Ban Fox Hunting?
- Thread starter Star_One
- Start date
- Status
Actually; I'm not, and I like my meat... it's called survival - not sport hunting.
laughing weasel said:
You're telling me the so called "british upper class" is a seperate culture? *sigh* then you are lost beyond mine or anyone elses help.
I rather a dead meat sandwich than a live one, actually.
We are omnivorous because we need meat, or we'd be vegetarians. So much for your philosophy. Check your teeth. See any canine teeth? Their on either side of your incisors. Now take a guess at what type of cabbage and tofu those were designed for.
We are omnivorous because we need meat, or we'd be vegetarians. So much for your philosophy. Check your teeth. See any canine teeth? Their on either side of your incisors. Now take a guess at what type of cabbage and tofu those were designed for.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
I asked you at what point a culture has sufficient divergence that the culture gets a free pass from social responsibility. You are the one who said that native cultures should not have to abide by the restrictions that are placed on mainstream culture. My point is that everyone is someone else’s freak. I do not believe that any form of affirmative action is helpful in the long run. When you encourage people to be divisive then they only end up marginalized in the long term.
I don't see what your point is. I don't know exatally at what point a group becomes a new culture, but I doubt a 'class' can be called one.
If you wish me to say that eskimos too should not hunt, fine by me. But they eat what they hunt as well as use the fur for protection.
If you wish me to say that eskimos too should not hunt, fine by me. But they eat what they hunt as well as use the fur for protection.
well, mine was as much a joke as yours. no need to get nasty.
Ban fox hunting? A resounding YES!
Fox hunters make all sorts of really lame excuses about keeping fox hunting;
It's traditional. Well, no, it's not. It was popularised by cavalry regiments as a way of training horsemen. Hence the rigid structure of the hunt and it's hierarchy, and the fact it appeals to the upper 'officer' classes.
It's pest control. No. Foxes are sometimes imported for hunts. Hunts take place in farming areas that are completely arable. Hunts aren't always successful. So if a fox has been in your chicken coup, you don't wait until a week next Sunday, for a bunch of toffs to dress up silly, and try and kill the first fox they come across. You want the fox that has a taste for chicken dealt with immediately.
It brings money to the rural areas. Arse. I spend money in rural areas and don't kill anything. I pay for horse riding lessons because I enjoy riding horses. People who loved the country way of life for real could still ride horses too. So it's the killing they are interested in, not livelyhoods.
They would have to destroy the hounds if hunting were banned. Oh, appeal the dog lovers that are the British public. Well, tough shit, destroy the dogs. I have two dogs, and would rehome a hound, if only they were suitable animals to keep as pets. But they aren't. They are bred to be vicious, and would be a danger to domestic dogs and children if let loose. They only work in the pack for four or five years anyway, and then, guess what? get put down anyway! So the pro-hunters show duplicity and dishonesty here. The hounds could be kept for drag hunts anyway, but again, it seems those that profess to love the country way of life need to kill something, and will abandon all support for their way of life else.
Fox populations would die out/overrun the are iof left unchecked. There's absolutely no evidence of either claim, both of which are made by pro hunt groups. Othe countries without this barbaric passtime don't have problems with their fox populations, and neither would we.
banning hunting is an infringment of the hunter's rights. No, it's a statement about the fox's rights, and how humanely we should treat animals. But a bunch of guys that mistreat hounds to keep them mean wouldn't understand ethics.
It's the tip of the iceberg, shooting and fishing will be next. Nope, I just want to ban foxhunting, because it's pointless and barbaric. Fishing is pretty boring and pointless, I don't want to fish personally, but if folks are the sort of dullard that thinks it's fun, carry on. Shooting. Well, I shoot, so no, I don't want to ban shooting. I only shoot at targets, and people (paintball). I don't understand why some people want to shoot small furry animals under the guise of 'pest control' that isn't performed in other countries where they have no problems, but until some research shows they are damaging the ecosystem, hunters can carry on. I prefer my prey to tooled up and able to shoot back however, so don't see the appeal of shooting dumb animals.
So, ban fox hunting. 50 years after the ban, people will wonder how we ever tolerated it in the first place. Also, I'd like to see ban on bull fighting. Not that it happens in the UK, of course.
