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

Why not go the whole hog and get the fox declared a protected species. It'd probably be easier than banning hunting with hounds and means that it's an offence to injure or kill them by ANY means.

The very odd thing is that the Countryside Alliance can pull together thousands of people to protest about an attempt to ban hunting, but would these same people get off their fat arses to protest about the killing of dissidents in Chile, the evils of apartied or the destruction of the environment? No. I think that says something pretty profound. People were even suggesting that they'd be willing to go to prison to protect their 'right to hunt'. Sick b******s.

Coincidentaly, the death of hunting would mean the loss of about 500 jobs (if that). Hardly a world shattering number when 100,000 manufacturing jobs were lost last year.

And for those who don't believe hunting is a class thing, think about which blood sports are banned (dog and cock fighting and badger baiting – essentially 'working class' blood sports) and which are not (shooting and hunting – both of which exclude the majority by needing expensive equipment and land).

That seems to be superfluous. The sheep is not a protected species, yet it is illegal to train dogs to tear them to pieces....

I don't think it's superfluous at all. If the welfare of the fox is what is being talked about then why should they be being killed at all - by dogs, guns, traps or poison.
Why outlaw one particular form of killing when you can get them all?

Because it is the most brutal form of killing the fox.
Can you honestly say that you think that it is right and proper to cause an animal to suffer being torn apart for your delictation? Would you like your children to see you doing this? Could you face your maker in clear conscience having taken part in this act? (As applicable, obviously)

For the record, I don't believe foxes should be trapped, poisoned or shot either. They are a natural part of our countryside and we do not have the right to eliminate them to save ourselves a possible loss of profit.

In controlling them we are not protecting ourselves/our profit but we are protecting them too. With no natural predators numbers would soar - starvation and disease would be rife (similar to the human population were it not for vaccinations and GM foods).

We are natural predators "in loco lupinus", picking off the sick and injured. If we assume this to be the way it is, then what is the best way of controlling them?

Shooting? Even trained marksmen say that getting a clean shot on a fox in field conditions is nigh on impossible.
Trapping? If that's humane then I'm the Queen Mum
Poisoning? A coutryside littered (albeit out of sight) with fox carcases.
Hunting? Humane? Probably not? Effective - with regard to a guaranteed kill, yes.

Foxes need to be controlled and we should see for their sake as much as for our livestock/pockets.

The population of a predator is controlled by the level of prey. Sharks aren't breeding out of control and starving due to lack of human hunting, nor lions, tigers - why should foxes be unique?

Hunting as an effective method of culling?

They would have to do better than the piss-poor percentage that are actually killed to be effective.

Was there overpopulation of foxes before hunting? No. It works in cycles. There are too many foxes, so there's not enough food to go around. Fox numbers decrease, more food becomes available and fox numbers increase. Round and round without the intervention of a red coat buffoon chasing the fox for 10 miles across our green and pleasant land.

The argument that fox hunting is good for foxes is like the old American saying: in order to save the village, we had to destroy it. And it's equally as stupid.

And how exactly do the fox numbers decrease?

aside:
Sharks have actually been hunted to near extinction.

Back to your chat...

aside 2:
That should read "some sharks"

back to fox hunting...

It is very difficult to have a discussion about this if none of the pros answer my points (sort of like playing tennis with one of those auto-servers) however, this is what I see as being the case:

The excitement of hunting comes from the kill (otherwise drag hunting would be just as much fun as fox hunting).

The countryside allowance wish to keep this "tradition" going because it is a nice little earner for many of their members.

It is a nice earner because people are willing to pay annual fees to experience the thrill of seing a wild animal torn to pieces (it's a very primal thing)

Lots of other sports used to offer this thrill (such as bear baiting) but these were banned for being barbaric.

Fox (and stag) hunting would have been banned at the same time had they not been popular with the upper classes.

The popularity of hunting amongst the upper classes gave it an exclusivity that lead people to believe that huntsmen were, inherrently, gentlemen.

The decline in the power of the upper classes (which started around the time of world war 1) has now reached a stage whereby they no longer have sufficient clout to stop the "sport" being banned.

The labour party are pandering to popular opinion by putting the ban before the house and are also hoping the upper chamber will oppose it which will put the upper chamber at odds with public opinion and give the labour party justification to reduce the power of the upper chamber.

