is hunting cruel?

togster

hi just wanted to know peoples views on whether they yhought hunting foxes deer etc on horseback was cruel. I suppose the answer will vary according to the region.

KTRIC

Two questions for you ?

What the hell would a fox be doing riding a horse ?

And whats this got to do with Dublin city ?

r3nu4l

Wow, not really sure this belongs in the Dublin City forum but you could post it elsewhere and ask people to identify if they live in urban or rural locations and judge the answers that way.

Personally, I think fox-hunting is cruel. If you are going to eat what you catch fair enough providing you are not hunting to extinction. FYI, I'm an urbanite and always will be

togster

KTRIC wrote:

Two questions for you ?

What the hell would a fox be doing riding a horse ?

And whats this got to do with Dublin city ?

not much but just wondering? and FYI foxes are talented horsemen. Seriously though i do think its cruel but is that good enough a reson to ban it?

KTRIC

Who fancies a troll hunt ??

unreggd

Terrorising innocent little foxes, smokin them out of their homes, and eventually killing them for no other reason than pleasing your sadistic needs

yes, it is kind of cruel

Dub13

Moved from Dublin City.

Zombrex

Firstly fox hunting is cruel because it inflicts unnecessary suffering on the fox.

Secondly, not all forms of hunting are cruel on the animal (shooting a deer in the wild is a nicer way for the deer to go than being eatten by wolves), and not all hunting is wrong.

But I find inflicting unnecessary suffering on an animal wrong and therefore I find hunting for sport, whether it inflicts a cruel death or not, rather than simple necessity to be rather barbaric and sick.

If you don't need to kill the animal then don't. If you do need to kill the animal do it in the quickest simplest fashion. Don't make a game out of it, don't enjoy it. I can't stand these "hunts" that go on around the country that turn into a kind of festival, a day out for all the kids.

I always think of it this way, what would you think if someone said they work in a slaughter house because they enjoying killing living creatures.

I would imagine most people would want there children to stay well clear of that person

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I always think of it this way, what would you think if someone said they work in a slaughter house because they enjoying killing living creatures.

I would be happy for them that they found a job they enjoy, it's a pleasure alot of people don't get to experience.

Tar.Aldarion

I always think of it this way, what would you think if someone said they work in a slaughter house because they enjoying killing living creatures.

If it is your opinion that it is fine to kill them, then why have a problem with enjoying it?

If you don't need to kill the animal then don't. If you do need to kill the animal do it in the quickest simplest fashion.

Yes, but who could possibly have to kill an animal in a hunt these days, in a developed country?
If you think that it is ok to kill that animal, why do you think it is not ok to kill it slowly?(One is wrong, the other is not?) Is killing it not much worse than hurting it?

Secondly, not all forms of hunting are cruel on the animal (shooting a deer in the wild is a nicer way for the deer to go than being eatten by wolves), and not all hunting is wrong.

So, because a deer might die a more horribkle death, it is ok to kill it by shooting?
Would you not think it a tad hypocritical if I thought that shooting a human that lives in an area with a high rape/death rate(for example) was ok but killing him slowly was not?



Anyway, I'm against hunting too, btw.
Since there are slaughter houses killing billions of animals a year for humans, teh only reason for hunting is pleasure of humans, pleasure in killing.
Aside from that, I would think it was wrong anyway.

Red Hand

unreggd wrote:

Terrorising innocent little foxes, smokin them out of their homes, and eventually killing them for no other reason than pleasing your sadistic needs

yes, it is kind of cruel

Damn straight. Most people in this country have enough to eat that they don't need to hunt animals. Why the hell put animals through that ordeal if your not going to eat them and there are other meat supplies available?

I'm not a vegetarian by the way, but I dislike the idea of sports centred around needlessly killing animals.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If it is your opinion that it is fine to kill them, then why have a problem with enjoying it?

Because that hints are some disturbing personality traits in the person doing the killing.

Would you not be disturbed if your local vet came over to put down your dog or cat and he said "I love this part!!" as he got out the needle?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yes, but who could possibly have to kill an animal in a hunt these days, in a developed country?

Farmers often have to kill foxes and other animals to protect land or their animals. I don't suggest they do it in the form of a formal fox hunt.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If you think that it is ok to kill that animal, why do you think it is not ok to kill it slowly?(One is wrong, the other is not?) Is killing it not much worse than hurting it?

Yes, clearly. The slower you kill an animal the longer it suffers unnecessarily.