Fox hunters make all sorts of really lame excuses about keeping fox hunting;
It's traditional. Well, no, it's not. It was popularised by cavalry regiments as a way of training horsemen. Hence the rigid structure of the hunt and it's hierarchy, and the fact it appeals to the upper 'officer' classes.
It's pest control. No. Foxes are sometimes imported for hunts. Hunts take place in farming areas that are completely arable. Hunts aren't always successful. So if a fox has been in your chicken coup, you don't wait until a week next Sunday, for a bunch of toffs to dress up silly, and try and kill the first fox they come across. You want the fox that has a taste for chicken dealt with immediately.
It brings money to the rural areas. Arse. I spend money in rural areas and don't kill anything. I pay for horse riding lessons because I enjoy riding horses. People who loved the country way of life for real could still ride horses too. So it's the killing they are interested in, not livelyhoods.
They would have to destroy the hounds if hunting were banned. Oh, appeal the dog lovers that are the British public. Well, tough shit, destroy the dogs. I have two dogs, and would rehome a hound, if only they were suitable animals to keep as pets. But they aren't. They are bred to be vicious, and would be a danger to domestic dogs and children if let loose. They only work in the pack for four or five years anyway, and then, guess what? get put down anyway! So the pro-hunters show duplicity and dishonesty here. The hounds could be kept for drag hunts anyway, but again, it seems those that profess to love the country way of life need to kill something, and will abandon all support for their way of life else.
Fox populations would die out/overrun the are iof left unchecked. There's absolutely no evidence of either claim, both of which are made by pro hunt groups. Othe countries without this barbaric passtime don't have problems with their fox populations, and neither would we.
banning hunting is an infringment of the hunter's rights. No, it's a statement about the fox's rights, and how humanely we should treat animals. But a bunch of guys that mistreat hounds to keep them mean wouldn't understand ethics.
It's the tip of the iceberg, shooting and fishing will be next. Nope, I just want to ban foxhunting, because it's pointless and barbaric. Fishing is pretty boring and pointless, I don't want to fish personally, but if folks are the sort of dullard that thinks it's fun, carry on. Shooting. Well, I shoot, so no, I don't want to ban shooting. I only shoot at targets, and people (paintball). I don't understand why some people want to shoot small furry animals under the guise of 'pest control' that isn't performed in other countries where they have no problems, but until some research shows they are damaging the ecosystem, hunters can carry on. I prefer my prey to tooled up and able to shoot back however, so don't see the appeal of shooting dumb animals.
So, ban fox hunting. 50 years after the ban, people will wonder how we ever tolerated it in the first place. Also, I'd like to see ban on bull fighting. Not that it happens in the UK, of course.
GOOO Phlogistician!!!!!!!
Yes! Ban bull fighting too!!! It happens here, bastards!
Yes! Ban bull fighting too!!! It happens here, bastards!
We'll never get rid of cock fighting as long as the word "cock" is involved. I never knew what was funnier when I was a teenager, the fact that my skis were called Le Coq Sportif or the picture of the little chicken.
Of course, I dropped out of a college that had Donald Duck for its mascot, so the folks in South Carolina have nothing to worry about.
Of course, I dropped out of a college that had Donald Duck for its mascot, so the folks in South Carolina have nothing to worry about.
Stupid fox hunting bastards Thrill of the chase, eh? Lets chase them with APCs, helicopter gunships and then fire cruise missiles at them!
jadedflower said:
Actually, I'd just like to change the rules of bullfighting. It could continue if;
It was mano a torro, single combat.
Neither Mano nor torro wore clothes or carried weapons.
That would be a fair fight. I wonder how many heroes we'd get stepping up for it though ;-)
Ban it. Its extremely cruel . The bastards who do it need a good kicking. We are meant to be having a law banning hunting with dogs. The labour party got into power using this as one of their platforms.That was in 1997. I have seen hunts, and it is barbaric. the fox will run to ground (hide down a hole) after out running everything for hours. Then more often than not, a couple of "sportsmen" will dig it out. the poor fox then has to run again until caught and ripped to bits.
I think hunting for pleasure is fine if you do it with your bare hands. If you can run after a fox on foot for ten miles and then tear it apart with no tools i would have no problem with that.