The "countryside alliance" are playing into this trap. They are also attempting to create a rural/urban dynamic which is entirely false, by linking in with a load of other countryside issues (ban on British beef, right to roam etc.) In fact there are many farmers who are wholy opposed to hunts - especially sheep farmers who suffer significant losses if a hunt goes through a field of ewes near to lambing. (Panic causes sheep to miscarry).

There are approximately the same numbers of foxes per area of land in areas which are hunted as areas which aren't. When a hunt kills a fox this creates a new territory to be exploited and prey numbers go up...so the surviving foxes breed to fill the gap. This happens with most mammal predators (but not with humans which may be a clue that we are new to being predators) with or without human intervention.

Hunstmen do not have valid third party insurance so when property is damaged in the course of a hunt they pay up out of their own pockets...no, only kidding - they do a bunk, of course.

Anyone who loses a job because of the ban on using hounds to trap and kill foxes is welcome to come to New Zealand and slaughter all the introduced pests their homesick relatives brought with them when they invaded the country in the 19th century.

I'm talking stoats, ferrets, rats, mice etc which the braindead Pom immigrants introduced to a country where the only native mammals were bats. As many (non-flying) bird species have been wiped out (ripped to pieces, sound familiar?) by these smaller killers I suppose we are lucky foxes never got established in the wild.

When the vermin exterminators have rid the country of the animals mentioned above they can get to work ridding the countryside of the plagues of rabbits introduced by their ancestors... and when they finish them all off they can start on the thistle bushes introduced by Scots who wanted the place to look like Scotland.

Our trusty ex-fox-hunters can then turn their hand to ridding the Kiwi countryside of the TB riddled possums. Introduced by the Poms in the vain hope of establishing a fur industry there are now 60 million of them feasting on the native forests.

They can turn a blind eye to the introduced wild deer. I like venison.

> "I know that pest control companies kill animals. By law they must do this humanely.
I know that abattoirs kill animals - ditto, and I am a meat eater
I know that vets put down animals that are ill or cannot be rehomed.

The difference is that none of these people HAVE FUN while doing it. They don't have a big party afterwards. That's creepy."

So what you'd be saying is that if the hunt went around killing foxes with a really depressed expression on their faces, it'd be ok?

Pro-hunt types will sometimes try and convince people that hunting is a cost-efficient, practical, humane way of killing: I feel that is undermined by the fact they make it into a social event - does that make sense?

Their logic is not that it is cost efficient, but that it is tax efficient because the taxman pays nothing for the hunt.
Indeed the taxman makes a considerable amount of money out of the petrol and alcohol consumed by the large entourage to go with any hunt.
However, I don't care whether or not the taxman has to pay for something in order to determine whether or not something should be legal. You (the foxhunters) are doing something which I consider inhumane in a country in which I pay taxes and have a vote. I (and many others) have signalled our intentions and the government has taken note...that is how a democrarcy works.

If huntsmen think that it is not inhumane then they have to convince the majority of the public which will put pressure on the government to overturn the ban...that is how a democrarcy works.

Deliberately spoiling the bill and going against the democratic will of the people in the upper chamber may stall the introduction of the bill...but that is disreputable and not how a democracy should work.

As a voter, I do not accept that the fox is a pest.
I do not accept that hunting is influential in controlling the numbers of foxes.
I do not accept that a fox can be treated in a manner that is illegal for other animals, wild or not, in the name of sport.
I do not accept that anything should be preserved because it is traditional in spite of being barbaric.
I do not want you to hunt foxes in my name - even for free.

I'll second that.

The reason most people don't want foxes hunted is that the fox has a cheeky face and also has a nice-looking pelt. They're pretty. People have a biased view of the animal because of its sanitised image manufactured through TV shows such as Basil Brush. They ignore the death and disease it spreads throughout the countryside.

In a similar vein, people ignore the six animals/insects/birds (on average) killed each day by every domestic cat. They invite these killers into their homes in their millions. These some people detest rats. Unlike the fox and the cat, God didn't give the the poor old rat luxurious fur and a pretty face.

Please add another piece of vermin to my previous list of introduced NZ bird-killers, the weasel.

I'll third Mr Jones's statements.

Foxes may be appealing but I think the main reason people object to their being hunted is that it's cruel. I'd rather rats weren't killed either, but if people agree that it's absolutely necessary, I would hope it was done humanely - causing the animal the minimum of pain, fear and distress.

None of the animals you mention do more harm than our own species. I hope you won't be suggesting it's time we were culled.

When New Zealand becomes a republic we will be ridding (culling) the country of the British royal family. No doubt the Aussies will eventually follow our lead, again.