FOX HUNTING (and hunting in general)

Storm · 02-14-2006, 04:56 PM

Some things said in tutor at my college about fox hunting arose, so I thought it would be quite a good subject to discuss due to the variations of different viewpoints. Some people are for it. Others against. There are also those who are somewhat in the middle of this, saying that is ok on these such basis but not the others. I will run through the brief points highlighted in the discussion.

for fox hunting:

You know what? I've NEVER come this close to wanting to kill a fox. We never had a fox problem at the farm before, but now we are getting them frequently. 4 chickens have been killed in the last month. I went out with my shotgun and killed it.
Some people are like "look at that cute little fluffy orange dog... they're NOT like that, they're PESTS!
Foxes dont need to kill chickens. They have a whole territory full of prey to eat.
We kill them the most quickest way. It's not a slow, painfull death. It's quick.

against fox hunting:

Fox hunting is inhumane. They eat chickens because they are easy prey. Did you fox-proof your chicken runs? Well, if you did this then fox attacks would be less frequent, so you wouldnt HAVE to kill them.
What do you use the chickens for? (answer given= eating) So you're killing a fox for killing a chicken that you were going to kill anyway?
Chasing foxes until they are exhausted is not humane. It is cruelty, then having dogs tear them limb-from-limb when they're still alive, how is that a good thing to do to a living creature?

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

I would like to hear your personal opinions about fox hunting and hunting in general.

I will give you my viewpoints too. Just not in this post as I am trying to make it a neutral debate, rather than a biased one, although some of you may know what side I am on in this debate already.

Sasquatch · 02-14-2006, 07:22 PM

While I don't support it for recreation, I do for protection of property. Basically, we raise chickens for us to eat, and we're more important than foxes. They're nearly impossible to completely protect against, and they're a nuisance in nearly every sense of the word. If they cost you money, I have no problem with hunting them. Of course, I'd rather you did that in a "humane" way, as opposed to letting dogs rip them apart as you mentioned, but that's very rare.

Lethal Seraphim · 02-14-2006, 10:27 PM

Yeah, Sasquatch pretty much laid out everything I was going to say. I don't think that fox hunting for sport is much of a sport at all. If I was a farmer and I saw one on my property though, I'd shoot it. Why? Cuz it's in my best interest as a farmer to do so. Precautions can be taken but a lot of times you have to kill the spider to save the fly, if you know what I mean.

What's more important? The fox's livelihood or the farmer's? Duh... It reminds me a lot of the DDT controversy a few years back. DDT almost completely whiped out malaria, but its use was banned because it was adversely affecting the eagle population. Depending on what website you go to or what source you look at, there are anywhere between 2 and 4 million child deaths a year due to malaria. So we're letting eagles die... or we're letting kids die... Some people think like this, that's why there's a ban on DDT. Scary huh?

Anyway, sorry to go off on that tangent, that's just what this debate sort of reminded me of. That whole thing is probably better suited for another topic entirely now that I look back at it.

But yeah... Fox killing for fun... no sir. Killing for fun is killing for lack of a better reason, and I don't buy into that. I could understand it if there was like a big fluctuation in the fox population around an agrarean community and it was really messin shit up though.

As for hunting in general, I have no quarrel with it. I've been deer hunting before, and shot and killed two of them in my lifetime. I have no problem with it. The deer I killed were the deer I ate. If you're gonna kill it to eat it or to use it for something other than just to say you killed it, then sure. For me the question of whether or not hunting in the proper aspect is humane doesn't come into play, because I'm killing it for the meat. I'm going to eat it, so how it gets to my belly is kind of a moot point for me. Does the cheetah care how humanely it kills the gazelle? I mean, I'm not going to be sadistic about it though, I just don't view hunting as inhumane or cruel to animals. What's the difference in human predation of an animal as opposed to a mountain lion or some other natural predator of that animal?

I could see how this could turn into a "meat is murder" type debate, but I hope it doesn't.

Storm · 02-17-2006, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

While I don't support it for recreation, I do for protection of property. Basically, we raise chickens for us to eat, and we're more important than foxes. They're nearly impossible to completely protect against, and they're a nuisance in nearly every sense of the word. If they cost you money, I have no problem with hunting them. Of course, I'd rather you did that in a "humane" way, as opposed to letting dogs rip them apart as you mentioned, but that's very rare.

Yes I agree with what you have stated. Killing for recreation is pointless. If you want to "kill" for recreation I say go rent the latest shooting sim or war game. If killing people for fun is illegal, why isnt killing animals for fun illegal too? I think if a fox has killed a lot of livestock, then it should be killed but only as a last resort. I think that fox-proofing things should be tried first. Im not saying that battery farming is a better option as it isnt, and i know fox-proofing isnt 100% reliable, however it should be considered and tested to find a way to protect livestock without damaging our native species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lethal Seraphim

What's more important? The fox's livelihood or the farmer's? Duh... It reminds me a lot of the DDT controversy a few years back. DDT almost completely whiped out malaria, but its use was banned because it was adversely affecting the eagle population. Depending on what website you go to or what source you look at, there are anywhere between 2 and 4 million child deaths a year due to malaria. So we're letting eagles die... or we're letting kids die... Some people think like this, that's why there's a ban on DDT. Scary huh?