As Oscar Wilde said,"The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". bastards,all of them
I think hunting for pleasure is fine if you do it with your bare hands. If you can run after a fox on foot for ten miles and then tear it apart with no tools i would have no problem with that.
As Oscar Wilde said,"The unspeakable chasing the uneatable". bastards,all of them
phlogistician said:
Yes; that I'd like! Los toros ganarán!
L
laughing weasel
Guest
The only thing that the Eskimos have going for them is that it is for food and is not overly cruel it is done as efficiently as possible. My understanding of fox hunting and cock fighting etcetera is that they are needlessly cruel. I do not believe that it is right to torture living creatures even the most aberrant of criminals do not deserve torture.
not even weasels! 
Well well well.
What a lot of uninformed prejudice I have just been reading. This looks like a place that could do with a little bit of straight talking from somebody who rides to hounds.
Lets start with the foxes. Why are they hunted? Because they're vermin, that's why. They damage farmers' livelihoods by taking lambs, poultry, game birds (yes, that's right: game birds. My hunt is in one of those "arable farming areas". Our farmers derive part of their incomes from game shoots. If old Reynard takes all their young birds, though, then no game shoot - no income from that source - not good). So farmers want the numbers of foxes running about on their land kept in control. They always have, and they always will.
Therefore they invite (yes - that's right, INVITE) the hunt to come onto their land a few times through the winter and hunt their foxes. The hunt gets its sport - the farmer gets his foxes controlled - and everyone is happy.
It's not the ONLY fox control measure that most farmers take, of course. It is only one of a range of measures which, all added up together, make for a total fox control package which keeps fox numbers at a level where the farmers do not perceive them to be a serious risk to their livelihoods.
(Which, of course, is why the opponents of foxhunting are able to produce statistics showing that fox predation levels are very low. Of course they are. They're low because fox numbers are kept low. The fox control effort is working!)
Now, if the fox population is to be kept down, which is better: that the surviving population should consist of fit, healthy examples, or that it should be riddled with mangey, sick and diseased animals? Anyone vote for the second option there? Nope, didn't think so. Right then - of all the fox control methods available, which is the ONLY one that is selective in the foxes it takes? Yup, you've got it - hunting. The fit healthy fox can usually (not invariably, but usually) outrun the hounds. The sick and the injured cannot. So the fox hunt helps to maintain a healthy fox population by selectively cullign the poorer breeding stock.
Isn't that rather undesirable, you might ask, if we're in it to control foxes? Not at all! The healthy, fit fox is likely to be the fox which can feed himself from teh hedgerows, without having to venture into man's domain to try to feed himself from the chicken coop. Coming into the farmyard is a high risk strategy for a fox. That in itself will deter all but the most desperate fox. But for the desperate fox, the payoff may justify the risk. And who are these desperate foxes? Why, they are the hungry foxes, of course. The sick, the weak and the injured, who cannot feed themselves from the hedgerows because they are outpaced by the hare.
Not only is the fox hunt selective, it is also the only means of killing foxes which doesn't leave a wounded fox to suffer. EVER. Hounds either catch the fox - in which case they kill him - or they do not. The marksman does not invariably kill. Especially not the marksman with a shotgun, which is the only weapon which it would be safe to deploy across the majority of the British Isles. Sometimes, they wound. And what becomes of the wounded fox? He slinks off and dies a long, agonising death of gangrene, perhaps. Or starves to death because he is no longer able to feed himself. Good news for the fox? I think not.
Snares and traps may leave a fox trapped and suffering in agony for hours - even days. Depending upon how often you check your traps. Is that desirable? I think not. There are also stories (although I have no first-hand experience so cannot confirm them) of foxes gnawing off the snared leg in order to escape. Hmmm ... not too keen on that one, either.
Poisons? Gas? Get real ...
Which leaves hunting with hounds. Foxhounds, not beagles ... beagle packs are harriers. They go after hares, not foxes.
So what happens on a fox hunt?
