting of foxes by hounds ( generally but not always followed by
            riders on horseback. ). Killing / hunting of foxes will stay as legal as
            it always has been in the UK as these animals are so abundant there and
            destructive of livestock ( they kill baby sheep, ducks, chickens, geese
            etc. ) that they must be controlled in some manner. Farmers and others
            can continue to shoot foxes, poison them, gas their dens and trap them.

            In these methods, the fox has little chance of escape and the hunting ideal
            of " fair chase " is not even considered as in mounted foxhunting.

            The opponents of hunting talk about hound hunting being cruel - for some
            reason they do not see the fox killing the newborn lamb ( property of a farmer)
            cruel or the killing of poultry ( foxes will sometimes kill more birds than
            they can eat - just for fun ) as cruel but somehow only the killing of a fox
            by a hound is seen this way. A hound , by the way , will kill a fox in seconds -
            the neck is broken quickly and it is gone - far more 'humane' than filling
            its den with poison gas or shooting it poorly wouldn't you say ?

            As you see , the foxhunting debate is not really about the killing of foxes
            - it is an attempt by one group of people to deny the lawful pursuit of
            an activity by another. They are upset by the fact that foxhunters
            seem to be enjoying themselves!

            Hopefully this will not become an issue in the United States where we
            have a stronger bill of rights and a constitution. There are differences in
            foxhunting in the US though as foxes are not nearly so common and the
            actual killing of a fox is very rare with some hunts ( such as mine where
            in 38 years we have only accounted for 2 or 3 and these were slow and
            sickly animals ) and not a common occurrence with others.

            The Fox and more frequently the Coyote are chased regularly , but rarely
            do the hounds win the race. Also in the US hunts do not , by law in most
            places disturb a fox that has 'gone to ground ' or is hiding in a hole or
            den. As you read in the MFHA code of ethics - hunts do not release
            captive foxes to hunt - all hunted animals must be wild and hunted in
            accordance with state hunting regulations.

            Where I live, Coyotes are becoming pests much as the fox is in the UK.
            I live in farm country - coyotes come into our neighborhood and
            catch and kill and eat house cats. They attack newborn calves and
            sheep as well as ducks, geese and chickens that people are raising.
            They have been known to kill and eat family dogs ! Out here the
            farmers and others are happy to hear the you are having a coyote
            hunt and encourage it. Of course the city dweller holed up in
            an artificial tower with a cat on their lap that is safe from such
            attacks would not necessarily agree with what we do - but they do
            not depend on their animals for their lively hood and they are not
            in danger of losing their pet from a wild animal or being bitten
            by a coyote ( yes they have been known to attack children playing in
            their own back yards ! ) whether rabid or not.

            Remember to always look at both sides of each story and research issues such as this
            before forming an opinion! Remember to value other peoples rights and beliefs , even if you do not agree with them. These skills will serve
            you well in life.



            • #26
              I will say this about the nature of dogs. They have been bred for many years to specific jobs and that is what drives them.

              For example, we had two norwegian elkhounds. These are dogs that are bred to hunt elk and moose. We had never hunted them or trained them to hunt but if they spooked a prey animal, you got to witness instinct in an awesome manner. One of the dogs would drive the prey while the other ran a big arc to get out in front of it. They were never trained to do that, it was just part of their natural makeup.

              I suspect that the instinct of a fox hound is very similiar.

              "Mooses look into your window at night,
              They look to the left and they look to the right,
              The mooses are smiling they think its a zoo,
              and thats why the mooses like looking at you."


              • #27
                "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
                - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                Great quote and totally applicable here.

                Deer hunters to someone who lives in the country come in many shapes, sizes and degrees of responsibility. It is a frightening thing to have people park alongside a road, hike over the hill and take potshots at deer without knowing the area well enough to know where the shots end up that miss - in horses, cattle or my car window about ten years ago. The issue is responsibility not class. This is true here with "No Hunting signs" or the "right to roam" issue in Great Britain during the foot and mouth crisis.



