I live a good few miles away from the nearest town, and I'm surrounded by farms. I'm completely against hunting with dogs (unless it's that mock hunt when the dogs follow a fake scent to no-where in particular - no problem with that, just the usually arrogant pigs that go on them). I'm not sure if the fox population even needs controlling, but if it does, why not just shoot them with a tranquilizer or something first, then kill them? That way, there's no more pain than a quick, dull sting.

My main issues with hunting with dogs are that it is cruel to the fox being hunted. I know BG will say that it's just a bite to the neck, but foxes can outrun hounds, but not all day. By the time te hounds catch up with them, they're exhausted and terrified. Also, in my experience, the hunt goes where it pleases, with no regard for property boundaries, trampling anything in their path. A fox can go through a garden, but legally, a hunt cannot. Do they care? Not that I've noticed.

BTW, how is releasing an already captive fox for the joy of the hunt anything to do with population control?

Completely against it, the chase of the hunt is barbaric, causes the animal unnecessary trauma and is therefore pointless. I do protest against hunting in public, as I live in Devon so we have quite a large (although still in the minority, thank Goddess) hunt contingency.
It is a subject I feel very very strongly about, and believe ALL forms of bloodsports should be banned.
Foxes only do what is in their nature. Simple really.....

ditto to that, tara.

(City, Against) What really gets me is the way they train the hounds to savage the foxes before killing them, I think thats just sick.

M-hm. Same here. *nods* I just don't see the point, either. I mean, why do you have to hunt a poor, innocent fox? DID THE FOX EVER DO ANYTHING TO YOU?! Nooo, I didn't think so. And even if it did, it's a fox - nothing productive comes out of it, really. *cough* Ahem. ; I never get to topics early enough....... 'Tis my two cents....... *scurries away*

There are plenty of more effective, less traumatic ways of keeping the fox population down - if it does even need keeping down. I don't mind fox-hunts that use that scented stuff, as it doesn't do much harm. Hunting actual foxes can be destructive, causes unnecessary harm to animals and is hugely ineffective. Let the farmers deal with the foxes, and the huntsmen can "hunt" along set courses.

They can call it population control, I call it unnecessary slaughter. Since when are we the angel of death for nature, to control what the animals cannot? We should only hunt for food, unless it's people, in which case we hunt them because they are annoying fools. And apparently also for food, as seen in cannibalism.

for fox-hunting to keep the numbers down,just don't approve the ways they do it.totally in-humane.(prolly spelt that wrong)

There are some very corrupt hunts, like ones that put in fake earths, and ones that do indeed go through property. However I would like to see a more humane method of doing this. As I mentioned in an earlier post somewhere on my anti-government rantings, dogs are trained to kill instantly, a gun is far harder to get accurate.

To be fair I would much prefer it if the animals were then made use of. I go beating for pheasant shoots because I know all the birds get eaten and very little is wasted. Ditto to deer culls. They need to be killed to keep the populations stable, but at the same time it shouldn't go to waste. Meat killed this way is FAR less barbaric than slaughter houses. I now wish you could all see the video's on the album I just bought (Liberation is a punk compilation in support of PETA and has animal rights video footage from inside slaughter houses. far FAR more traumatic than any hunt.)

Corrupt hunts are bad. Decent hunts, I belive, will only give chase for a certain time and call the dogs off rather than chase the fox all day and night.

there are other methods, and I do believe they are a lot better, for example lamping. However it simply isn't practical to rely on this alone.

I don't want to make an argument, but it is interesting to see how few people live out in the sticks...lol lucky buggers, you get decent things like cinemas, and shop! our town has 5 charity shops, 2 chemists and 3 supermarkets. that's it. oh and a dodgy underwear shop.

Oh, and if you handed me a plate of roast fox, i'd gladly eat it!

address please...

lol you don't want to go there....it's err....full of weirdos and stalkers. a mate went in there for a joke and got followed down the street by some dodgy looking guy....

Well here is my opinion on this matter (I have to say I didn;t bother reading the other posts).

I voted being rural and for it. I used to live in the middle of nowhere, with a field of cows overlooking my garden, and I moved to London a few years back.