Which would you rather, quick death by a gun shot to the heart, or being slowly torn apart by say a lion?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

So, because a deer might die a more horribkle death, it is ok to kill it by shooting?

I didn't say that, I said it wasn't a cruel way to kill it. Cruel implies suffering for the purpose of suffering, or making no attempts to minimise the suffering.

But you will also notice I said that just because you are killing an animal in a non-cruel fashion doesn't mean that it was ok to do so

Killing an animal unnecessarilly, even in a non-cruel fashion (sleeping pills for example) is not ok just because you aren't causing the animal to suffer.

fits

togster wrote:

hi just wanted to know peoples views on whether they yhought hunting foxes deer etc on horseback was cruel. I suppose the answer will vary according to the region.

The 'horseback' bit has absolutely nothing to do with what people think is cruel. Its about the foxes/deer and the hounds. I've never seen a deer hunt. I've objections to certain practices in foxhunting, but dont believe that going around following the scent of a fox is cruel. They are rarely if ever caught, certainly I've never seen a kill. I think its perceived to be cruel more than anything.

The dogs that are tied up in back gardens without any attention or exercise and eventually end up in the pounds have it far worse. 18,000 dogs pts in pounds last year not to mention those that were brought to vets to be pts before their time or the ex racing greyhounds.

iguana

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yes, but who could possibly have to kill an animal in a hunt these days, in a developed country?

Since there are slaughter houses killing billions of animals a year for humans, teh only reason for hunting is pleasure of humans, pleasure in killing.

So it's ok to go buy animal flesh in the supermarket but not ok to kill it yourself. At least by heading out and killing your food yourself you are being honest about it. I think that people who eat meat should be willing to kill for meat, at least once in their lives, instead of only ever eating bought meat which is nicely sanitised and removed of the reality of where meat comes from.

And in environmental terms eating wild game that you have killed yourself is quite probably far more ethical than the factory farming processes that most of our meat comes from. Eating meat, or wearing leather, but objecting to all forms of hunting is hypocritical. (I'm getting the impression that you aren't a meat eater though).

To answer the OP's question I believe hunting for sport and sport alone is wrong. But hunting to eat the game, and killing in as painless away as possible, is every bit as acceptable as buying meat as long as you aren't trampling the fu©k out of someone elses land which happens on a lot of fox hunts.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how many people who object to fox hunts object to mouse traps? would you swat a fly or a spider? or does that not count because they're not cute and furry.

although mice are cute and furry, and I do object to mouse traps.. I have a cat. discovered we had mice in the house a few days ago, and he killed four babies yesterday. he's great.

Bottle_of_Smoke

If you're willing to buy €4 chickens in tesco then you're every bit as bad as fox hunters.

Flukey

Farmers often have to kill foxes and other animals to protect land or their animals. I don't suggest they do it in the form of a formal fox hunt.

Farmers never "have to" kill foxes to protect their land or their animals. There are many ways of doing those things.


Lots of other reasons for fox-hunting are given.

"Foxes are vermin." When it comes to fox hunting, the only vermin are the ones sitting on the horses.

"It's sport." That doesn't even deserve answering.

"It's a fun day out." They could still have their fun day out riding around the country without killing foxes, amazing as it might be to some of the hunters.

"It creates jobs." As I said previously, they could still have their horses and all their dogs and the employment that it all creates, without having to kill a fox.

Fits wrote:

They are rarely if ever caught, certainly I've never seen a kill. I think its perceived to be cruel more than anything.

The dogs that are tied up in back gardens without any attention or exercise and eventually end up in the pounds have it far worse. 18,000 dogs pts in pounds last year not to mention those that were brought to vets to be pts before their time or the ex racing greyhounds.

Fits, it most certainly is cruel. As you say quite often the fox does get away, but that doesn't make it any better. If one fox is killed, that is too many. Through the history of hunting, a lot more than one fox has been killed. All those hunting dogs can have their exercise without being involved in any hunting. Like the hunters and the horses, they can run around the country as much as they want, without killing foxes.

The hunting can stop and the fun can continue. There are no reasons that justify fox hunting. This, courtesy of my own camerawork, is the way to see foxes: A fox in my garden.

the_syco

unreggd wrote:

Terrorising innocent little foxes, smokin them out of their homes, and eventually killing them for no other reason than pleasing your sadistic needs

yes, it is kind of cruel

Ah, sure, a fox breaking into the coup and killing all the hens is just nature. But so is humans protecting their animals. I'd prefer napalm myself, but thats just me.

