I'm interested to hear people's opinions on fox hunting here.

In my opinion, there is no real reason for foxes to be killed through hunting anymore and the so called "sport" is just a left-over from our countries more barbaric days.

I've often heard the argument that foxes are vermin for the farmers and hunting helps them. My answer to that is always that there are much more humane ways of killing a fox than by having a pack of dogs chasing the poor thing and ripping it apart.

This post was last modified: 18-02-2007 02:26 PM by Kingfisher.

I have failed to understand why fox hunting, as in riding around on horses, would help farmers.  Surely the farmers would prefer that their fields not be torn up, especially if crop growing is in full swing.

I agree, if the foxes need to be killed for whatever reason, then surely a more humane way could be found.  

I know I watched two dogs savage and kill a beautiful old Siamese cat not more than a month ago.  It was horrible to watch, and just because the fox is a wild animal does not mean I would like to see it die that way.  At least shooting, performed by an expert, is a very quick death, with not much suffering.

Kingfisher

I think that the foxes are usually hunted in the woodland around the the farms rather than on the fields themselves, whenever I've seen hunts on the television they have always been in woods.

I completely agree with both your views, but if you have a problem with fox hunting surely you must feel the same way with sports like pheasant hunting?

This post was last modified: 18-02-2007 10:19 PM by Richard.

It's not the fact that the are being killed - that is unpleasant enough -but how they are killed. I'm not a fan of pheasant hunting and I would never do it, but shooting is a much more humane way of killing something than it being ripped apart by dogs.

I agree, shooting, if performed by someone who is a good shot, is a much less painful way to go than to be torn apart.  I confess I am not a big fan of shooting with shotguns either, because the shot pellets can be so scattered as to have only one pellet hit the bird, but that can be enough to cause the bird to die later of an infection.

Worldwide, an ethical hunter will assume that if he or she hits an animal, but does not recover the game, that hunter will assume that the animal has died, either within a few minutes, or will die of an infection.  An ethical hunter is expected to follow the wounded animal to ensure that it is, in fact, no longer alive.  Also, depending on the species, the animal is expected to be eaten, or it is considered wanton waste of game.  So, an ethical hunter shoots to kill immediately on the first shot, follows the animal to ensure that it is not suffering unnecessarily, and recovers the animal to use as food.

That's not possible with pheasant or duck hunting unless the hunter is using dogs to recover the birds.

Kingfisher

That's a very interesting point and a definition of ehtical hunting that I haven't heard before. Does this mean that hunting of pests such as rabbits where the animal is found afterwards to check it is dead is unethical because it could but is not eaten afterwards?

Yes, at least to me.  However, rabbits here (in the United States) carry a disease which makes them dangerous to handle and to eat (tularemia).  It won't necessarily kill humans, but can make one quite ill, especially if it is not diagnosed correctly.

Also, it's important to check rabbits for fleas and ticks here, as both those creatures can carry diseases dangerous to humans (including tularemia).

I don't think the same problem exists in the UK, but rabbits in the UK do suffer from Viral Haemorrhagic Disease.  This does not affect humans, but it is almost always fatal to rabbits in the UK.

I should have pointed out that it's not always necessary to eat the animal, but at the least, the skin/fur should be utilised.

In general, ethical hunters will eat animals which are vegetarians (deer, rabbits, squirrels and the like), and will utilise skins or furs from predators/omnivores (foxes, stoats, etc.).

In Europe, bears are an interesting exception.  American Black bears generally eat more vegetable matter than animal matter, so in the United States and Canada they are considered edible.  Grizzly Bears, and European Brown bears,on the other hand, are considered predators, and are not considered edible, especially if they have been feeding on carrion.

I've known many ethical hunters, and to a person they would not shoot and kill an animal simply to kill it.  

Kingfisher