Hunting With Hounds ? Outright Ban Vote

My stance on this issue isn't going to win me any friends, but being brought up in the country I can't sit on the fence.

I think hunting with hounds provides the best way of culling foxes and provides a decent living for many country people.

Too many of our traditions are going down the tubes, and this pending outright ban on hunting with hounds is only the thin end of the wedge that will eventually lead to massive attacks on angling.

The alternative means of culling foxes (which are now running around our gardens and in our streets quite openly) will cause the foxes to suffer a great deal more than the traditional hunt.

I fully agree with you here Graham. I have been backing the Countryside Alliance for some years now.

As a townie I don't see many hunts. I can understand the problem people have with hunting with dogs. We have been conditioned to see wild animals as cuddly little things with human personalities. This I think is where the problems start. Until you get out in to the countryside a lot, as anglers do you do not see that nature is a case of kill or be killed. Hence the problem.

I agree with Graham that we will now see all these minority extreme groups looking around for another target to decend on. We will be in the spotlight. Fish however don't seem to suffer from the same personality marking as rabbits and foxes. As I see it when the attack comes our main problem will be apathy on the part of the none angling masses. In which case we will see another yet another one of our traditional country pastimes going the way of the dodo. We have to motivate, and work together now.

On a personal issue I don't like the idea of killing anything, apart from the odd mossie. But I also don't like the idea of minority groups dictating to the majority. A pole in one of the Sunday papers said that 49% of the population was against hunting. That means that 51% either did not care or were in favour. With fishing the apathy level will probably be a great deal higher. This is the real issue.

The thing that really gets to me is that my parents now lock up the house at about 8pm as do most older people up and down the country....they are effectivlly locked up because the world outside is deteriating to such an extent it frightens the crap out of them, and these are people who saw large scale war.
That people and the goverment appear to put more political emphasis on fox hunting than people leaves me in utter dispair....i'm not usually political but this has nothing to do with cruelty.....it is nothing more than something the present gov see as a vote winner.......because the "do gooders" who want it banned make more noise than the "normal" folk.....mind you lets face it most of the "do gooders" i come across have more time to make waves....all they have to do is right thier name once a fortnight!!! GGRRRRRRRRR

Come off it Graham it must be about the least cost effective way of dealing with a problem.

Lets face it although many ordinary people hunt,the majority of those on horseback are wealthy.Now it's the wealthy people that tend to be in charge of our society and if this was a business they were running there would be no dogs, no horses, and no followers,just one man with a gun.

You may be surprised to read now that I don't actually have a strong view on hunting one way or the other because I don't know enough about it,but I do know what is and isn't efficient.

Forgot to say that the House of Lords will overturn it anyway.

John, I didn't say fox hunting with hounds was the most cost-effective way, I said it was the best way.

It's the best way because the hunters enjoy it (just like we enjoy hunting fish), and it provides work for a lot of country people.

I would never claim that the fox enjoys the experience, but there again I've never claimed that fish enjoy being caught with a hook by an angler. Which doesn't mean that I don't recognise the difference between the two.

It just means that it is very, very difficult to reconcile one and not the other when the basic principle is exactly the same.

No it isn't efficient, it is the least cruel however. If I had to go, a quick kill at the teeth of a hound is preferable to lingering for days after being poisoned or wounded with shot.

A modern poultry farm is efficient but I would not want to live in one. Veal crates are efficient but a particularly nasty way of producing meat.

Another less frequently raised issue of fox hunting is that when a fox escapes it learns where it is safe and where it is not safe to go. The foxes are driven into areas where they are less of a problem by the chase. A shot fox is just dead, an escapee lives where it won't cause a nuisance, which is the better result?

I have to say that this thread is producing the exact opposite of what I thought it would, just shows you how wrong you can be sometimes. I have some interest in hunting (my brother-in-law)is master of the Hounds in Chagford Devon. As you rightly point out Graham his job and tied cottage will go if the hunt does. As one from the country you grow up with the rural way of life and accept it as it is. I get the feeling that the present government have made a rod for their own backs so to speak on ths issue, and as such my view is that it will be banned (sad).

The first point I would like to make is that this is not just about fox hunting, but using dogs to hunt animals, that, I believe is what the ban is about.

As such it encompasses more than just hunting fox's. Whether this makes much difference I really don't know, but if there are activities that hunt animals PURELY for pleasure, and have no wider benefits in terms of population management, then I cannot really support this.

I have said before, I think the Countryside Alliance's campaign strategy has been ill thought through. To bang on about the effect on the rural economy is totally misplaced. If you look at the "rural economy" in its totality, it is miniscule and irrelavent.

The poll that Chris refers to is also misleading. I believe it was 49% of THOSE ASKED were against hunting. If you had a national referendum I bet less than 5% would even turn up. That is the real figure.

Lets face it, this is a class issue being run by a Government, that we voted in (how many of you lot voted Labour in the knowledge that you knew this was going through??), that panders to lefty social softies who would rather release IRA terrorists, jail someone for defending their property and personal safety, legalise drugs, let children run riot in class rooms giving teachers no effective control, put so much red tape in policing that they spend on average 5 hours a day on paper work and completely screw up on transport policy.

Wow, that's better. Trouble is, there is no one to replace them with anything better.......

For what its worth I think the political process in this country is bankrupt and needs a complete overhaul, but that is like asking turkey's to vote for Christmas.