As for hunting, I've seen the horses run after the white flags for the "hunt" around the set route. I've also seen 10 farmers circling a field with hounds and shotguns.

I couldn't give a damn if it were cruel. If a hungry wolf see's me, and I'm alone, I'm pretty much f**ked if I don't have some form of protection. If I see a fox that has killed my hens, I won't be able to catch it, but my hounds may, but only if I miss the f**ker when I shoot at it.

=-=

When it boils down to it, I hate the f**kers on the horses. If you want to kill the fox, you track it down, and kill it. Its not a social thing. Its a lynch mob taking care of their livestock. You go, you kill, by whatever means necassary.

To those who foolishly believe that you don't need to kill foxes to protect your hens, what other option is there? Relocate it, so that it becomes someone else's problem? Nay. Kill it.

unreggd

The OP was referring to Horseback fox hunting

If your hens get killed, move them, secure them

The fox kills your hens for food, so you're interferring with nature, which, imo you have no right to

Rabies

I enjoyed fox hunting growing up. My younger brother and sister started at the age of about 11 or 12 and they love it too.

It is been about 9 or 10yrs since I have been on a hunt, but I loved them. Not for the end result, which didn't always happen. But for the thrill of the hunt.

Drag hunting is often used now. That way the dogs still think they are on the trail of a fox, and we still follow. Good day none the less, but missing the little something.

"It creates jobs." As I said previously, they could still have their horses and all their dogs and the employment that it all creates, without having to kill a fox.

It is the riding yards that suffer if hunting gets banned. Even before hunting was banned in the UK, I was on hunts with people from UK and Germany that travel to Ireland just to hunt. They hire horses each day, rent tack, stay in local b&bs/hotels.

Sure, we can still have our horses and dogs, but it the people that need to make a living from them that suffer.

I don't ride as much as I used, but I was back in the saddle as much as my early years (and in Ireland), hunting would be on my list for the winter.

Flukey

Rabies wrote:

I was on hunts with people from UK and Germany that travel to Ireland just to hunt. They hire horses each day, rent tack, stay in local b&bs/hotels.

They can still do all of that without killing foxes. So there is no need for any job losses. It is possible to hire a horse for a day and ride the horse the whole day, without killing a fox. I have often seen people riding horses, and they weren't killing foxes. Lots of people who have no interest in hunting hire horses and go horseriding. So all those businesses can stay open, without there being any hunting.

The_Syco wrote:

To those who foolishly believe that you don't need to kill foxes to protect your hens, what other option is there?

Well I know foxes are clever, but I don't think they can open padlocks. The may be able to get through chickenwire or dig into a coup, but that is all very easy to stop too. A fox-proof coup would not be that hard to make. They can be easily secured. If it is your livelihood, then making the investment to secure it, will be worth it.

Rabies

Flukey wrote:

They can still do all of that without killing foxes. So there is no need for any job losses. It is possible to hire a horse for a day and ride the horse the whole day, without killing a fox. I have often seen people riding horses, and they weren't killing foxes. Lots of people who have no interest in hunting hire horses and go horseriding. So all those businesses can stay open, without there being any hunting.

But then it isn't a hunt, it is called a trek

Flukey

So what if it is called a trek? They can still make money out of it. We are told that they won't be able to make money without the hunt, but they can.

What do they do for a hunt? - They hire out horses for people to ride.
What do they do for a trek? - They hire out horses for people to ride.

Job losses and lack of income is not a justification for the hunt.

fits

Flukey wrote:

So what if it is called a trek? They can still make money out of it. We are told that they won't be able to make money without the hunt, but they can.

What do they do for a hunt? - They hire out horses for people to ride.
What do they do for a trek? - They hire out horses for people to ride.

Job losses and lack of income is not a justification for the hunt.

Comparing hunting and trekking is like comparing cricket and hurling because they both use a ball and a stick.
Anyone can sit up on a horse and go on a trek. To follow a hunt on horseback requires a brave horse, an experienced rider and a lot of balls tbh. It can be very fast and very challenging and sometimes you are jumping fences without any idea of whats on the other side. I'm not sure if I'd have the nerve to do it anymore.
I havent been foxhunting in 10 years, but went on a drag hunt last year. I'd say this would be an acceptable alternative to you Flukey. I found it too fast (high level of horse fitness required) and too dangerous and its only really viable where there are large landowners.
Hunting forms the backbone of the equine industry in Ireland, its benefits to the economy arise from a lot more than 'hiring out horses'

Rabies

Flukey wrote:

So what if it is called a trek? They can still make money out of it. We are told that they won't be able to make money without the hunt, but they can.