The number of foxes DO need to be controlled. They are vermin. I'm sorry but not many people think twice about killing mice, so why is it different with foxes? Now, many people have a misconception of fox hunting. For the most part, it is merely a ride for us humans, while you take your hounds with you. Your hounds track foxes and kill them. They are not trained to brutally torture the animal and leaving it bleeding to death. They are taught to kill. Most of the time the fix dies quite quickly. Foxes are vermin because they ruin livestock. I have seen foxes kill lambs, chickens, ruin fences and crops and even attack small children. Their numbers need to be controlled. As long as there is quota, so over-killing does not happen, I see no problem with it.

Many say do we have to fox hunt? Surely killing the animal in a more humane way would be better? Well you try shooting a fox. They are quick, sly animals. Shooting them would most likely end in maiming them and not killing. They are then left to bleed to death. Yay for being humane. Besides when this is brought up, shooting is not even the primary alternative. The primary alternative is poisoning their food to blind them. Not to kill as some other unfortunate animal may eat the poisoned food. I remember when this was tried on rabbits. What happened was that they were killed as could not see their preditors (foxes ) coming, could not find food to eat, or were run over. Now, personally, I think this is wicked. Much more wicked than fox hunting can ever be.

Foxes are naturally adapt to being hunted. They are quick, sly animals. They can look after themselves.

Aysha xxx

Foxes are a problem...

hunting with dogs doesn't solve this problem... at all.

Various statistic from hunting organisations show that the hunts do not kill that many foxes. The hunts are few in number and limited in their range and field. The hunts are not always successful and those that are - only get a few foxes a time.

Foxes are classified as pests and are killed, mainly by farmers... Who shoot them, or poison them, or trap them. This accounts for the majority of fox deaths in the UK.

Banning fox hunting will not have an effect on fox numbers - controlling foxes is more likely to be achieved with the use of such techniques as new and improved fox traps (that are non toxic to the environment) which are already being marketed widely.

I freely admit that we (as a society) kill pests - but given our dominance on the planet - we should do so in a humane manner AT ALL TIMES . Cruelty should be kept to the absolute minimum. Just because shooting or poisoning foxes may well be cruel - it doesn't justify killing with dogs. It simply means we have to find better and more effective ways than shooting and poisoning.
__________

Now I've been told that there are articles published by a former head of an anti-hunt group that now supports hunting with dogs - I freely accept that my own experience of hunting is having seen several disturbing videos of dogs mauling foxes to death (fairly quick - never more than a few minutes before the fox stopped screaming)... so if someone in the know has actually investigated and reported back then I'd like to read about it... Until then I can only go on what I've seen, and the fact it made me feel sick.

Can we have figures to prove this first?


And shooting foxes is not the only option. Poison, traps and a host of other ways of killing have been invented that do not require hunting. Hunting barely dents the fox population, and if anything helps it by weeding out the weak and the sick - we're forcing their evolution! Farmers kill foxes whatever, so why is fox-hunting necessary?

Why should we care if fox population gets over the top. Good for the foxes. Don't be so self righteous humans that we feel the need to suit the world to us. If youw ant to control the fox population, fine, eat fox meat and wear fox clothing.

maybe we should take a look at the human population first, more out of hand than the fox population wil ever be

Absolutely. We need to rid ourselves of modern medecine, unless you want birth control laws, something I don't.

Sir Maxerpopple, are you going to back that up with sensible, rational arguments for considered, intelligent opinions, or are you just going to keep spouting crap?

It's not arrogance, it's the desire to protect your way of living. When any animal's population becomes too high it will turn to other more dangerous ways of getting food and shelter. this often means turning on livestock to get food. This is bad for the foxes, the livestock and the humans. The foxes become known as a pest and hunted by humans, the livestock dies, and the humans lose some of their means of support. If fox hunting takes care of that, then why it be banned? I think people are getting a bit silly with all this animal rights stuff. Yes, fine, cruelty is bad, but by focussing on the animals some people forget their own species and their standard of living.