I don't wish to put the cat among the pigeons and I’m certainly not a left wing tambourine happy-clapper either. But I think it should be banned. I love all nature and believe that nature should sort itself out. I’m not interested in the political standpoint whatsoever. When you’ve had fox’s come up to you on the bank and eat out of your hand, you tend to see things from a different angle. For the record I’m not a townie!

Let the floodgates open!

Stuart, I've had fish take food out of my hand too, as well as my baitdropper and catapult. But I still stick hooks in 'em and haul 'em out and take great pleasure in doing so.

The big difference is that fish don't have either smiley faces or wagging tails.

Again, how can we profess to enjoy one and yet condemn the other with little more logic than one has fur and the other has scales?

Mind you Graham, that little minnow you are holding above me looks dead pissed off!!

hat’s not my logic Graham, not all things are logical and although it would be nice, I’m not always going to agree. For me, my view sits right within and that’s how my book s written.

To be honest I’d rather see hooks put in fish and then a carp gel applied than to drag them out on the bank and get a group of my mates to stamp all over them.

But thats just me!

If you’re going to pull a fish out and eat it that sits fine with me too. But I for one certainly haven’t had any fox burgers or basil brush casseroles for quite a while now!

I myself dont see foxes as the enemy and have myself woke up in the night when fishing and had one asleep on the bottom of my sleeping bag!!

However having worked as a game keeper, and seeing the damage they can do, understand that they need to be controlled. And although hunting with hounds is not the most efficient it is certanily the most humane way of controlling them.

And dont forget once hunting is banned then fishing will be firmily set in their sights!!!

We coarse anglers hunt fish for fun, most game and sea anglers hunt fish for both fun and/or food.

I still find it difficult on the one hand to derive fun from hunting one creature and yet on the other hand want to ban the hunting of another creature.

I know there are differences, and I know that part of the rituals involved in hunting with hounds do not sit well with some of us, but the principle is the same and it is that principle we are going to have to defend when our turn arrives, as it surely will.

Now we’re onto something else…….
Individuals have individual opinions. I’ve never been shallow and if pushed will stand up for what I believe is right. As I said earlier, I’m not a left wing nutter and will let the majority rule over this topic. I don’t vote either (and I’m happy to go into that too).

Of course I’ll fight for the right to fish and I’m even prepared to push your wheelchair and hold up you banner at the march Graham! J

It’s what sits comfortable with me and personally, killing foxes don’t!

I do not agree with hunting with hounds in any way.
I cannot accept that it provides a DECENT living for country folk either, more an opportunity for the gentry to have fun at weekends.
They (the hunt) have no respect for other peoples property and often cause damage on peoples land.
Graham says " Too many of our traditions are going down the tubes..."
So calling for the closed season to be abolished on rivers doesn't count then?
Graham also says "It's the best way because the hunters enjoy it."
Hmmm...best way for the hunters to enjoy their weekends, I agree. But surely not the best way to cull what is deemed to be a pest.
"The alternative means of culling foxes (which are now running around our gardens and in our streets quite openly) will cause the foxes to suffer a great deal more than the traditional hunt."
How can this be? After being chased for miles, running scared and in fright for its life then being mauled to bits.
I simply fail to understand how a fox could possibly suffer any more than this.
The arguement that hunting with dogs and catching fish are basically the same doesn't hold any water either.
The dogs are used to cull a pest, the angler isn't catching fish to throw up the bank and leave to die is he?
Sorry Graham (and others), I'll defend my right to catch fish all the way. We all know the arguements that have been put forward by the likes of PETA to abolish angling and they are flawed.
However traditional, hunting with dogs is cruel, and should be abolished the same as badger baiting and cock fighting was.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of culling foxes, but just cannot accept that there isn't a more acceptable and efficient method for doing so.

If you are a landowner, are you still allowed to shoot lovely cuddly dogs if they worry your sheep or do you tap them on the nose and tell them not to do it again?
If you are a poultry farmer (please read as one who keeps chickens not a derisive comment) how do you control something that kills your livelihood?

I reckon nature programs have a lot to do with the way things are conveyed to us. If you see a documentary on foxes you see them all living nicely in there little den with their little fox cubs eating processed chicken from Sainsburys. Then when one of them gets mange (SP?) along comes some animal rescue sanctuary and gives it a little bit of sympathy for the animal and how poor it looks and carry on an treat the animal to let it live another day.

Do documentaries really convey a true view of what goes on and the devastation that can be caused by nature?

I have never been on a hunt, and never seen the start to end process of a hunt so cannot comment on whether it is barbaric or not. I would however, like to have a totally unbiased, well informed account of what goes on, and if you can supply this for me, please do. My view on it then is this. I agree that foxes cause devastation and need to be culled. If hunting with dogs is therefore the ?best? way to do this, will the government step in and support the thousands that will be without work and shelter as a result of this vote? What wonderful scheme will the government then come up with to rid our rural and urban areas of foxes? Introduce a disease that only kills foxes (a bit like mixamatosis(sp?) with rabbits) that wipes the lot out? Then what knock on effect will that have to other areas in the nature chain?

A point that was made earlier in this thread about the government being swayed by the seething masses, rather than look at the effectiveness of what is already going on and the detrimental effect it will have if it is stopped, seems to be the state of play. Winning more votes and pleasing the majority will always win over the correct approach to a situation.

Things like this really get my goat and if I could find a decent party to vote for I would. As it is, they all suck !!!!

This probably isn't a balanced view either, but it is what I reckon. That's what we were asked for I think. Stone me if you wish !!