I never heard of that. And no, you arent exactly going off the tangent as it is another kind of people vs nature episode. It's these kinds of things scientists are trying to find an answer to. I know that people with sickle cell anemia are protected against malaria as the blood cells pop before maleria can infect it. Sickle cell anemia, if you don't already know, is an inherited disease caused by a recessive allelle, which alters the shape of the cell, altering how it carries haemoglobin around the blood. People with one allele this condition (heterozygous), if they live in countries threatened by malaria, they tend to live longer than those who dont. They could try something with this idea. Dont worry if you cant understand my babble, i learnt it in AS biology a few months back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lethal Seraphim

As for hunting in general, I have no quarrel with it. I've been deer hunting before, and shot and killed two of them in my lifetime. I have no problem with it. The deer I killed were the deer I ate. If you're gonna kill it to eat it or to use it for something other than just to say you killed it, then sure. For me the question of whether or not hunting in the proper aspect is humane doesn't come into play, because I'm killing it for the meat. I'm going to eat it, so how it gets to my belly is kind of a moot point for me. Does the cheetah care how humanely it kills the gazelle? I mean, I'm not going to be sadistic about it though, I just don't view hunting as inhumane or cruel to animals. What's the difference in human predation of an animal as opposed to a mountain lion or some other natural predator of that animal?

I could see how this could turn into a "meat is murder" type debate, but I hope it doesn't.

Well, i dont agree with hunting in general as long as

1) The animal isn't an endangered or threatened animal (all those who kill elephants, rhinos, gharials e.t.c. need to be shot themselves, between the eyes)

2) The animal is used for food.

If an animal is going to be eaten im fine by it. And im saying this as a vegetarian. And don't worry about this going into a meat is murder thing as it isnt*. My grandad owns a butcher shop, and people come in with rabbits that they've shot. These rabbits are refrigerated/frozen and stored for customers to buy. That is not cruelty, as rabbits are a bit uncontrolled. They breed like... well.... rabbits! Plus since there is not enough preditors, such as foxes and birds of prey to eat them.

This leads me back to fox hunting. If foxes contineued to be shot for sport, and by farmers who just shoot them wherever they see them, what would happen to the ecosystem? Foxes do not just eat farmers chickens. They are inportant animals in the world as they are apex preditors, which eat all kinds of animals which need to be controlled. They also scavenge dead animals, much like the hyenas of africa (just prettier, quiter, less smelly and nowhere near as dangerous). If we didnt have them, then look at what the state of the natural areas would be in. Taking a local area into consideration, The New Forest. If it wasnt for foxes, there would be millions of rabbits and carcases of ponies and badgers would be more frequent. Not a nice sight for locals, visitors, or park rangers who have to maintan the area.

* AND I PREWARN THOSE WHO WANT TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE ABOUT "MEAT IS MURDER", DON'T AS THIS THREAD IS MERELY ABOUT HUNTING. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT THAT THEN START YOUR OWN THREAD.
(that is not aimed at you, Sasquatch or Lethal Seraphim as neither of you have, i just had to point that out to people who may reply live that to Seraphim's post.

Lethal Seraphim · 02-17-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valentine89

I never heard of that. And no, you arent exactly going off the tangent as it is another kind of people vs nature episode. It's these kinds of things scientists are trying to find an answer to. I know that people with sickle cell anemia are protected against malaria as the blood cells pop before maleria can infect it. Sickle cell anemia, if you don't already know, is an inherited disease caused by a recessive allelle, which alters the shape of the cell, altering how it carries haemoglobin around the blood. People with one allele this condition (heterozygous), if they live in countries threatened by malaria, they tend to live longer than those who dont. They could try something with this idea. Dont worry if you cant understand my babble, i learnt it in AS biology a few months back.

An interesting fact about sickle cell anemia... in the human DNA strand only 13 little "blocks"(or pieces that make up the strand I guess, I forget the proper terms) have to be out of place for the condition to occur. That's 13 out of well over a million, kinda makes you think. But what are you saying exactly? That maybe we should intentionally try to give people in malaria threatened areas sickle-cell anemia? For me to attempt to speculate on this I'd have to research the symptoms of each condition, because that may or may not be a good trade-off until a cure or vaccine can be developed. Interesting idea though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by valentine89

This leads me back to fox hunting. If foxes contineued to be shot for sport, and by farmers who just shoot them wherever they see them, what would happen to the ecosystem? Foxes do not just eat farmers chickens. They are inportant animals in the world as they are apex preditors, which eat all kinds of animals which need to be controlled. They also scavenge dead animals, much like the hyenas of africa (just prettier, quiter, less smelly and nowhere near as dangerous). If we didnt have them, then look at what the state of the natural areas would be in. Taking a local area into consideration, The New Forest. If it wasnt for foxes, there would be millions of rabbits and carcases of ponies and badgers would be more frequent. Not a nice sight for locals, visitors, or park rangers who have to maintan the area.