What do they do for a hunt? - They hire out horses for people to ride.
What do they do for a trek? - They hire out horses for people to ride.

Job losses and lack of income is not a justification for the hunt.

People complain and offer alternatives to things they just don't understand.

*sigh*

lostexpectation

i understand its nonsense

anyway you have to ask whether hunting for sport is cruel vs hunting

hunting for sport cruel and somewhat pyschotic

togster

fits wrote:

Hunting forms the backbone of the equine industry in Ireland, its benefits to the economy arise from a lot more than 'hiring out horses'

its true as most of our national hunt horses must hunt before competing point to points. I have seen foxes killed in several ways. Shooting hunting and trapping the later being very cruel. As for the drag hunting i dont see it as a real alternative as the thrill is in the unpredictability of the hunt. I find it hard to really come down on a side on this argument.

skink

I actually brought something similar to this up in animals?pets forum, without realising this was going on.

I was recently involved in adebate on whether to ban hunting

me wrote:

sorry i should have given background to my question,

I hunt, alot, now i care for all my pets to the highest standard, my father is a vet, I will be one, so there are no cruelty issues or animal welfare problems at home. The thing i was debating there not too long ago, the motion was

"that this house should ban fox hunting"

Opp won(my side)now i took the stance that animals inherently have no rights, and that they are on ly societal contracts to mkae everyone feel better.

How did i make this argument, i started off with thousands of animals killed for the food chain daily, if we willingly kill animals on a daily basis, we are therefore denying their right to life.

The right to life is the one right that alll other rights stem from, so if we deny their basic right to life, we are denying them rights altogether.

thoughts?

thats what i posted, now how do people define cruelty? i do not think it comes down to a welfare issue mainly because;

1. It is natural for animals to hunt and be hunted, the adrenaline rush they experience relieves them of any stress, this has proven by a study conducted by vets in the uk
2. the hounds first bite kills the fox, again proven by a study by vets in the uk that in 99% of instances the fox was killed instantly when caught
3. hunting with hounds means survival of the fittest, therefore preserving good lineage in the wild fox.

togster

skink wrote:

I
2. the hounds first bite kills the fox, again proven by a study by vets in the uk that in 99% of instances the fox was killed instantly when caught
.

i also used to hunt every sunday untill a bad fall put an end to that. I have seen hounds kill foxes numerous times and i must say that not every time is the foxes death instant. Several times i have seen one or two lead hounds kill a fox and the fox died quickly but not straight away. I agree with the other arguments but this one is flawed. I think it is becoming incresingly difficult to argue for hunting as to simply say that the fox doesnt experience pain. Thats rubbish. However i think that as a cultural, historical, social and pest control issue it should be continued. What is cruelty? I think thats up to the person answering it. Everyone has their own opinions on it.

fits

togster wrote:

What is cruelty? I think thats up to the person answering it. Everyone has their own opinions on it.

I think that goes to the heart of the matter...

r3nu4l

skink wrote:

this has proven by a study conducted by vets in the uk

Link?

skink wrote:

the hounds first bite kills the fox, again proven by a study by vets in the uk

Again, link?

Also, as a Scientist I find myslef constantly posting on boards.ie about the value of scientific studies. You MUST know who funded any scientific study before you can believe the results.

If the above study was funded by a truly independent organisation that's fine, if however the vets in question look after Lord Mucks hounds or are funded by the Hunting Alliance or the Country Sports Alliance etc. then of course the study results may be likened to be a steaming load of horse manure

fits

r3nu4l wrote:

Also, as a Scientist I find myslef constantly posting on boards.ie about the value of scientific studies. You MUST know who funded any scientific study before you can believe the results.

If the above study was funded by a truly independent organisation that's fine, if however the vets in question look after Lord Mucks hounds or are funded by the Hunting Alliance or the Country Sports Alliance etc. then of course the study results may be likened to be a steaming load of horse manure

This is all very true...

