h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My article on Foxhunting is located at http://www.h2g2.com/A412624

Many thanks to Dr Goof Lithium for suggestions and comments on what was originally somewhat of a vitriolic article, and assisting me to turn it into this more balanced one.

'G'

Another good article I may hasten to add that poisoning foxes is illegal (and poison is a poor way to kill anything - too much chance of it getting into the general food chain) in Britain. The article still shows an anti-hunt tinge to it (tho' I may hasten to add not enough to stop this well-written article getting into the Edited Guide - well in my opinion, that is Also the 'lion' solution may not work, in lions access to the females is limited to only a few males (normally brothers), for years at a time, foxes, on the other hand, have a totally different strategy to produce young. Also maybe a bit on how most people do not mind the idea of getting rid of rats with some pretty barbaric methods, but do the same to a fox......
BCNU - Crescent

Thanx ACE!
I will introduce the illegality thing into it.
As for the 'lion' solution, it is just an idea to get people thinking of more humane ways of control.
I had thought of introducing 'ratting', but disregarded it as an irrelevance, as rats are true vermin, and they carry disease that can be passed on to us!
'G'

I think that you need to bear in mind that the purpose of the guide is to provide information, as opposed to opinions. As the article stands, the main purpose of it is to provide a solution to Gandalf's belief that foxhunting is cruel (which I think it is).

If you want to get your point across about the humanity of letting dogs rip up an animal, you could perhaps write an article that details a foxhunt. If you are careful to stay unbiased and simply present the facts, you will still make the point. The reader can make a decision on their view of foxhunting based on information they have been presented with. Be careful to at least _appear_ to be unbiased though, Gandalf.

To find its way into the edited guide, you will probably have to make the piece more objective.

By more objective, however, I don't mean you have to support foxhunting as well. There are many edited entries that have a clear focus, for or against something.

However, you will need to refrain from the first and second person. Most if not all edited entries are written in the objective third person. (No I's, We's, or You's)

The problem with first and second person is H2G2 feels the researcher should be invisible in the entry, and the reader rarely enjoys being drawn into the entry. e.g. you say

"In countries where hunting is legal, you go out with gun, longbow,
crossbow or whatever, find your quarry, shoot it; then take it home and eat it." My first reaction to that opening sentence was "No I don't, I'd never do that."

You could change that to "In countries where hunting is legal, hunters go out with gun, longbow, crossbow or whatever, find their quarry, shoot it; then take it home and eat it." This doesn't force the reader into any actions they don't wish to take.

I'd drop the 2 sentences on Spain. You can write another entry on the cruelty of bullfighting, I think it distracts from this entry though.

The next paragraph could be improved thusly:

The United Kingdom has, or had, their own selection of 'Blood Sports'. Historically Bear Baiting, Cock Fighting and Badger Baiting were commonplace, and, up to the end of the eighteenth century, were even acceptable pastimes. However, the tradition of these 'sports' is still carried on with Angling, Hare Coursing, Stag Hunting (with hounds), Boxing and Foxhunting.

(as you will notice, it is still the same paragraph, I've done very little except make it third person.)

Phrases such as "This is abhorrent." Can be changed to "Many people consider this to be abhorrent." Nobody will be fooled into thinking you're not one of them, but it does get rid of the invisible "I believe" at the beginning of the sentence.

Doing the same with the rest of the entry, will make it appear to be a lot more objective. It is already an informative, and persuasive entry. As a Scout too, I'd be willing to recommend it myself once it is in the third person.

Gavroche

Hi there!

Article amended as per your suggestions!

'G'

Hmm - misc stuff...

How is boxing a blood sport? I'm fairly sure the standard definition of blood sport would require somebody or something to die. Call boxing a blood sport, and I think you'd have to call Judo the same...

> "The first three have long been, thankfully, decreed to be illegal because"

the first three? if you mean "Boar Baiting, Bear Baiting, Cock Fighting", make it more clear, because I thought you meant "Angling, Hare Coursing, Stag Hunting" - and fishing is still legal, I believe.

Is Badger Baiting not illegal? According to your text, it's legal.

you've missed a right bracket on "(or 'digging'".

Might be worth mentioning that angling is highly unlikely to be declared illegal while it is so popular, even if people come up with rock solid proof that fish do feel pain. Certainly, a government which so declared would not survive long.

I think you should footnote some of the blood sports - personally, I don't know what boar/bear baiting involved, for example.

Your personal opinion of boxing as acceptable is failry evident - and it reads like an opinion. Perhaps change to "Boxing is widely considered acceptable, since both competitors are human, and therefore give their consent."

I don't think the majority of countryfolk want to eradicate the fox - most think it's vermin, yes, but IF the fox was ever in danger of extinction, I think the majority would want it kept alive in national parks, or zoos. Or even just controlled at a manageable level in the countryside. Many would argue that the status quo does just that...