I could be wrong about this, but I'd think that if the fox population began to dwindle, the other predators of these animals would become more abundant, taking up the slack. If nothing else, humans would do so by increasing their predation or hunting of all these rabbits and other animals. Although the fox would be the apex predator of the area, a secondary one such as a bird of prey would quite possibly become the new apex predator. However, I am not familiar with the area in question, nor with the different predators/animals that inhabit it.

OnOneRyder · 02-17-2006, 04:13 PM

Although I personally do not take part in hunting, I do not mind people doing it. The majority of hunters are quite caring for the environment and I wouldn't doubt that they are less harmful to the ecosystem they are in than a group of protestors. The way in which we hunt now is not murderous, the vast majority of animals killed are down within seconds rather than suffering their entire lives in a pen only to have an electrode shoved in the back door and have someone hit the switch.

As for fox hunting, I wouldn't call what you did fox hunting. You were a farmer protecting his flock and if you’re a decent shot, a shotgun will end of fox's life quicker than he knows what’s going on.

Crazy Chocobo · 02-17-2006, 05:59 PM

I don't like foxes but I don't believe in fox hunting. They don't really deserve being killed just because of their natural instincts. I mean, sure, they are pests. My parents have had a problem with them a couple of times over the last few years. We have chickens and a couple have disappreared every now and then. They just do it because they need food just like you and I. I know there are many other things for them to eat but I guess chickens are an easy way to have a feast. I always thought fox hunting was inhumane just like hunting any other animal really. I guess we need to eat too. I'm kind of have mixed feelings about the issue. I believe killing foxes is cruel but they steal our food sources...

I don't think I can give a straight answer about the issue.

Storm · 02-18-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crazy Chocobo~

I don't think I can give a straight answer about the issue.

Exactly, this is why I find it an interesting debate issue. Of course there some hardcore people for and against the matter, but the majority of people are inbetween. There isnt a straight-forward answer, yet a lot of interesting opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnOneRyder

As for fox hunting, I wouldn't call what you did fox hunting. You were a farmer protecting his flock and if you’re a decent shot, a shotgun will end of fox's life quicker than he knows what’s going on.

No, it wasnt me who shot the fox. I dont have the heart to kill an animal. It was a subject of debate at my college between a guy who has a farming family. I know what you are saying though, and I believe what your saying.

04-03-2006, 03:23 PM

[quote=valentine89]Exactly, this is why I find it an interesting debate issue. Of course there some hardcore people for and against the matter, but the majority of people are inbetween. There isnt a straight-forward answer, yet a lot of interesting opinions. [quote]

Yeh I'm one of those inbetween people, mainly because the whole hunting issue hasn't really directly affected me. I don't live on a farm or in a place that foxes regularly come to at all, quite the contrary in fact.

Because of this, I have to take an outsiders approach and see it from both sides. I too had this discussion with the farmer guy at college and we went through the whole thing. He managed to convince me that his point of view was worth taking a look at rather than the one-sided view taken by most of the UK. If people had a broader mind and actually took the time to think about the other side of the arguement, there would have been less argueing and more compromise so that both parties could have got an acceptable outcome.

Kestrel · 04-03-2006, 04:45 PM

I personally have a hunting and a Firearms licence. The Hunting Licence is restricted to my Family's property and to a friend's property next to ours (with permission from them, of course!), so I don't go shooting stuff willy nilly.

I've only ever shot a fox once. They're not common here, but they're not uncommon either. It killed a good deal of our chickens before we decided to get rid of it. We didn't chase it, we just took out the Ute to where we knew it hung around, and just sat there and waited. No drawing out of the death, one accurate shot and that was it.

Never shot a fox after that again though, my Dad generally does the fox shooting when we need to, which is once in a blue moon. They're rarely a problem so long as you keep your chickens, ducks and smaller avian creatures secure.

Other animals, well... Only other things we'll shoot are Feral Pigs, Feral Cats (BUT, only when their population has swollen to the point of it being a problem, which is also a rare thing), Wild Rabbits and occasionally Kangaroos.

The Pigs and Rabbits, if we don't need them but need to get rid of them (they destroy the property with their warrens or dig up all the topsoil and the vegetation), are sold to the local butcher to be sold to the community for meats.

No animal is EVER killed in our hunting territory unless it poses a dismal threat to our livelihood or to other native species in our area. And even then we don't just leave the dead animal there and laugh about it at dinner and put notches on the belt to boast about how much we've shot. That's just stupid.

Sometimes it's just a necessity to protect yourself and other animals that deserve a fair go. The introduced species (Foxes, Pigs, cats, Rabbits etc) DO cause more harm than good, and so some preventative measures do need to be taken. As nasty as it might be.

So I agree with hunting, but not with hunting for the fun of it. Even sport hunting is borderline. However at least the animal skin, meat and whatnot is still being used and not wasted. In Australia, at least. Sport/Bounty hunting for animals such as the Big Cats, Elephants etc is just wrong.

Cheers,
~Swifty

04-04-2006, 10:47 AM

I think that as long as it is in protection of something or that you are going to eat it then it is ok. But I disagree with hunting for fun, I dont think you should kill anything for fun only out of necessity.