Since owning dogs myself (two lurchers) they have caught a few animals, such as rats and squirrels and rabbits (I dont encourage them, but sometimes I cant stop it) and before this, I never saw a wild animal killed by dogs.. I never saw a kill out hunting for example.. It really does happen very quickly and is over before the animal knows about it.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole enjoyment of hunting for me comes from the horsemanship of following hounds over the countryside and seeing places you wouldnt normally see. For some people it comes from seeing the hounds work. Killing the fox isnt really the point, and although perhaps some people enjoy this aspect, most dont. It rarely happens in my experience anyway.

Boston

Flukey wrote:

Well I know foxes are clever, but I don't think they can open padlocks. The may be able to get through chickenwire or dig into a coup, but that is all very easy to stop too. A fox-proof coup would not be that hard to make. They can be easily secured. If it is your livelihood, then making the investment to secure it, will be worth it.

Have you built one, and do you know anything about farming? Give us a run down of the costs invovled.

r3nu4l

fits wrote:

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole enjoyment of hunting for me comes from the horsemanship of following hounds over the countryside and seeing places you wouldnt normally see.

So for you at least, you would be perfectly happy if no fox was chased and killed at the end of the hunt?

You would be happy to take your dogs for a 'walk' while on horseback?

fits

r3nu4l wrote:

So for you at least, you would be perfectly happy if no fox was chased and killed at the end of the hunt?

Not really, because I have been out drag-hunting, and it is over a set course, and an awful lot faster and just very different. I dont personally mind that much if a fox is killed, as I believe it is quick and that only sick/old foxes are caught. I wouldnt mind if a fox wasnt killed ever, either.

Anyway it is all down to personal opinion. I respect people who disagree with hunting when they actually understand what happens..and have seen it first hand. Its the people who think 'hunting is the same as trekking' or that disagree with hunting on horseback, but have no problems with the beagles, or that dont generally have a love for animals in the first place but dislike people on horseback that get my goat.

Rabies

r3nu4l wrote:

So for you at least, you would be perfectly happy if no fox was chased and killed at the end of the hunt?

You would be happy to take your dogs for a 'walk' while on horseback?

You kinda need to go back and quote another bit that fits said

fits wrote:

Anyone can sit up on a horse and go on a trek. To follow a hunt on horseback requires a brave horse, an experienced rider and a lot of balls tbh. It can be very fast and very challenging and sometimes you are jumping fences without any idea of whats on the other side. I'm not sure if I'd have the nerve to do it anymore.

It brings it back to the thrill of the hunt. The expectation of the unknown. Where will the fox go next? Will I be jumping in a river in the next field or lushing my way through thorn bushes? It is all about the chase.

My sister has taken our dogs for a walk up the hills when she is on going for a trek. The dogs enjoy it. But it isn't a hunt. A bit of a trot, canter and the odd jump. Nothing major.

Go for a 6hr hunt with 20-30 other people and a pack of dogs on a chilly morning is fun. It comes down to the chase at the end of the day. Many people if asked will say they are not too bothered if the fox gets away in the end, fair play if it does. The fox won. There is always another day.

Where I do draw the line is digging a fox out that has gone to ground. Leave it alone, give it some time to come out or try find another but if it made it to safety, leave it be.

fits

Rabies wrote:

Where I do draw the line is digging a fox out that has gone to ground. Leave it alone, give it some time to come out or try find another but if it made it to safety, leave it be.

I think that the IMFHA discourage this practice now (I could be wrong). I wouldnt really mind if that practice was discontinued altogether, but I believe sometimes farmers ask the hunt to do that if they have a problem with a fox.

r3nu4l

@Rabies, I was deliberately trying to tease out the earlier statement and get some more information. Thanks for replying fits.

I agree with Rabies, I think it's the thrill of the chase. That's what gets the adrenalin going. The hounds aren't going to get as excited by a drag-hunting, there is a massive degree of unpredictability in the movements of any live prey (fox) that cannot be replicated by drag-hunting.

I must say that I don't agree with hunting on principle but I can understand the appeal completely. The buzz of adrenaline is very powerful and everyone gets buzzed in different ways. A fly fisherman gets his buzz from finding the right fly and teasing the fish before the real work of landing the fish kicks in. For me however the whole fishing thing is fiddly and tedious. Not for me but I understand the appeal. So that's the human aspect.