"in their death throes" - *feels* very anti - is it not possible to say "are pretty much dieing out" - which feels less judgemental.

"Reynard" needs footnoting - I'm not sure where the expression comes from, and while I at least recognise it, others won't.

> "second method, currently in use - poisoning"
You've already said that this is currently in use...

> "Thirdly, and the method currently in use - the Hunt."
You've already said that this is currently in use...

Your description of a hunt misses the fact that rather than "charging after the fox", which implies visual contact, most of the hunting is done by the hounds' smell. You also miss that the way the fox is caught is not by being outsped - it's because it doesn't have sufficient stamina to continually outpace the hounds, and when it is caught it is because it has exausted every ounce of energy left in it. This to me, seems WORSE than your description...

I'd heard that when the fox was cornered by the dogs, the *normal* procedure was for the leading huntsman to shoot it from point-blank range, killing it instantly. I'm sure on occasion it goes wrong, though - perhaps that is where your misinformation comes from? Or am I the one mis-informed? references?

footnoting "goes to earth" to explain it's meaning would be good.

> "( ... as the earth is filled in ... )"

Surely you mean, as it's burrow is filled in. While "goes to earth" is a hunting expression, "earth" itself, is not.

The fox going to earth is unusual, mainly because the hounds tend to catch it before it has a chance. I'm not aware of widespread burrow-filling - references?

ok

While there is no better way to control foxes than the Hunt, which is what you seem to be saying, should the Hunt not remain legal? I agree with you that fox-hunting is bad, but I'm happier that they are controlled by the Hunt than I would be if they were controlled by being shot or poisoned.

I also agree with you that the sooner a humane method of fox control is found, it should be adopted, and the Hunt should be stopped. If the new method is more expensive, the government should help bear the cost. And while it's at it, it should probably offer retraining for the people it just put out of a livelihood...

However, the solution you put forward, as it stands, would seem unlikely to work. It is harder to find foxes than lions, as british countryside is not as flat, and has annoying things like forests strung about it. As mentioned, instead of neutering only the pride leader, you've have to neuter almost every single male - that's hugely expensive. And foxes have smaller territory than lions, so they are more dense. I think they also live for a shorter time than lions, so you have to deal with larger numbers that way, too.

Come up with a genuine solution to the problem, and the world will beat a path to your door... but I don't think that's it...

In the mean time, perhaps we should have controls on how the Hunt is carried out? And rules against digging up foxes, and a requirement for caught foxes to be killed cleanly... that would seem a more productive line than simply calling for a ban with no thought for the consequences...

Martin

Thanx for this reply. When I get a few minutes to study it in depth, which will be quite soon I assure you, I will take it into deep consideration when making further amendments that you are recommending.
Watch this space (It was my first article, I think later ones are much more acceptable. I chose to write a very contencious article first. My mistake??)

'G'

Nod - those of us who are atheists have similar problems when we do articles on, eg, "God"... not a mistake, I think - just more of a challenge...

So I share your pain... honest...

Hi Gandalf

At last someone's written an entry on a subject I know a bit about, as an ex-hunt saboteur.

I would question whether foxes actually require control. I suggest this is just a conventional wisdom fostered by hunters and hunt sympathisers. I live in the country and I can tell you that:

1) The hunters in this area maintain coverts to encourage foxes to breed. Is that a sign that we have a plague of foxes?

2) I, personally, have witnessed a family of 5 foxes (ma, pa & 3 cubs) trotting through a field of sheep with lambs and the sheep couldn't even be bothered to get out of the way. Is that a sign that foxes are a danger to healthy lambs?

3) That same family had been poisoned within a week of their trip across the field of sheep, by the people who breed pheasants in neighbouring fields. They also snare and poison neighbourhood cats, squirrels and birds of prey - anything in fact, that might compete with the pheasants for food or regard the pheasants as food. The foxes were living in a quarry and from what we were told by the quarry men who work there, the foxes were living on rabbits. We actually DID have a plague of rabbits here so the foxes were doing valuable work until the poison killed them. That problem was eliminated a bit later in the year by reinfecting the rabbits with myxomatosis. Ghastly disease! If I were rabbit, I'm sure I'd rather be taken out quickly and cleanly by the fox.

4) The farmer who farms the land adjacent to where I live is a tenant farmer. He's made it clear to me but would never say publicly because his landlords are the "landed gentry", who are in a position to prevent him from making a living, that he loathes and despises the hunt. They serve no useful purpose and damage fields and fences that he is then left to repair - whatever they say. And what they say is that they clear up their mess when they've finished. I've watched while they've galloped all over a field that this farmer has just spent the whole morning ploughing - he's had to go over it again.