Well, first of all, we get up horribly early, and go and prepare our horses in the dark and the cold, box up and travel to the meet. Many members of the hunt can only attend the Saturday meets, because they have full time jobs. They are, indeed, drawn from all walks of life. Many of them are struggling to keep their horses on average incomes or less. It is NOT just a load of rich snobs and layabouts. If you don't believe me, go to a hunt meet and talk to a few of the people. They are publicised in Horse & Hound magazine, although only about a week in advance. We are NOT secret societies - although one or two hunts, which have been particularly affected by the lawless activities of some of the opponents of hunting have had to adopt a much more cautious approach. But for the most part, in the rural shires, there is no secrecy about the hunt meets, and visitors are welcome to come and see for themselves.
Refreshments are usually available - a couple of sausage rolls and a glass of mulled wine or port is about the norm - and then we move off. The huntsman - who is usually a paid employee of the hunt - controls the hounds, assisted by one or two "whippers in". The whippers in (or "whips") are responsible for enforcing discipline in the hounds. Making sure that they don't run off chasing things they are not supposed to chase. It is generally considered to be bad public relations if the hounds should chase and kill the vicar's cat; and for the most part they don't.
The huntsman takes the hounds to a covert - a piece of woodland - where it is considered likely that there may be a fox or foxes. Reliable members of the hunt will be sent out on "point" to watch the edges of the covert and "holloa" if a fox comes out. The hounds will then "draw" the covert - working through it seeking out a scent. Meanwhile, the field master, who is in charge of the mounted followers, will keep the followers out of the way of the hunt so they cannot distract the hounds. Typically they will wait a field or so away.
Sometimes the followers will take a more active part. The covert may be close to a village, for instance, and you don't want the fox and hounds runnign into a school playground (especially if it's a midweek hunt and the children are at school) so the followers will be instructed to "line off" and, if a fox shoudl come in that direction, they make as much noise as they can to turn it back the other way.
When the covert is drawn, one of four things might happen:
1. It is "drawn blank" - no fox, no scent. The huntsman gathers the hounds back together, and moves on to another covert.
2. A fox is seen to run from the covert. The person who saw this will "holloa". Hounds and huntsman will come to the sound of the holloa, and the person who gave it will point the line that the fox ran. The huntsman will put the hounds on that line. They will quickly pick up the scent because it is very fresh, and the chase will be on.
3. Hounds "mark to earth" - that is, they find a fox which has gone to ground, and they indicate his location. What happens next depends upon teh landowner's wishes. Either the fox will be dug out and shot, or he will be left. With my hunt, since the landowners are mostly farmers with game shoots to protect, foxes which go to ground are usually dug out and shot. There is, plainly, no "sporting aspect" to this part of the hunt. It is pure pest control. It is also, obviously, not selective. But a few of our landowners specify "no digging" - and if so, a fox which goes to ground on their land lives to fight another day. Under no circumstances, however, is a fox which has been dug out released and hunted again. Once he has been dug out, he is shot.
4. Hounds "speak" - indicating that they have found a scent - but no fox is seen. The fox HAS BEEN there - but now could be several fields away, or several miles away. Could even be in the next county by now. Hounds follow the scent, and we follow the hounds. Then one of two things happens. Either the scent gets stronger and hounds eventually catch up with the fox; or it gets weaker and hounds eventually lose it.
An important point to realise here is that, when you read of a fox being hunted for three quarters of an hour over 4 miles, that does NOT mean that the fox runs for 4 miles with hounds hard on his tail. That means that it is three quarters of an hour between hounds first speaking, and either killing or being called back. During the whoel of that time, they may not even SEE the fox. They may be follwoing his scent the whole time. And if so, the fox may not even be AWARE that he is being hunted.
Once the fox is in sight, it is usually over very quickly. Hounds are now hunting by sight. They are runnig flat out in pursuit of the fox. The fox is runnign flat out in order to escape. Horses are running flat out in the effort to keep up. If the fox is faster than the hounds, he will soon make good his escape. If not, he will soon be caught. Since hounds can run faster than horses, this phase cannot last too long because the huntsman cannot afford to let the hounds run too far on ahead of him, and MUST call them back if they do not catch quickly.
IF hounds catch a fox, what is his death like?