A similar thing recently happened in my province, but instead of protests coming from within the province it came from outside. We have had a few years of drought, about five, and as such the gopher population has exploded. Gophers are cute little rodents that dig holes in farmers fields, eat their crops and generally make a nuisance of themselve. Cows often step into the gopher holes breaking their legs. Anyways, the government decided to try to take care of this problem by having a Gopher Derby, the person who killed the most gophers over a course of monthes (you sent in the tails of the gophers to prove that you had shot them) would win a cash prize. The people of the province thought this was an alright idea, (there were no protests against it and no people proclaiming it as the best idea ever) and so the Derby started. not many people actually killed gophers but there were about 100-200 farmers who did participate in the derby. Again no one in the province thought it was a very big deal. Protests were mounted in every place except for saskatchewan (the province that actually had the derby). People from the outside looking in saw it as red necked, stupid and cruel. They didn't understand that if the gophers weren't shot they would have to be poisoned, endangering other wildlife. The point is, most people who protested the derby, and I believe most people who are protesting the fox hunts were acting out of ignorance and a misguided sense of political correctness. They felt that they were right, but they also didn't understand the the entire situation.

Going Gopher Hunting Be sure to read the comments at the end of the article and make note of where the people live. Alberta and Manitoba border Saskatchewan and have approxiamately the same situation with gophers.

Polo, this is a different topic, and I don't want to hijack this thread so I will be brief.

Human population is higher than it should be, and it is getting exponetially worse. The population boom is due to modern technology and medecine. Less population controlling diseases and other safety precautions like guardrails on tall buildings.

We need to lower our population, and we have two ways of doing it. The first of which is birth restriction laws, the second is technological retrogression. Now lets assume for the sake of arguement that both are feasible. I prefer the latter of the two, since I don't think the gov't should have any say in how mmany children we have. People won't stop breeding on their own ya know.

Now with total technological retrogression, yes we lose many luxuries and life saving devices, but we also end population booms, with diseases to act and animals to kill us, and for the weak to starve, that is the course I want to see mankind on.

Call it radical, fine. Call it weird, fine. Call it crap, fine. Call it crazy and I'll spam the living hell out of anyone who dares call me insane (one of the most insulting things one can call me). It is a perfectly doable way of population control, even though it is highly unlikely.

In response to Ayesha's post, I find it hard to believe that a fox could attack a small child, unless it was injured or trapped and subjected to provocation of some kind.
Foxes are terrified of humans, generally they run away when approached.
I'm not saying that you are fibbing Ayesha, just that foxes are definately not aggressive towards anything other than food, and I think even a small kid would scare a fox away.....I used to see a lot of foxes on my estate in London, and they were off like a shot if they heard footsteps, let alone saw a person walkin towards them.....

i currently live in the middle of nowhere,not even a village shop,and true,at times it sucks,but i dont think i could cope with moving into a huge bustling city just like that!it'd be too much for my poor country-bumpkin mind to compensate!

i do understand that foxes are a problem,having farmland,we find that they occasionally do go for the odd chicken,but we find that if you set up food dishes a couple of miles away from the farm and animals,they're satisfied and stay away.lol,CALLING ALL FARMERS!

Fox Hunting DOES NOT take care of the problem of fox numbers.

At all.

Even the Pro-Hunting lobby agree with that.

Animal Rights might seem silly to you - but please bear in mind there are a lot of ppl in here who feel that barbarically butchering animals is immoral... and wanting to do something to lessen the suffering of animals - doesn't naturally mean we are forgeting our own species or our standard of living.



This thread is about fox hunting - I know nothing about the gopher problem in your province, so will confine my comments to foxes. I can assure you that I am (and others who've posted here) not acting out of ignorance. It certainly appears that I have a better grasp on the matter than those who claim or imply that hunting foxes with dogs is an effective way to keep the fox population under control.

This isn't about political correctness - it is about the brutal butchering of animals for sport. It doesn't even have the added benefit of providing meat for consumption as you get with many other blood sports. You clearly understand the situation regarding your gophers... but have suggested things about the posters here who have taken an anti-hunt position, without examining the validity of what they have said. Precisely what do you know about "the entire situation" regarding fox hunting?

