Viewing Thread:
"Fox Hunting"

Yes that THING that just won't go away!
Post your view on it. But first heres mine:

Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).

If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless. If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful death than the dogs.

If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison. Didnt think so.

So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels down is found then hunting is a fine solution.

Thanks for reading.

Sniper Master wrote:

> I have seen a fox hunt and belive me i know that SOMEtimes the dogs
> "touture" the fox but alot of the time they just kill it.
> And anyway i am just stating facts not much opinion in there :)

so why did you say that when the dogs get hold of a fox it's just a quick chomp on the neck and their dead? Even if they do still kill it when they catch it, they've still chased it over miles of country side, thats torture in itself. THINK!

Highly explosive bullets. Just clip its leg and there'll be foxy bits flying everywhere. Simple.

I reckon we should re-introduce wolves back into England's green and pleasant land. That should shake things up a bit.
And while we at it, maybe we could pepper a few Siberian Tigers in the forests and highlands - it would sure make a walk in the country more interesting.

BEARDS. wrote:
> Highly explosive bullets. Just clip its leg and there'll be foxy bits
> flying everywhere. Simple.

But what if you missed and hit a tree nearby and all the bark and stuff flew off and hit poor foxxy-woxxy mangling his face and ripping into his eyeballs noooo poor foxxy woxxy ooh look at the cute kittens!!!

KILL EM ALL

Miserableman wrote:
> But what if you missed and hit a tree nearby and all the bark and
> stuff flew off and hit poor foxxy-woxxy mangling his face and ripping
> into his eyeballs noooo poor foxxy woxxy ooh look at the cute
> kittens!!!

Right, everyone remember Starship Troopers ? That nuclear bazooka thing they had ? We'll develop one of those and let the Fox Hunters use that, anything within several thousand meters of the fox will be ahnilated so even the worst aimed shot in history cannot miss !

Whatsmore, after a while loads of the countryside will be covered in radiation so the foxes will soon not even be able to produce offspring anyway, probably along with the fox hunters themselves - so bot hsides will be happy !

Maybe not....:P

~~Belldandy~~

But what if the radiation MUTATED the foxes and now they are super foxes that cant be killed and they are going to take over the world and kill us all in a slow painful death.

I HAVE TO TELL THE PENTAGON

Wrong place, you need Whitehall. Strangely enough our military is run from this country :) But this is all theoretical..... :P

Must stop using so many smileys !

~~Belldandy~~

Sniper Master wrote:
> Yes that THING that just won't go away!
> Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
>
> Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument
> about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be
> chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half
> of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about
> it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).

The death itself would be quick, yes. What about the hours of chasing that goes on beforehand? The beast tends to die of fear if it doesn't get caught. I would say that is a bad thing for a civilised society to be doing.

>
> If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you
> hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless.
> If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it
> in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a
> wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful
> death than the dogs.

True, but there is a way round it that has been used by shepherds (or at least, by those in Scotland) for years. Get a dead lamb, leave it in field where fox(s) have been seen, wait with gun. Fox arrives, fox starts slowly pulling carcass away, fox presents an easy target and so is shot.

Incidentally, I found this out from my brother (a former shepherd; he keeps that quiet funnily enough...) should you think that I'm talking minced b******t

>
> If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful
> effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat
> a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison.
> Didnt think so.
>

No, but poison isn't really presented as a valid option by the anti hunt lobby. Pro Hunters keep mentioning it to make hunting seem like a valid method of pest control.


> So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels
> down is found then hunting is a fine solution.

Well, each to their own, but as hunting accounts for 1 in 10 of all foxes killed (farmers and their varying methods of pest control making up the rest) then that would seem to invalidate the idea that it keeps fox levels down.
>
> Thanks for reading.

Thanks for posting. It's rare for anyone to stick their neck out in favour of hunting. Kudos for having the balls to do so.

I think there should be more fox hunting.
But the people should be dressed like the villains in Mad Max II - all leather butt-less outfits and feathers.