Quick, is the answer. The Burns inquiry heard evidence from all sides of the debate. Despite the claims of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and others liek them, Lord Burns did NOT accept that hunted foxes suffer long, agonising deaths being ripped apart. His finding was clear and unambiguous - although he found that death was not invariably by a "quick nip to the neck" he nevertheless found that "insensibility and death occur in a matter of seconds" once hounds caught up with a fox.
OK - so that's why foxes are hunted, and how they are hunted, and what goes on when they are caught.
What about the people who hunt. Why do they do it? Well, there are probably as many reasons as there are hunters. But I've yet to meet anybody who is motivated by bloodlust.
For one thing, it is a rare privilege to be there at the kill. Bear in mind that the field master has been keeping the "field" (the mounted followers) out of the way of the hounds. So they are already a field or two down when hounds start running. And then, once hounds are "coursing" (hunting by sight, rather than scent) they can outrun the followers' horses. It takes a combination of determination, fine horsemanship and luck to be in at the kill. I have managed it once. And then I wasn't even aware it had happened until somebody pointed it out to me, teh whole thing was over so quickly.
Was that typical? I cannot say for certain, only having had the one experience of it. But from listening to those who have been at many kills, it does not seem to be atypical.
I derive immense enjoyment from the challenge of unpredictable cross-country riding, from seeing hounds work, and from knowing that I am taking part in a worthwhile community activity. I see no issue over enjoying being part of an enterprise which is about killing foxes, ONCE I am satisfied of the need to kill foxes (which I am) and that it is not unnecessarily cruel by comparison with other available methods of killing foxes (which, also, I am). It cannot be right to say "It's OK to kill foxes, because they're vermin, but only if you promise that you will hate every moment of it". That would be absurd.
Judging from some of the previous posts on this poll, I suspect there will now be a great queue of people just waiting to shoot me down from a position of ignorance and prejudice. But I hope that those who frankly confessed to knowing little about the subject will have found these observations helpful.
Oh yes - and one last thing. The smearing with blood. "Blooding" is not commonly practised these days, although it does still occur in some hunts, including my own. It is certainly not an obligatory rite of initiation - you have to ask to be blooded. It is traditionally administered when a member of the hunt has been present at their first kill. That is when I was blooded. And it seems to me that it performs a useful function - obliging the hunt follower to confront the reality of the activity. Yes, it is great fun - but it is also about killing foxes. Can you cope with that idea?
I don't think any of us can say for certain how they will react when confronted by a newly killed fox, until it happens. I know I didn't, but I recall the occasion with great clarity. I looked down at the dead fox and I thought "That's a dead fox. That's what we're here to do." - and then I asked to be blooded.
What a lot of uninformed prejudice I have just been reading. This looks like a place that could do with a little bit of straight talking from somebody who rides to hounds.
Lets start with the foxes. Why are they hunted? Because they're vermin, that's why. They damage farmers' livelihoods by taking lambs, poultry, game birds (yes, that's right: game birds. My hunt is in one of those "arable farming areas". Our farmers derive part of their incomes from game shoots. If old Reynard takes all their young birds, though, then no game shoot - no income from that source - not good). So farmers want the numbers of foxes running about on their land kept in control. They always have, and they always will.
Therefore they invite (yes - that's right, INVITE) the hunt to come onto their land a few times through the winter and hunt their foxes. The hunt gets its sport - the farmer gets his foxes controlled - and everyone is happy.
It's not the ONLY fox control measure that most farmers take, of course. It is only one of a range of measures which, all added up together, make for a total fox control package which keeps fox numbers at a level where the farmers do not perceive them to be a serious risk to their livelihoods.
(Which, of course, is why the opponents of foxhunting are able to produce statistics showing that fox predation levels are very low. Of course they are. They're low because fox numbers are kept low. The fox control effort is working!)
Now, if the fox population is to be kept down, which is better: that the surviving population should consist of fit, healthy examples, or that it should be riddled with mangey, sick and diseased animals? Anyone vote for the second option there? Nope, didn't think so. Right then - of all the fox control methods available, which is the ONLY one that is selective in the foxes it takes? Yup, you've got it - hunting. The fit healthy fox can usually (not invariably, but usually) outrun the hounds. The sick and the injured cannot. So the fox hunt helps to maintain a healthy fox population by selectively cullign the poorer breeding stock.