Yeah, a lot of people are, to put it politely, surprised when I've said that . Thing is there is a huge difference from a city fox to a country fox, which is generally bolder. The child I was talking about was a toddler. Now you can say how careless of the mother/brothers/sisters, to which i COMPLETELY agree. I can't remember the exact details, but the kid was with some of her brothers/sisters and they put her down for a bit (its usually safe around ewes - like they do a lot of harm) while they were a bit further off, not drastically so. But the child, as usual for her age, was wandering and happened to come across a fox, who wasn't afraid of her. Thank GOD her brothers/sisters had enough sense not to leave her by herself for too long and got to her in time. But according to them the fox was prowling quite close to her, growling (or whatever foxes do). But yeah, I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to believe me. I would be skeptical as well if I hadn't been told by the family in question, whom I know (well knew) well.

Aysha xxx

yay! lets poison their food so that they go blind! Woohoo! Who cares what other animal eats it, it doesn;t matter. Its a more humane way of killing foxes cause this way they can be run over or be starved to death

I know that fox hunting doesn't solve the problem, but if you're going to ban it and put poison in its place then some people have a really weird sense of what being "humane" is. Or is it just me? Look, I'm not a person that goes and kills a squirrel for fun, but you cannot ignore the fact that the fox is a common pest. I'm not saying exterminate the entire species, but the numbers do need to be controlled.

Maxerpopple, you want to regress into heathen little tribes again? Fine. But I have a feeling that you're going to be terrible for the tribe as if a competitive species comes into view that need to be put down for the good of the tribe, you'd rather have them prosper and have your tribe killed cause its "natural"...whatever. Can I ask, what sort of environment do you live in? Sorry to sound sarcastic, but I COMPLETELY disagree with you.

Aysha xxx

Exactly. hunting,while it may seem violent and bloody is also safer for the environment, other animals, more humane, and does not prolong the suffering of the fox unlike poisoning.

I get the feeling that the whole keeping-the-numbers-down argument isn't really going anywhere. Foxes are going to get killed by farmers as pests whatever, in a number of unpleasant ways, and fox-hunting doesn't make much difference.
We don't like the idea of fox-hunters killing animals for sport, but seeing as we kill them for food, and we kill them as pests, who really cares? Hunters don't harm any humans, they aren't detrimental to society, and the only animals that they do harm are going to be killed anyway. So, if we abide by the general rule for legislation (Citizens may do anything they like, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, cause damage to the environment and property, or cause unnecessary harm to animals) we have no reason to ban fox-hunting.
Wow, I changed sides. I surprise myself sometimes. Yay for Rationalism!

Words cannot express how annoyed I get when people can't be bothered to quote me properly.

Certainly miss_spunk, I feel you have either ignored my earlier post on purpose or you just couldn't be bothered to read what I've already typed (which, incidentally - was in responce to your first comments).

I fully appreciate that this is a topic that people feel strongly about - but if you are going to criticise other's opinions will you please try and read what they've said first?

Your first post on this matter was on Dec 30 2003, 12:42 PM

My reply TO YOUR POST was on Dec 30 2003, 01:09 PM

HERE IS WHAT I POSTED:



I TYPED THIS IN RESPONCE TO WHAT YOU SAID.

EVEN WITHOUT THIS - AT NO TIME HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED THAT POISONING FOXES IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO HUNTING.

I DOUBT THAT ANYONE POSTING HERE FEEL THAT POISONING FOXES SHOULD REPLACE HUNTING.

Thankyou for that kitten. But if you READ what I said then you would see that the primary alternative to fox hunting is....poisoning.

*rolls eyes*

Actually I did READ what you said...

And once again my point is that you either failed to READ what I have posted OR you deliberately chose to ignore what I have earlier said as you feel it inaccurate.

If you think I'm wrong then kindly say so - please don't post comments that imply that I just haven't made the points you disagree with... especially if you are quoting me.

I'd much rather that you attacked my arguments - and not just imply I believe something that I don't.