                • #28
                  [QUOTE]Originally posted by khobstetter:
                  I do understand about the fox population BUT I hope we are a socialized group of people and can find better ways to control animal population than this one."

                  I wonder what method of control you would find acceptable to control foxes?

                  You have to remember that in this instance we are talking of a ban in England and Wales. In comparison to the US these are very small countries with areas of dense population and many smaller widespread communities. You should also take into account that the culture and the laws of the UK are radically different to those in the US - particularly the gun laws.

                  Lets take the various methods one by one and see which you would prefer for the control of foxes...

                  1) gasing. This is where gas is inserted into a set and all the animals in the set are gassed.

                  I would hate the idea - it is an indiscriminate method and kills both young and old. It would also not be acceptable in the UK because in someinstances sets are shared by fox and badger and the badger (for better or worse) is a protected species.

                  2) Poisoning - indiscriminate as above - long and agonizing death - could never be called humane.

                  3) shooting. Guns and Gun licences in the Uk are heavily controlled. Shooting foxes with a shotgun (12bore 6shot) is a very chancy thing and as often as not ends in the animal not being killed but badly injured so that it lies up and dies of gangrene in a drain or ditch. I KNOW this for certain because we have found foxes in this condition on our farm

                  Shooting with rifles is very heavily proscribed and there are areas in the UK where is would be illegal to discharge a firearm because of the proximity to roads or dwellings. It is, I believe, illegal here to discharge a rifle within one mile of any house or road. That would make it impossible for us to kill foxes on our farm as we are crisscrossed by roads and lanes.

                  Hand Guns are illegal in the UK and in anycase would be little use for killing foxes.

                  4) Hunting with Hounds.

                  The fox is either caught or lost. If caught it is killed within seconds of the catch. No extended suffering.

                  The code of hunting dictates that if a fox gets away by going to ground it is given best unless it is known by the farmer to be a particular pest which has been taking his hens or lambs.

                  Additionally foxhunting has the benefit of taking out mainly the old or weak, thus leaving the best of the species.
                  Foxhunters do not account for many foxes, but as they are about control rather than extermination that is not important.

                  Foxhunting is part of the country way of life in the UK. It provides employment in rural areas where work is scarce and poorly paid. It also provides a social life for rural people who do not have the facilities provided (mainly by the state) to those in the towns and cities.

                  To end - Foxhunting is not complusory and I will not force you to do it providing you leave me alone and do not attempt to coerce me into watching football



                  • #29
                    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                    Aritcle from the British Newspaper " The Daily Telegraph "

                    Opinion in Todays Telegraph...

                    Ban on foxhunting would be a triumph for the mob

                    By Brian Walden (Filed: 15/03/2002)

                    I do not ride, I do not shoot and I have never hunted a fox. As I am not
                    especially keen on fresh air either, the English countryside sees little of
                    me, a fact that must gratify its inhabitants. So I am surprised by the
                    intensity of my feelings on behalf of foxhunters. That comes from my
                    attachment to liberty and aversion to busybodies. Because of these meddlers,
                    part of the community may soon lose a liberty their forefathers enjoyed for

                    I discovered as a Labour MP that a love of liberty is no longer a popular
                    cause. It is too straightforward to appeal to the modern mind.
                    Unfortunately, liberty has nothing to do with majority sentiment, government
                    initiatives or sucking up to pressure groups. Liberty is the doctrine that
                    urges society to leave people alone to do as they wish, unless there is some
                    truly overwhelming reason for stopping them. Foxes have been chased by packs
                    of hounds in England since at least the 15th century, so any legal ban would
                    be novel rather than necessary.