Isn't that rather undesirable, you might ask, if we're in it to control foxes? Not at all! The healthy, fit fox is likely to be the fox which can feed himself from teh hedgerows, without having to venture into man's domain to try to feed himself from the chicken coop. Coming into the farmyard is a high risk strategy for a fox. That in itself will deter all but the most desperate fox. But for the desperate fox, the payoff may justify the risk. And who are these desperate foxes? Why, they are the hungry foxes, of course. The sick, the weak and the injured, who cannot feed themselves from the hedgerows because they are outpaced by the hare.
Not only is the fox hunt selective, it is also the only means of killing foxes which doesn't leave a wounded fox to suffer. EVER. Hounds either catch the fox - in which case they kill him - or they do not. The marksman does not invariably kill. Especially not the marksman with a shotgun, which is the only weapon which it would be safe to deploy across the majority of the British Isles. Sometimes, they wound. And what becomes of the wounded fox? He slinks off and dies a long, agonising death of gangrene, perhaps. Or starves to death because he is no longer able to feed himself. Good news for the fox? I think not.
Snares and traps may leave a fox trapped and suffering in agony for hours - even days. Depending upon how often you check your traps. Is that desirable? I think not. There are also stories (although I have no first-hand experience so cannot confirm them) of foxes gnawing off the snared leg in order to escape. Hmmm ... not too keen on that one, either.
Poisons? Gas? Get real ...
Which leaves hunting with hounds. Foxhounds, not beagles ... beagle packs are harriers. They go after hares, not foxes.
So what happens on a fox hunt?
Well, first of all, we get up horribly early, and go and prepare our horses in the dark and the cold, box up and travel to the meet. Many members of the hunt can only attend the Saturday meets, because they have full time jobs. They are, indeed, drawn from all walks of life. Many of them are struggling to keep their horses on average incomes or less. It is NOT just a load of rich snobs and layabouts. If you don't believe me, go to a hunt meet and talk to a few of the people. They are publicised in Horse & Hound magazine, although only about a week in advance. We are NOT secret societies - although one or two hunts, which have been particularly affected by the lawless activities of some of the opponents of hunting have had to adopt a much more cautious approach. But for the most part, in the rural shires, there is no secrecy about the hunt meets, and visitors are welcome to come and see for themselves.
Refreshments are usually available - a couple of sausage rolls and a glass of mulled wine or port is about the norm - and then we move off. The huntsman - who is usually a paid employee of the hunt - controls the hounds, assisted by one or two "whippers in". The whippers in (or "whips") are responsible for enforcing discipline in the hounds. Making sure that they don't run off chasing things they are not supposed to chase. It is generally considered to be bad public relations if the hounds should chase and kill the vicar's cat; and for the most part they don't.
The huntsman takes the hounds to a covert - a piece of woodland - where it is considered likely that there may be a fox or foxes. Reliable members of the hunt will be sent out on "point" to watch the edges of the covert and "holloa" if a fox comes out. The hounds will then "draw" the covert - working through it seeking out a scent. Meanwhile, the field master, who is in charge of the mounted followers, will keep the followers out of the way of the hunt so they cannot distract the hounds. Typically they will wait a field or so away.
Sometimes the followers will take a more active part. The covert may be close to a village, for instance, and you don't want the fox and hounds runnign into a school playground (especially if it's a midweek hunt and the children are at school) so the followers will be instructed to "line off" and, if a fox shoudl come in that direction, they make as much noise as they can to turn it back the other way.
When the covert is drawn, one of four things might happen:
1. It is "drawn blank" - no fox, no scent. The huntsman gathers the hounds back together, and moves on to another covert.
2. A fox is seen to run from the covert. The person who saw this will "holloa". Hounds and huntsman will come to the sound of the holloa, and the person who gave it will point the line that the fox ran. The huntsman will put the hounds on that line. They will quickly pick up the scent because it is very fresh, and the chase will be on.
3. Hounds "mark to earth" - that is, they find a fox which has gone to ground, and they indicate his location. What happens next depends upon teh landowner's wishes. Either the fox will be dug out and shot, or he will be left. With my hunt, since the landowners are mostly farmers with game shoots to protect, foxes which go to ground are usually dug out and shot. There is, plainly, no "sporting aspect" to this part of the hunt. It is pure pest control. It is also, obviously, not selective. But a few of our landowners specify "no digging" - and if so, a fox which goes to ground on their land lives to fight another day. Under no circumstances, however, is a fox which has been dug out released and hunted again. Once he has been dug out, he is shot.