As I have stated earlier:

1. HUNTING DOESN'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON FOX NUMBERS

2. FOXES NEED TO BE CONTROLLED - IN A HUMANE MANNER (HUNTING IS NOT HUMANE, POISONING IS NOT HUMANE - SO LETS GO FOR THE ALTERNATIVES)

Perhaps I should have expanded on the comments I made earlier? Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said:-



After I had stated this - you completely ignored my comments when you quoted a later post I made - You implied that either I had no comment on the issue of cruelty regarding poisoning foxes OR I was in favour of a more cruel means of pest control than hunting...

Given that my first post was in response to what YOU had said - I felt very annoyed that you hadn't bothered to read what I had posted on this specific issue - OR you had chosen to ignore it for whatever reason.
___________________

Back On Topic:

FIRSTLY: You seem convinced that poisoning is the only alternative to hunting in keeping fox numbers down... why? Just as a point to note - poisoning foxes is illegal in England (although gassing fox dens is legal when done under controlled conditions)... putting down poisons (including the stuff that induces blindness) is not permitted under law... Also - a recent poll of farmers indicates that they feel poisoning is the least humane method of fox control, then snaring, killing with terriers, gassing, hunting and finally shooting (considered the most humane when done by someone who can shoot accurately enough to hit the fox and kill it immediately). It could be argued that if hunting was banned - most farmers would still see shooting as the most humane and effective method of fox control. Which farmer or gamekeeper would risk poisoning their livestock or game in the hope that they'd be killing a fox???

SECONDLY: After a year-long nationwide ban on fox hunting because of the foot and mouth epidemic (during 2001), scientists at the University of Bristol found that rather than increasing, the number of foxes dropped compared to previous years.

Putting a 1 year ban on hunting DIDN'T lead to an upsurge in the population!!!!! Unless you think that the University of Bristol and the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and the IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) are all lying. The UK Mammal Society’s "British hunting ban had no effect on fox numbers" report came to exactly the same conclusion. Or is it just a load of scientists and their nonsense?

If a ban on hunting doesn't actually affect fox numbers - then why is "the primary alternative" ... poisoning?!?!?!!!!!!????

AND FINALLY: As I stated before - there are alternatives to using poison and/or hunting:

Snares: Certain types of snare (used to catch pests like foxes) are permitted by law (usually on private farmland) but must be checked daily. These have varying degrees of success but are possibly not as humane as shooting.

Shooting: This is generally considered inhumane if the shooter is inexperienced or is shooting in poor conditions... where the fox is only wounded and manages to escape, only to die of its injuries later. However, gamekeepers / pest control officers / and farmers skilled in the use of firearms are all recognised as expert and proficient at shooting foxes - dispatching them quickly and relatively humanely.

Traps: The use of new technologies has allowed for more reliable traps to be developed that are more effective at catching foxes (or other species specific pests).

Birth Control: Australian scientists have developed a contraceptive vaccine to place inside blocks of bait. Once eaten this will cause a target population of foxes to become infertile. It is designed only to prevent them from having young - and will not harm them in any way. Given that millions of pet owners neuter their cats and dogs - this shouldn't be seen as inhumane (so long as this technology isn't abused and fox numbers aren't reduced too dramatically).

Better Anti-Fox Security: If used in conjunction with traps, expert shooting and limited (and well managed) birth control - this should solve the problems facing farms with poultry and game (through better kept fences and fox deterrents - such as sprays, guard-dogs and even alarm-lights)... and may even help protect lambs.

I'm sure that there will be other innovative and successful methods developed and introduced in managing fox numbers, whether hunting is banned or not.

Now, now, children. Play nicely.

It is very true fox numbers fell during the years ban. you you want to know why? no? ill tell you anyway.

foxes, especially those in areas where hunts take place, breed more often then they normally would in order to keep numbers up, to compensate for killed foxes. therefore, if hunts stop, foxes will stop over breeding and numbers will fall.

nature will usually balance itself out eventually, without control. but if control is needed, there are , as previously stated, far more humane and effective ways of doing it.

oh, and slightly off topic, the person who proposed regression of technology in order to makew human population smaller. theres no need. advanced countries are currently moving into stage five of the demographic transition model. this means more people die then are born, thus population falls. less advanced countries should get to this stage in the future.

like i said, nature sorts itself out sooner or later.