As for the cruelty aspect of the hunt, I'm undecided. I'd like to see this research quoted by skink. I believe it to be cruel but I don't know it is cruel. I knwo the fox does not want to be killed but how much of human emotion can we ascribe to an animal? I'm unsure and will remain so for quite some time I think.

togster

fits wrote:

I think that the IMFHA discourage this practice now (I could be wrong). I wouldnt really mind if that practice was discontinued altogether, but I believe sometimes farmers ask the hunt to do that if they have a problem with a fox.

I have never heard a farmer ask for a fox to be dug out. Im not saying it doesnt happen. However i firmly believe that if the fox makes it to ground then he should be left there. i have witnessed the practice and anyone who says it doesnt happen is lying. I have seen foxes thrown to baying hounds and all though the death is instant the animal suffers terrible trauma prior to death unlike the adrenalin of a chase when the fox is free to make decisions on its escape route.

For me the thrill was always in watching hounds work, the searching of a cover and the flushing of the fox and the resulting pursuit.
As anyone that knows hounds will tell you it is rare that a fox is killed in open country as there are many variables which affect scent ie wind, temperature, surface water etc. It is the variables which make live hunting unique as opposed to drag hunting when the sent is strong and set in a pre defined manner and route.

fits

togster wrote:

I have never heard a farmer ask for a fox to be dug out. Im not saying it doesnt happen. However i firmly believe that if the fox makes it to ground then he should be left there. i have witnessed the practice and anyone who says it doesnt happen is lying. I have seen foxes thrown to baying hounds and all though the death is instant the animal suffers terrible trauma prior to death unlike the adrenalin of a chase when the fox is free to make decisions on its escape route.

I agree with you. I dont like this practice either, at all. If a fox is a nuisance to a farmer, I would tolerate it as its no worse than poison or a snare, but only in this instance. The only time I saw it happen was when I was ten or eleven and following on foot, and I didnt realise what was going on. Haven't seen it since. The hunts would do themselves a big favour if it was discontinued.
Can anyone tell me if its a common occurrence these days? I havent hunted in 10 years.

togster

fits wrote:

Can anyone tell me if its a common occurrence these days? I havent hunted in 10 years.

I can only speak from my own experience up untill last year. I hunted five seasons with one pack. I must admit it happened on several occasions. But it was accepted practice. I agree with you the hunts would do themselves a massive favour in ceasing the practice. It projects an image of unrestraint on behalf of the hunt. I think what happened in england with the ban was alot to do with mis management of public relations regarding the stubborness of certain elemants of the hunting fraternity in relation to the "its our right" mentality. By the way has anyone any opinions regarding the practice of stag hunting in ireland? The stag isnt killed but is it cruel to hunt an animal simply to recapture the animal and rehunt it at a later date?
I realise this is entering an entirely new sphere of the argument but perhaps it may help broaden the subject of cruelty regarding fox hunting
Sorry for the long posts.!!:)

Zombrex

togster wrote:

unlike the adrenalin of a chase when the fox is free to make decisions on its escape route.

This has been mentioned a few times, and I'm curious where the idea came from that because of the adrenalin of the chase the fox isn't suffering stress as a result of the chase, and is therefore not suffering?

I have heard this before, but mostly it is along with the anti-hunt argument that it is nonsense.

They state that a hunt is nothing at all like a wild animal chasing another wild animal, where the chase lasts at most 5 minutes over a short distance, because hunts can go on much much longer than that and over much greater distances.

Which to be honest makes sense. Foxes would have evolved to survive being hunted by wolves, not men on horse back with packs of tame dogs. Their systems of "fight or flight" would have developed for fast get aways to safety, not developed for long sustained flight away from a persistant predator.

Because evolution tends to not balance out ability, instead focusing on a specific need, it also makes sense that animals with this rapid flight response, such as foxes, are actually not at all designed for sustained flight, as all their energy is used in the initial stages of the flight when they are 100% focuses on avoiding their predator. This is seen in other animals, and I don't have a reason why it wouldn't apply to foxes as well. This would suggest that in fact sustained hunting is even more stressful on an animal like a fox.

This seems to be supported in the way that some foxes have been known to act in almost suicidal fashion to while being hunted, such as entering drainage pipes they cannot get out of, indicating that the animal is under tremendous stress at the time.

There is also the fact that foxes have very few predators beyond humans, as has been true for the last 500 years or so. So they aren't exactly used to, in a day to day biological context, being hunted, even over short distances.

But I don't want to totally discount the idea without first find the source of it and understanding the logic behind it more. The problem is I can't tell where it argument originated from.