                    Britain is a mobocracy, where an elected elite governs and seeks to placate
                    the uninterested masses. As there are no votes in liberty and no rewards to
                    be gained from believing in it, there is a high likelihood that any liberty
                    can be capriciously taken away, once those exercising it attract the
                    hostility of influential, well-funded bellyachers. Foxhunters, I fear, are
                    about to learn how little their vaunted ancient liberties are worth. Just
                    for once, I am disposed to speak out. I shall suspend my usual habit of
                    leaving things alone. There ought to be a debate about the arguments and
                    motives of those who love repressive bans. I think the case against
                    foxhunting is muddled, grossly sentimental and sometimes laced with social

                    Who knows, I might even be able to offer a little cheer to the depressed
                    foxhunting minority, because, if an English ban is cobbled up to match the
                    Scottish ban, it will create the biggest law-enforcement nightmare since the
                    prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Morally censorious persons who
                    are particularly concerned to abridge the pleasures of others are usually
                    called puritans and there is a fashionable new bunch of them. Undeterred by
                    the disastrously unsuccessful record of the booze puritans and the sex
                    puritans, we now have a politically correct breed of cruelty puritans. They
                    have come up with the fanciful idea that there is too much brutality towards
                    vermin and that those who hunt vermin with dogs should be prosecuted and
                    given a criminal record for so doing.

                    For foxes are vermin, aren't they, like rats? l have no moral horror of
                    vermin. I think Walt Disney may have done damage by depicting vermin at tea
                    parties, where foxes and rats serve cucumber sandwiches to their offspring,
                    but then the poor chap could not have supposed there would be quite so many
                    people on the loose who attribute human characteristics to animals.

                    Disney aside, I am relaxed about vermin as fellow occupants of the planet.
                    Of course I do not give a toss about how mankind kills them to keep down the
                    numbers. Can anybody think of another age where the values of society were
                    so askew that the death of vermin led to the creation of a faction in their
                    favour? Astute hunt-banners spot the absurdity and deny that they have the
                    slightest regard for foxes. They proclaim that foxes must be shot, gassed or
                    trapped with all the vim the rural community can muster. Why then can foxes
                    not be hunted with hounds? Because, I am told, foxhunters get pleasure from
                    the cruelty involved in the hunt.

                    I confess that I do not understand why the riflemen who will wound or kill
                    foxes, if there is a ban, are presumed not to get any pleasure from it. What
                    I do know is that, when one talks to foxhunters, all the chat is about good
                    horsemanship, the skill of controlling hounds and the rituals of the hunt. A
                    kill, if it happens, is enjoyed no doubt, but the hunt is not organised to
                    give sadists satisfaction.

                    There is so much confusion latent in a ban that policing it would be
                    horrendously difficult. Let me pick at random a handful of doubtful issues.
                    Will farmers having a day's pleasure chasing rats with terriers come under
                    the ban? Suppose they are not farmers, but bus drivers on holiday: will that
                    make a legal difference? If all ratting is deemed legal, why should setting
                    terriers on confined rats be viewed by the law as less cruel than chasing
                    with hounds a fox that can run free?

                    None of this matters to those who long to settle accounts with the people in
                    scarlet, posturing on their rather frightening horses, drinking stirrup
                    cups, occasionally brandishing whips and generally behaving like an affront
                    to New Britain.

                    Yes, this being England, flea-bitten, clapped-out class hatred gets in on
                    the act. Huntsmen are viewed as associates of the squirearchy or
                    gentry.Perhaps their ancestors were part of the mounted yeomanry that cut
                    down peasants, workers and revolutionaries at Peterloo.
                    It is no use pointing out that most hunts are made up of people with jobs,
                    who happen to own or have borrowed a horse. I would not give a damn if they
                    were all squires or nobs - I would still wish them a pleasant day - but even
                    those of you guiltless of my "extremism" will find there is to be no liberty
                    or justice for the hunt. Those who dress like Old Britain can expect to be
                    treated like Old Britain, which is to say like dirt.

                    The Blairite praetorian guard is highly intelligent and must be hoping that
                    the hunting ban somehow gets derailed during the parliamentary process. I
                    regard it as an outrage against liberty, but it also has the nasty look of
                    one of those symbolic happenings that change everything for the worse. This
                    will not show up on opinion polls, because goodness knows what colossal
                    percentage of the mobocracy favours a ban, at least until its flickering
                    attention turns to something more personal.

                    Powerful governments fall, not by slow erosion, but when the roof blows off
                    and the walls cave in. Only later does one identify the precise bit of
                    hubris that started the collapse. Often it is a piece of popular chicanery
                    that symbolises, for the thoughtful, the nature of the national disgrace.