Polo has been trying to get them to accept that point in another thread. Without much success, which baffles me. I honestly don't understand why there is even any argument on this point, because it seems so blatantly obvious to me...but nevertheless...that IS off-topic.

Meanwhile...fox hunting. It doesn't happen here in America that I know of, but I'm against any hunting for sport. Or hunting to keep the population of something down. There are, as Overfriendly Kitten mentioned, many other, more humane ways of doing so.

Normally I would be against hunting because it causes unnecessary harm to animals, but in the case of foxes [we are told that] numbers need to be controlled. I know hunting isn't terribly effective, but as we are already killing foxes in a number of nasty ways, it would be hypocritical to ban one particular form of culling just because it leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths. Of course, if numbers don't need to be kept down after all, then I would ban fox-hunting in an instant for causing cruelty to animals.

I'm pro hunting - I choose not to hunt, but I support it for the following reasons:
I believe that fox numbers need controlling.
I believe that hunting is the most humane way (I've seen the alternatives in action - not very pleasant.)
I believe ban would cripple the farming industry.

It's a bit like the pro-choice versus pro-life argument - everyone has their opinion on the subject, and that should be respected. But insulting people and quoting from internet propaganda doesn't really impress anyone.

There are some "bad" hunts who breed foxes to kill, and there are some "bad" antis who go out to hunts and throw marbles down the road to try to give the horses broken knees. Not very animal friendly in either case, and I'd quite like to strangle the lot of them.

What interests me, though, is when hunting is banned, quite what the EU expect us to do with dead animals? They've made burial illegal (You can't bury your cat at the end of your garden, but there are thousands of cattle rotting underground from Foot and Mouth) and so the hunt kennels take care of disposing of larger animals. When a horse is killed in a RTA, it's invariably the hunt who come along to get rid of the body swiftly - I wonder if the RSPCA would like to take over that job?

Just pointing out a trivial point. The livestock that suffered from foot and mouth were burned.

And sorry Overfriendly Kitten for being annoying, I see what you meant. I was just saying that that an alternative that came up was poisoning. But yes I've finally gotten that you disagree with that too

Aysha xxx

Not all. There's 130,000 carcasses buried in Worcestershire alone, but I guess burning made better television.

Wow, megaposting Kitten. Looks so long that i feel tired just thinking about reading it, anyone got any York notes on it? I am against fox hunting. I don't plan on quoting or misquoting anyone on the subject, just want to say my piece and that was it.

jessi - Please explain how. I've always thought that farmer's involvement in the 200 hunts in the UK is fairly limited. Should the hunts end - the farming industry might (in some corners) feel the pinch - but for most farms (and there are thousands that aren't even touched by the hunts) the bulk of their work is in the produce of food stuffs of some sort... not to organise or support hunting.

As I've posted earlier, hunts do not count for much when it comes to fox population control. The one year ban didn't show an increase in fox numbers - so farms weren't hit by a sudden increase in foxes... If anything it will be the hunt organisers who will be affected. The Countryside Alliance has said that some 16,000 jobs would go - but the government report said it would be more like 6,000 to 8,000 - and even less if fox hunts were replaced with drag hunts.

Certainly - there is no financial gain in hunting foxes (outside what people pay to go hunting), and according to the hunts themselves they are not always successful - so replacing fox hunting with drag hunting should keep the industry alive and kicking, as well as making it a more successfull sport with greater chances of finding the quarry. The majority of hunters are there for social reasons (it's a thrilling sport etc etc) and I doubt they are there because they need to see a small animal torn to shreds - so why not continue the hunts - but make them humane?



I couldn't agree more... from what I heard, the majority of the pro-hunt lobby dislike the idea of breeding foxes for hunting, but agree that it does go on, and would like to see it stop. Similarly the vast majority of anti-hunt ppl say those who attack the dogs or horses are less likely to be interested in animal welfare, and more likely to be thugs who just want to cause trouble. It happens and all these people should be prosecuted for what they're doing under the current laws.



This is news to me. Certainly, if hunting is banned, then collection and disposal of carcasses should be a matter for the British Government - and not the EU (irrespective of any EU laws that the British Government has accepted and then enacted under UK legislation).