5) You might mention "cubbing". Again, I have personally witnessed this. At the beginning of the hunting season (October), in order to train the young hounds who haven't hunted before, they go cubbing to teach the young dogs to hunt. This is how it's done: The hunt (terrier men when I witnessed the spectacle) knows in advance where the earths with cubs are located. They block off the entrance before the hunt arrives. When the pack is all assembled, ready for the kill, a huntsman stands with his foot over the opening to the earth and drags out one cub at a time and throws it to the pack who then tear it to pieces. That's how the young hounds learn their craft.

6) When I've engaged in conversation with hunters, they often say things like "we hardly ever catch one you know, we just love the chase". This is actually not that far from the truth. More foxes are killed on the roads and by disease than are ever killed by hunts, so hunts certainly wouldn't be an effective method of fox control IF foxes needed to be controlled. The sab group I belonged to volunteered to organise drag hunts for every hunt we ever sabbed, but we were never taken up on our offer. They told us we couldn't possibly make it enough fun. The foxes took them into far more hair-raising situations than a bunch of wusses like our group would ever do.

Finally, a bit of proof reading's called for on the word spacing and spelling fronts.

Thank you for your kind attention.
Sal

Thanx Sal!

As per earlier comments, will take your notes into consideration when I get round to a re-write

'G'

Gooday StM,

Hey, we must stop meeting like this. That's another common interest - trying to sabotage foxhunts. We might swap reminisces on our usual forum. Gandalf, congratulations on your patience (I have just read this thread) and your article. I don't have much to offer except my best wishes, because as usual Sal has articulated everything worthwhile that I could have found to say.

Walter.

Hi.

I personally think, that as the article stands, it is still too Antish. Being A hunter myself, which have not clouded the issue, but a)calling a sport a blood sport, will conjure up negative images. The correct term would be to use "Field Sports".

Secondly, I think the article is incorrtect, and too small in some places. for example, Huntsmen (and Women)this is wrong. the is only ever one Huntsman per hunt, he is the one who controls the hounds (they are hounds, not dogs Packs do have bitches in them too). The rest, apart from the masters (where there can be more than one) are called followers. Secondly, you refer to a hunt, as all the hunts. this wrong, as one hunt is not the same as the other, and that practises differ from hunt to hunt. So, "In some hunts" would be better than "The Hunt".

I would advise against adding whether Quarry spieces need to be controled or not. Hunting is a method of control, and that pest control will continue long after, if hunting is banned regardless so adding that, is actually going to be an arguement just against Pest control, not the Methods.. Also, I think you should mention the Burns inquiry and a link to it and the BHS Hunting deabte board (it is quite inpartial, and is considerably cleaner, and more mature than the LCAS board), which has done its job. A thing you should put in your article Is that Burns found it no more cruel than shooting as pest control.

Also, Bear and Badger Baiting get rid of it. They served no purpose and were rightly outlawed (speaking as someone whose been arrested (later released without charge) for assault on a Dog Fighter). Also mention that in the nearly all cases, (and in all the cases that Burns examined) showed instantoeus death, so being "ripped apart should also be removed"

I like the methods of Pest control though, the fourth looks good, but a lion is considerably larger than a fox and a fox is a nocturnal animal. Its my veiw, that pest control methods should work in conjunction with each other, instead of relying on just one thing.

This is a baised article... and you know it... , I have no problem with that, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but If its approved in its present state, then will I be able to put a por view across, and have that appproved also?

Also, quoting a Anti, in a supposedly unbaised article, is well... Also, hunting, people do not generally eat what they shoot. I think before banning a humane Pest control, you should ban Game shooting b4 and Angling, since as you say is the exploitation of animals for our pleasure.

Apart from the baise in it, and a few errors, I like it.

BTW you forgot snaring, which is very common and is also very effective, even more so than shooting in my area.

BTW again sorry, but becuase something isnt as efficent as the 1.1 Mini Metro (road deaths for those who dont get my humour) is it any reason to ban it? Considering that Burns did find it humane?

Hi Anxer

Being a hunter you seem the right person to advise on the technical terminology of the activity. Getting the titles of the players correct seems important.

However, Gandalf should try to report the facts and not the propaganda. Hunting is referred to as a blood sport because it involves killing and the spilling of blood, for pleasure. Also, the pro-hunt lobby may prefer the public to believe that the fox is quickly and humanely dispatched but in reality, I can confirm that on every hunt I've ever sabbed, where a fox was actually caught and I was in a position to witness its demise, the fox was torn to pieces. It was never shot.

I would also mention that hunts behave differently when they are observed by people whose good opinion they value. They would have been on their best behaviour and doing everything by the book when under the eye of representatives of Burns. I think it's important to describe the sorts of events that normally happen, not what happens under unusual circumstances.