                    The author presented Weekend World, 1977-86



                    • #30
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by khobstetter:

                      BUT they also tear the bugger to shread when caught.


                      Yes, they do.

                      According to the Burns Report, the huge study done in England, the fox is well dead before that happens.

                      Traditionally foxhunters have said that the fox dies immediately from a bite to the back of the neck. The Burns Report found that that is not always so - the fox frequently is bitten in the chest area. The bite is so quick and strong that the examined foxes took no breath at all after the first bite and were indeed dead almost instantaeously, certainly far faster then they would have been being trapped or poisoned and even faster than in all but the cleanest rifle shots (which studies show such clean shots rarely happen, btw).

                      However, the anti people trumpeted 'bite to the back of the neck not true, says Burns Report' totally ignoring the incredibly effective, killing bite to the chest that the Burns Report confirmed on many autopsied foxes.

                      I understand that still, to many people, they may not want to see that. So, don't go see it. Personally, I haven't seen it and really have no desire to, but so what? then I don't go, I don't stop other people from going.

                      I don't go see my beef or chicken get killed, either, but I'm not fool enough to pretend it doesn't happen.

                      The foxhunting discussion reminds me of these friends of mine. They don't like wood smoke. As a result, they would like all fireplaces in towns & cities banned. They don't mean only wood-burning stoves, they mean ALL fireplaces in peoples' homes. Lovely, isn't it? They're serious. They don't like it and they want it banned because when their neighbor has a fire in his fireplace they can sometimes smell it.

                      So I tell them, so don't make a fire in your fireplace but so what if your neighbor has one. Maybe he doesn't like that you play soccer in your backyard all the time, personally, that would annoy the h*** out of me [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img], it's a stupid, noisy game, so stop it because I don't like it.

                      They got the point.


                      • #31
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
                        [You're right, it's a PERCEIVED class issue. It is definitely classist to say you can kill the foxes, just not on horseback. Ridiculous, isn't it? Shallow understanding, you got that right.

                        However, as the daughter of a coal miner I don't think Mr. K sounded elitist about the deer hunters. I think he sounded like someone who wants the gun hunters to know how to properly shoot plus track wounded game when needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        I think you may have missed my point. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] My point was not: is it or is it not elitest. My point is that it sounds elitest. And if you sound elitest, you have a VERY hard time making an argument stick.

                        Do you think I don't know anything about deer hunting? I've got hunters all over the place. Good hunters, bad hunters.....the whole lot of them. My father hunted deer, one of my brothers hunts deer, among other things. I'm just saying.......a lotta guys wouldn't want to lump deer hunters together and describe them as lice if they want to defend their sport (which includes the act of hunting.) Shouldn't the foxhunters want to have the deer hunters as allies? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

                        Now, having seen the effects of my rat poison activities (dead rat stumbling out of the barn looking very sick).....I'd much rather die quickly and be torn to shreds by a pack of hounds than be poisoned.

                        "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
                        - Martin Luther King, Jr.
                        The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde


                        • #32
                          I'm glad my circle of horseowning friends doesn't include those who own racehorses and show horses that are euthanized when they can no longer race or show. I know many racehorses and show horses who go on to wonderful second careers either because they had caring owners or were fortunate enough to wind up in the hands of someone who cared about their futures.

                          Just because some racehorses and show horses end up being euthanized when they can no longer win money or ribbons for their owners, that doesn't make the euthanizing of foxhunting horses any less detestable. Particularly if the horse is healthy and euthanized solely because actual foxhunting may not be an option anymore.

                          Whatever happened to the concept of drag hunts, or just plain riding cross country, without the actual pursuit of a fox in mind? Terrorizing any animal by chasing it all over the place is bad enough, but to euthanize one's horses or dogs simply because one can't actually chase foxes with them anymore is truly sad, and reflects a callous disregard for those animals.