Is this just a hunters "wives tail", or is it actually based on something more concrete?

fits

Hmm I'd have to read your post again to digest it properly. I think a thing that a lot of people dont realise is that most of the time the fox is well ahead of the chasing pack, sometimes 20 minutes to half an hour ahead. If you follow on foot this becomes very apparent. I dunno about foxes behaving in a suicidal manner, I've seen quite the opposite such as them running along the top of stone walls and going downstream in rivers in order to confuse the hounds.
A lot depends on the pack and the huntsman as well. Some are a lot more effective than others I'd imagine. The crowd I hunted with were always well behind the fox.

I must say I'm delighted this thread is discussing the topic in an intelligent manner. Thats a rare thing.

Zombrex

togster wrote:

By the way has anyone any opinions regarding the practice of stag hunting in ireland?

In relation to my post above, while there is no case I can see of people actually studying the effects of a hunt on a fox, people have studied that effects of hunts on deer.

And they found that the deer was placed under a large amount of unnatural stress due to the length of the hunt. In nature a deer would be hunted for only a few minutes, and their biological systems are designed to deal with this. Basically if you have not got away within 4 or 5 minutes you are dead anyway. But with human hunting, where we hunt in a completely different fashion than an animal like a wolf, the deer does not have the biological systems to handing this type of hunting. And in fact their own biological systems are counter-intuative to this type of sustained hunting. As such the animal finds themselves under a lot of unnatural stress that they don't process properly, as they would with being hunted by say a wolf.

This research is used by anti-fox hunters as support for the idea that foxes would also experience the same amount of unnatural stress.

While the connection with foxes is probably open to debate, since a fox and a deer is a very different animal, it would still seem that the deer suffers very high levels of stress during the hunt.

togster

Wicknight wrote:

This has been mentioned a few times, and I'm curious where the idea came from that because of the adrenalin of the chase the fox isn't suffering stress as a result of the chase, and is therefore not suffering?

I have heard this before, but mostly it is along with the anti-hunt argument that it is nonsense.

They state that a hunt is nothing at all like a wild animal chasing another wild animal, where the chase lasts at most 5 minutes over a short distance, because hunts can go on much much longer than that and over much greater distances.

Which to be honest makes sense. Foxes would have evolved to survive being hunted by wolves, not men on horse back with packs of tame dogs. Their systems of "fight or flight" would have developed for fast get aways to safety, not developed for long sustained flight away from a persistant predator.

Because evolution tends to not balance out ability, instead focusing on a specific need, it also makes sense that animals with this rapid flight response, such as foxes, are actually not at all designed for sustained flight, as all their energy is used in the initial stages of the flight when they are 100% focuses on avoiding their predator. This is seen in other animals, and I don't have a reason why it wouldn't apply to foxes as well. This would suggest that in fact sustained hunting is even more stressful on an animal like a fox.

This seems to be supported in the way that some foxes have been known to act in almost suicidal fashion to while being hunted, such as entering drainage pipes they cannot get out of, indicating that the animal is under tremendous stress at the time.

There is also the fact that foxes have very few predators beyond humans, as has been true for the last 500 years or so. So they aren't exactly used to, in a day to day biological context, being hunted, even over short distances.

But I don't want to totally discount the idea without first find the source of it and understanding the logic behind it more. The problem is I can't tell where it argument originated from.

Is this just a hunters "wives tail", or is it actually based on something more concrete?

I did not suggest that the fox did not suffer stress while being chased by a pack of hounds but it is adifferent type of stress as to that of being dug out with no escape route. As for this being an old wives tale perhaps it is but speaking from experience i would suggest that the fox is experiencing less stress in open space.
Regarding your point in relation to persistant pursuit i do agree this does happen some times. However to simply state that the fox has evolved for short distant pursuit is simplistic. Where is the evidence? Also having viewed foxes in flight they have aqquired nemerous other evading tactics such as circling behind packs, crossing rivers to break scent and zig zagging through open fields to confuse pursuing hounds.

Wicknight wrote:

Foxes would have evolved to survive being hunted by wolves, not men on horse back with packs of tame dogs?

This argument has one major flaw. Wolves also hunt on scent and in packs like the hounds. Although the hounds have the initial direction of the huntsman to find scrent the wolf and hound hunt in a similar fashion.

Wicknight wrote:

This seems to be supported in the way that some foxes have been known to act in almost suicidal fashion to while being hunted, such as entering drainage pipes they cannot get out of, indicating that the animal is under tremendous stress at the time?