Somehow I doubt that the 200 UK-wide hunts were responsible for clearing all dead large animals from accross the country... they don't range over all the country, nor are they hunting all the time. I was under the impression that the disposal of dead large animals in public places was down to local county council services. If hunts did come across large dead animals and disposed of them - then well done to the hunters. Perhaps if drag hunting replaces fox hunting, then this practice can continue in the few areas where hunts currently range.

Just as a point to note... what do hunters do when they come across a dead horse? How do they dispose of it?

thanks for getting me straight on that Aysha,

I'm sorry for over-reacting and getting so het up about that...

meh, lets put it down to miscommunication! *hugs*

I think I may have been a bit vague re dead animals - the hunt don't go round offering a service, but they're there to help. County councils do take care of it in urban areas, but by the time they get their backsides in gear, there's a lot of distress caused to the public. A dead horse on the side of the road isn't a pretty site.

Say a cow breaks it's leg in the field - the call out fee for the vet is more than your average cow is worth. The alternative is to call the local hunt kennels - they'll send someone out to shoot the cow, and remove it. Costs the farmer nothing, and the hounds are fed for a week. Just one example of how hunts and farming is so closely interlinked.

(Exactly what do they do with the animal? They have a big lorry with a winch, and they haul it into the back of the lorry, take it to the kennels, unload it, and either feed it to the hounds, or burn the carcass in a big incinerator. Not the most pleasant of jobs.)

Another example would be the livery yards that farmers run to subsidise their farming. If one farmer rents out stabling and grazing for 20 horses at £100 a month, that's a pretty considerate income over the year, even accounting for the running costs. And if the local hunt ceases to exist, a lot of those people won't have a use for their horses, and they will be sold on to make showjumpers, or dressage horses. So the farmer loses his income that way.

Interesting point re drag hunting - though I can't see it working in practice. While there may be the interest amongst the people who simply go hunting for the ride, the great majority go to support the rural community, watch hounds at work, and to provide a service to the farmers: keeping the local fox population in check. It's the diseased, older foxes who go looting chicken coops for easy food, not the healthy ones. And, unlike hunting, shooting just can't be that discriminate.
There's perhaps scope for it to develop as a sport of it's own, but I can't see it replacing fox hunting.

Is this one-year-ban to do with Foot and Mouth, or the ban in Scotland? There, hunting hasn't really stopped at all in some areas. The wording of the ban just means that dogs are banned from killing foxes. So they hunt down the foxes, and then on close range, someone shoots the fox. No difference really, just that the fox has a chance of not being hit cleanly, and getting away to die of gangrene. Well done Scotland!!
Quite whether this will continue long term, or whether the cost of keeping the hounds will get too much with minimal hunt subscribers I don't know.

Either way, I'm cynical about just how useful counting fox numbers is. 10 healthy rural foxes don't do half as much damage as one diseased or urban fox. Hunting doesn't aim to be a mass homocide of foxes, but to try to do the job that foxes' natural predator would if it was still around. Anyone fancy reintroducing wolves into the environment? No, me neither.

Anyway, we could go on like this endlessly - hunting looks set to be banned (it'll distract everyone from just how useless our government is), and ultimately, I think it's going to be the animals that suffer from it. A friend on another message board wrote a lovely poem about why hunting is set to be banned - I'll try to find it.

Edit to add poem here. It's like a parallel universe over there!

I like hunting. It's fun.

Am I the only one in this thread who didn't know they still hunt foxes with hounds in the UK?
(or did I just not read the other posts carefully enough?) ;-)

Man, I guess I'm just an ignorant Canadian...seriously, I thought that had ended in the 1800's or something...who does this? I guess you still have "nobles," and I know they all play polo or something , but are there really still the hunting jackets with gold buttons and horns and silly hats, a la Thomas Gainsborough? Are these people sporting, or performing re-enactments for a historical society? Obviously some form of fox pop. control is involved....but tell me, is it really common? Do only rich people do it, or anyone who has land, a horse, and a dog?

Sorry for sounding so ignorant...I really had no idea.