                          JMO (your mileage may vary)
                          Equus Keepus Brokus


                          • #33
                            Fox hunting shoudn't be banned. i've never foxhunted before, but if i had the chance, i would. Besides, fox hunting isn't about killing foxes. It's about galloping along jumping big jumps in the countryside. In fact, I think that some foxhunts put in safe places for the foxes to hide, so that when Mr. Fox gets tired, he doesn't have run anymore. Foxhunting also helps to save open space, and that's the main thing i'm worried about.

                            My barn has a website!!! Check out Amber Hill Farm's Website Amber Hill Farm


                            • #34
                              [QUOTE]Originally posted by Foxhunt4me:

                              It turns out that this foxhunting issue in the UK is more a 'class warfare'
                              issue than an ' animal rights' issue - strange as that may seem. The proponents
                              of the hunting ban and the politicians that they have garnered support from
                              ( at a great cost of campaign contributions I must add ) are generally
                              from the cities in the UK.

                              I wonder if you are aware that of the �1.2million pound donated to the Labour Party as a bribe to ban hunting a very large percentage of that money came from the United States of America?

                              The groups opposed to foxhunting seem more opposed to the lifestyle of those
                              that hunt and the surroundings of mounted foxhunting ( horses, hounds , clubs
                              scarlet coats ) than the actual treatment of the fox - although the treatment
                              of the fox is what they decry to the public.

                              Until you engage them in discussion about alternative methods of control, then they run out of argument and resort to the class warfare argument. along the lines of "if you own a horse and hunt you must be rich and privileged, and if you are so, then you are a bad person and must be penalised." They never seem to consider that by far the largest proportion of us are working people who go with out holidays, meals out and visits to the cinema/theatre and other urban past-times to fund our hobby.

                              It appears to be a case of if you have some money, and are enjoying a sport
                              that I personally do not enjoy - I see no reason that you should be permitted
                              to do it.

                              Well said.

                              Proof of this lies in the fact that those opposed to Foxhunting are not
                              trying to outlaw the hunting of foxes or even the killing of foxes, just
                              the hunting of foxes by hounds ( generally but not always followed by
                              riders on horseback. ). Killing / hunting of foxes will stay as legal as
                              it always has been in the UK as these animals are so abundant there and
                              destructive of livestock ( they kill baby sheep, ducks, chickens, geese
                              etc. ) that they must be controlled in some manner. Farmers and others
                              can continue to shoot foxes, poison them, gas their dens and trap them.

                              Teh truth is that many farmers tolerate the fox only because they enjoy the hunting. There will be parts of the UK where the fox will be shot to extinction.

                              This legislation will not save the life of one single fox.



                              • #35
                                Anne FS....No personal attack meant here BUT this is a bit of the problem, as I have seen it... foxhunters defending with double statements..

                                This is regarding tearing the fox to bits when caught...

                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yes, they do.

                                According to the Burns Report, the huge study done in England, the fox is well dead before that happens.


                                And then the next statement in the same post..

                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> that the Burns Report confirmed on many autopsied foxes.

                                How can you autopsy a shreaded fox??? The hounds DO NOT turn lose of the bugger and say "job done", its all over the place by the time the Master gets the hounds off of it... they are a bit in a frenzy about the catch and the hounds get pack active with the blood letting...

                                PLEASE do not think this is a personal swipe at you, I just want to know....



                                • #36
                                  because this is an emotional topic, and I don't think any one person is "right" or "wrong."

                                  My best friend is joining a hunt. The riding sounds like an absolute and total blast. But I am a huge softy, and try as I could, I could not reconcile the sport with my own personal beliefs (which include a move towards vegetarianism - while I'm not all the way there, I am moving there).

                                  But that is just it - my personal belief. Because of that believe, I am not going to take part. But I am not going to try to ban a sport like this. I HATE the idea of a fox being killed. But when I think about deer hunting, I find an even bigger problem. Yes, we need to control the population (because we killed off all the natural predators, but that is a whole 'nother story), but hunters do not choose the sick, the weak, the old. They choose the strongest and biggest of the herd. Which leaves the sick and the weak left to breed.

                                  Boy, maybe I shouldn't have even gone there.