4. Hounds "speak" - indicating that they have found a scent - but no fox is seen. The fox HAS BEEN there - but now could be several fields away, or several miles away. Could even be in the next county by now. Hounds follow the scent, and we follow the hounds. Then one of two things happens. Either the scent gets stronger and hounds eventually catch up with the fox; or it gets weaker and hounds eventually lose it.
An important point to realise here is that, when you read of a fox being hunted for three quarters of an hour over 4 miles, that does NOT mean that the fox runs for 4 miles with hounds hard on his tail. That means that it is three quarters of an hour between hounds first speaking, and either killing or being called back. During the whoel of that time, they may not even SEE the fox. They may be follwoing his scent the whole time. And if so, the fox may not even be AWARE that he is being hunted.
Once the fox is in sight, it is usually over very quickly. Hounds are now hunting by sight. They are runnig flat out in pursuit of the fox. The fox is runnign flat out in order to escape. Horses are running flat out in the effort to keep up. If the fox is faster than the hounds, he will soon make good his escape. If not, he will soon be caught. Since hounds can run faster than horses, this phase cannot last too long because the huntsman cannot afford to let the hounds run too far on ahead of him, and MUST call them back if they do not catch quickly.
IF hounds catch a fox, what is his death like?
Quick, is the answer. The Burns inquiry heard evidence from all sides of the debate. Despite the claims of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and others liek them, Lord Burns did NOT accept that hunted foxes suffer long, agonising deaths being ripped apart. His finding was clear and unambiguous - although he found that death was not invariably by a "quick nip to the neck" he nevertheless found that "insensibility and death occur in a matter of seconds" once hounds caught up with a fox.
OK - so that's why foxes are hunted, and how they are hunted, and what goes on when they are caught.
What about the people who hunt. Why do they do it? Well, there are probably as many reasons as there are hunters. But I've yet to meet anybody who is motivated by bloodlust.
For one thing, it is a rare privilege to be there at the kill. Bear in mind that the field master has been keeping the "field" (the mounted followers) out of the way of the hounds. So they are already a field or two down when hounds start running. And then, once hounds are "coursing" (hunting by sight, rather than scent) they can outrun the followers' horses. It takes a combination of determination, fine horsemanship and luck to be in at the kill. I have managed it once. And then I wasn't even aware it had happened until somebody pointed it out to me, teh whole thing was over so quickly.
Was that typical? I cannot say for certain, only having had the one experience of it. But from listening to those who have been at many kills, it does not seem to be atypical.
I derive immense enjoyment from the challenge of unpredictable cross-country riding, from seeing hounds work, and from knowing that I am taking part in a worthwhile community activity. I see no issue over enjoying being part of an enterprise which is about killing foxes, ONCE I am satisfied of the need to kill foxes (which I am) and that it is not unnecessarily cruel by comparison with other available methods of killing foxes (which, also, I am). It cannot be right to say "It's OK to kill foxes, because they're vermin, but only if you promise that you will hate every moment of it". That would be absurd.
Judging from some of the previous posts on this poll, I suspect there will now be a great queue of people just waiting to shoot me down from a position of ignorance and prejudice. But I hope that those who frankly confessed to knowing little about the subject will have found these observations helpful.
Oh yes - and one last thing. The smearing with blood. "Blooding" is not commonly practised these days, although it does still occur in some hunts, including my own. It is certainly not an obligatory rite of initiation - you have to ask to be blooded. It is traditionally administered when a member of the hunt has been present at their first kill. That is when I was blooded. And it seems to me that it performs a useful function - obliging the hunt follower to confront the reality of the activity. Yes, it is great fun - but it is also about killing foxes. Can you cope with that idea?
I don't think any of us can say for certain how they will react when confronted by a newly killed fox, until it happens. I know I didn't, but I recall the occasion with great clarity. I looked down at the dead fox and I thought "That's a dead fox. That's what we're here to do." - and then I asked to be blooded.
- Status