By the way, I liked your homepage. It was entertaining and interesting. In one paragraph you indicated that you like to be controversial and go on to give as examples: "1)Hunting shouldnt be banned. 2)War is good". Hmm. I see. Very interesting. Very contentious.

But, since this inst a forum of Hunting... but Its true, the fox gets ripped apart. it is useless to deny that, but the fact of the matter is, the Quarry, is nearly always dead before it being torn apart. Shooting is to be fair, shooting at a small target with two barrels of Double Ought Buck is far from easy. The only way to ensure an instant kill with shooting, or even a wound that the fox will not be able to get away with is with a rifled magnum slug, which are very hard to obtain in this country (in fact I read somewhere that they are illegal, but dont quote me) and even then an instant kill means a shot to the head. All in all, I think that the chances, and actually occurances of instanteous death are far higher in huntinh than those by shooting, or the ever prevalent 1.1 Mini Metro. Hunting aint perfect, but its far better than the other alternatives available for humane kills, and is more effective than other forms of pest controls in Highland areas. I just dont see why something should be banned, when now the acknowledged arguement against hunting, is that it doesnt kill as many quarry as the other forms of Pest control do.

Usually happen? Well I dont know about you, but the events at my hunt (harriers) are by whatever book there is. To be fair, the only Videos we see on Hunt ill doing (which there is but it is rare and still too numerous) are few and far between. If we had every Video in the country, we would see pretty bog standard hunting. Of course, just to sterotype Hunts together would mean that all Antis are Blood thirsty Nazi's, wielding Iron Bars and assault people. But that wouldnt be fair now would it? I know, that only the minority of Antis do this, but to lump the hunts into one sterotype and not put anything else into another sterotype is unacceptable.

Well, hey, its meant to be contravesial. But again, that why British Armed Forces are put in danger, to ease the conscience of those who dont serve in them, but keep the moral high ground to themselves. Since most Wars or Conflicts as they are now called, that Britian are involved in are for Humanitarian reasons (if I'm being 'naive', so what?), And I fully support that. I think that Britian should do a lot more, and call it interfering in other countries affairs or not, it is right and I feel it should be done. Anyway... on a lighter note, every war we have had (britian) has prevented the french from getting overly uppitty .

Hi,
This is one of those touchy subjects which most people feel very strongly about one way or another, and it is difficult to write an unbiased article. Maybe bloodsports should be a subject for the weekly talking point?

Hi

I think poor Gandalf may have been overwhelmed by the response. There must be a place in The Guide for an entry on something as traditionally British as fox hunting. I think if it were written as a straight, factual account without any opinions, people would naturally draw their own conclusions. We live in a relatively humane sort of society and I think most people will find the idea of a small dog being run to exhaustion and then torn limb from limb by a pack of hounds, fairly disturbing, without being subtly prodded in the direction the author (and I) would prefer them to go. The Guide could accommodate such an article, couldn't it?

Hmm.

I disagree - I don't think you should have an entry on Fox Hunting without at least mentioning Why The Heck We Do It. But otherwise, sure - if you can't write a balanced entry which includes the ethics, discard the ethics and leave them for the flamewars in the forums...

Incidentally, since when have foxes been small dogs?

Hi

I don't see why you can't include the 'stated' reasons for hunting and the fact that only a small minority of people believe that hunting serves any useful purpose. A factual account needn't leave out any significant information. If it says the reasons are based on the opinions of people who enjoy the sport and not on anything more solid, that would probably be sufficient.

Are you under the impression that foxes aren't small or that they aren't dogs? My dictionary describes foxes as "any of various carnivorous mammals belonging to the dog family (Canidae)". It describes dogs as "any carnivorous mammal belonging to the family Canidae which includes the wolves, jackals and foxes".

If you think they're not small: ok, size is relative, they're bigger than Chihuahuas but smaller than Labradors. If you think they're not dogs: tell me why and if you can convince me, I'll go and buy a new dictionary.

(URL removed by moderator)

dog (dôg, dg)
n.
1. A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds.
2. Any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Canidae, such as the dingo.
3. A male animal of the family Canidae, especially of the fox or a domesticated breed.
4. Any of various other animals, such as the prairie dog.

I assumed you meant dog(1), but it would appear that you meant dog(3). If your dictionary does not include definition 1, then yes, I suggest you buy a new dictionary. Definition 1 is the 'default' meaning of the word, and definition 3 is usually specified as "the dog family"
--
The 'stated' reasons are given by a large number of people, some of whom enjoy the sport, some of whom do not... and some of whom are the government committee assigned to investigate hunting. How about the following:

"Various reasons have been put forward in justification of hunting. Some say that it is enjoyable, some say that it is necessary in controlling the numbers of foxes, and some say that it is necessary to ensure the health of the species. However, others say that it serves no useful purpose."

Would that be balanced and factual?
--

myre - "Change someone's life - review their entry. And don't forget the workshop!"