                                  This is like religion. When we disagree with something, we automatically assume that our opinion is the only one that matters. Guess what? Those people who disagree are just as passionate, for their own important reasons.

                                  So, will I join in the hunt? No. But I don't think people who do are evil fox killers. I think they just have different beliefs than I do - they aren't bad people, and their beliefs are just as valid as mine.

                                  There are times when we need to stand up and fight, but after giving it a lot of thought, I don't think this is one of them. I think this is a time where we need to respect our differences.


                                  • #37
                                    found the following excerpts at this link:


                                    FOX CONTROL AS A POPULATION REGULATOR:

                                    The research done on foxes unanimously supports the idea that fox hunting at any feasible level does not reduce fox populations, especially in localized areas (1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15).

                                    As Allan and Sargeant wrote in the "Management Implications" section of their paper on fox dispersal (3) "Annual harvests in localized areas of one or more years likely will have little effect on population size in subsequent years". Ables (1) observed that [fox populations] "are resilient and increase their productivity when mortality increases...heavily hunted populations become more productive, not less so."

                                    Foxes have the ability to replace 60-70% of their population annually (12, 17). Thus, fox populations will not be decreased by hunting unless mortality exceeds this amount in the hunted area, and there is no surrounding lightly-hunted area to provide dispersing foxes to prevent recolonization. This is not known to occur even when deliberate attempts are made to reduce or eliminate fox populations. (9, 11, 12).

                                    Foxes compensate for heavy population loss in several ways. Fox productivity (number of cubs per litter and survival rate of cubs) increases as mortality increases (1, 4, 14). Heavily hunted populations tend to have more females and thus can reproduce at a faster rate (1). Many forms of hunting tend to select male foxes and thus exacerbate the increase of the female segment of an exploited population. (7, 12).

                                    FOXHUNTING AS SELECTIVE PEST CONTROL:

                                    It is probable that hounds do indeed catch foxes that are too slow or ill to escape, but these are not necessarily the same foxes that kill lambs. Nor are they necessarily older foxes. In the only published data I could find on the subject, Hewson (9) found that the foxes killed by the Lochaber and Sunart Farmer's Foxhounds during lambing season (April-June) were composed of 20-52% adult foxes, with 48-80% of the foxes killed being cubs. Thus, for every 1 adult fox killed by the hounds, 1-4 cubs were killed.The ratio of cubs killed/adults killed was higher for the hunt pack than for Forestry Commission, Fox Destruction Club, or NFU bounty-killed foxes.

                                    Although it could be maintained that the hunt pack data is skewed towards cubs because it is for callouts during lambing season, Fox Destruction Clubs also concentrate on killing foxes at dens during lambing and had much lower cub/adult ratios (from 1 cub killed per 2 adult foxes to 1 cub killed per 4 adult foxes).

                                    There is no data published to indicate that older or infirm foxes are more likely to prey on lambs. Despite "folk wisdom", predation on livestock is not characteristic of old/infirm individuals in most other predator species. There are several reasons for this. Many predator species (and foxes seem to follow this pattern (1, 14)) are very selective about what foods they will eat, and reject strange or new foods. This habit usually intensifies with age, thus older foxes who have not eaten lamb are unlikely to take up the habit. Live lambs of a size that foxes can handle are also available for only a very brief period of time during the year (1, 14)and thus are not available to sustain foxes during most of the year.

                                    PAIN AND STRESS IN FOXHUNTING:

                                    Janet George has argued that foxhunting is humane because the fox is either quickly caught or quickly escapes. In the only study that I am aware of on this subject, Kreeger (17) compared the physiological stress responses in foxes pursued for approximately 5 minutes by dogs and then killed (whether the foxes were killed by the dogs or shot is not specified), foxes caught for 2-8 hours in leghold (gin) traps, foxes caught in cage traps, and shot foxes.Kreeger found that shot foxes showed no stress response. Foxes caught in cage traps showed far less stress than trapped or hound-pursued foxes. Foxes caught in leghold traps and foxes pursued by hounds showed equivalent responses to stress, even though the amount of time spent being pursued by hounds was far less than the amount of time spent in traps.

                                    On autopsy, the foxes showed hemorrhage of heart and lungs and congestion of adrenal glands and kidneys. Blood work showed high levels of enzymes that reflect tissue damage, and edema, discoloration, hemorrhage and inflammation were found in muscle tissue. Kreeger found that the foxes had a condition called "exertional rhabdomyolysis", also called "capture myopathy"- a breakdown of muscle tissue caused by exertion that is often followed by brain damage, paralysis and death. Kreeger's report was the first report of capture myopathy in a canid.

                                    The important implication of this for foxhunting is that capture myopathy is not apparent immediately, but develops after the stress of pursuit.Thus hunted foxes can appear normal but die after they escape.

                                    Kreeger also found that the foxes he autopsied had a high incidence of pneumonitis, gastritis and hepatitis that, although not the direct result of stress, were precipitated by stress combined with pre-existing factors (such as parasite load.) Stress can also increase susceptibility to disease. Red foxes seem especially prone to such stress (6).

                                    A hunted fox that is killed thus experiences significant stress before death. If it escapes, it must then confront the possibility of heart and lung damage, capture myopathy, or lung, stomach or liver dysfunction. Thus, the argument that hunted foxes either are killed quickly or escape unharmed is invalid.This argument also ignores the significant stress caused to foxes by baiting them with terriers when they go to ground-a practice that claims about 50% of foxes killed by hunts (14).


                                    There is no scientific evidence to prove that foxhunting or fox control are necessary. Arguments that cubhunting is needed to promote fox dispersal, and that foxhunting selectively weeds out potentially troublesome foxes are unsupported by any scientific data and are unlikely at best. Despite being portrayed as a humane practice, foxhunting causes a great deal of fear, stress and pain to foxes.
                                    Equus Keepus Brokus


                                    • #38
                                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarenC:There are times when we need to stand up and fight, but after giving it a lot of thought, I don't think this is one of them. I think this is a time where we need to respect our differences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                      Oh that is just so right. If only our UK government saw things your way.



                                      • #39
                                        Not surprisingly, the Shropshire Star poll is running at 73% AGAINST a ban.

                                        Why not surprising when a 'majority' is meant to be opposed to hunting?

                                        1. The newspaper covers a very rural county - Shropshire has 6 packs of foxhounds - and mid-Wales (even MORE rural.)

                                        2. Although the 'majority' might say - if asked - that they are against hunting, most couldn't be bothered to vote in a poll on the subject.

                                        In Shropshire, the foxhound packs kill foxes - quite a lot of them! The pack I hunt with on the Shropshire/Welsh borders killed over 100 last season (and it was a VERY short season due to FMD.) If we didn't kill a reasonable number, the farmers and landowners would NOT allow us on their land - simple as that. As it is, hundreds of farmers - small and large - welcome us.

                                        Leg hold traps and poison are illegal in the U.K. for fox control, as is gassing. Doesn't mean they are not used where foxes are a big problem. Shooting is effective WHERE IT'S SAFE - but in many parts of England it's NOT safe, even with a shot-gun, and shooting foxes with a shotgun results in a VERY high wounding rate. The best weapon for foxes is at LEAST .222 calibre, but in some counties the police can be VERY difficult for licensing a .222 for fox control - they try and fob you off with a .22 - which does not have enough stopping power to ensure a humane kill.

                                        The push to ban hunting is based on class warfare and politics. As far as the Labour Government is concerned, everyone who hunts is upper class and Tory - an absolute nonsense but they believe it. The Tories kept Labour down and out for 20 years - now they're back, they want to get even! We could also mention the �1 million pound 'donation' that Labour accepted from the International Fund for Animal Welfare! Promises were presumably made - now it's payback time.


                                        • #40
                                          If only, as KarenC pointed out, the foxhunters and the antis could just "agree to disagree."

                                          But the antis, like the true anti-liberty do-gooder nanny-statist I-know-what's-good-for-everyone types that they are, have decided to pursue the wholesale extinction of a way of life through legislative caveat. And therein lies the problem.