I have also heard of this and have seen foxes cross busy roads or try to cross bog holes indicating a severe need to flee and resulting stress. But is that not a natural instinct of every hunted animal ... to avoid death.? I doubt its suicidal.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

Hmm I'd have to read your post again to digest it properly. I think a thing that a lot of people dont realise is that most of the time the fox is well ahead of the chasing pack, sometimes 20 minutes to half an hour ahead. If you follow on foot this becomes very apparent.

That, ironically, seems to be part of the problem.

Animals, such as a fox, have not evolved to deal with a predator such as ourselves, who can hunt for long sustained periods over large distances.

They instead have evolved to deal with predators such as wolves, who's attack is quick with short bursts of speed over short distance. This triggers a "fight or flight" response in the animal, such as the fox or deer, where large amounts of adrenalin are release to allow the animal to evade the wolf and escape to safety. You either do or you don't, you are either away within 5 minutes or you are dead. This is actually how most fight or flight systems in mammals work, including ourselves. If a human is threatened they can move pretty quickly, their heart rate increases and they get a burst of energy. Anyone who has ever been in a fight knows this. But what someone in this situation will also notice is that the effect does not last long, and in fact you will find that after a traumatic experience that produced a fight or flight response you will be exhausted 10 minutes later.

It makes sense that the animal would have evolved ways of dealing with attacks like that without serious stress, otherwise the animal would be a nervous wreck for hours afterwards. So I understand where this idea is coming from, that during the initial flight the fox is not under extreme stress.

But what they are not used to is long sustained "attacks" (such as a human hunt) where they need to keep the "flight or flight" response going for a sustained, unnatural, period of time.

We humans compensate for our lack of speed with our mental ability to track game over vast distances with co-ordinated "packs" But in evolutionary terms this form of "attack" is very very new, and it is doubtful that any species, fox or otherwise, has yet developed systems to deal with this form of attack.

fits wrote:

I dunno about foxes behaving in a suicidal manner, I've seen quite the opposite such as them running along the top of stone walls and going downstream in rivers in order to confuse the hounds.

Sorry, my point probably wasn't clear. It isn't put forward as evidence that the fox wants to get caught and kill. It is put forward as evidence that the fox will do anything, even enter very confined spaces that their natural instinct would tell them not to enter, to escape the hunt.

This seems to suggests that the fox is under a lot of stress, as animals tend to only ignore fundamental instincts like that when under extreme stress.

fits

I know your argument is that foxes havent evolved to deal with sustained hunting and that increases their stress... thats entirely debatable and perhaps a zoologist would be better able to comment on that than I.. I really dont know how much stress a fox undergoes in the course of a hunt.

If sustained hunting were something that foxes cant deal with, how come so few are killed?

togster

Wicknight wrote:

That, ironically, seems to be part of the problem.

Animals, such as a fox, have not evolved to deal with a predator such as ourselves, who can hunt for long sustained periods over large distances.

.

I am sorry but i find it hard to accept the reasoning behind this argument. It is the hounds that are hunting the fox. The riders are simply active spectators in the hunt. The hound is a descendant of the wolf and hunts in packs like wolves. In fact hounds are similar to most predatory pack animals like the wolf ie they work of scent.Wolves will hunt for hours even days to secure prey providing scent is strong and conditions provide for sustainable scent. Your argument seems to be based on evolution of the fox regarding its ability to be chased for lengthy periods of time. >However the hound has evolved from the wolf the foxs natural predator.

Zombrex

togster wrote:

Regarding your point in relation to persistant pursuit i do agree this does happen some times. However to simply state that the fox has evolved for short distant pursuit is simplistic. Where is the evidence?

The evidence is the biology of the fox itself, how other mammals like the fox behave and how its possible predators behave.

I see no reason to think that a fox would have developed biological systems to deal with sustained consistent pursuit, since I cannot think of when this would happen in a natural situation.

togster wrote:

Also having viewed foxes in flight they have aqquired nemerous other evading tactics such as circling behind packs, crossing rivers to break scent and zig zagging through open fields to confuse pursuing hounds.

That suggests for the entire period of the hunt that the fox believes they are being "attacked" That is, as I said to fits, part of the problem.

togster wrote:

Wolves also hunt on scent and in packs like the hounds. Although the hounds have the initial direction of the huntsman to find scrent the wolf and hound hunt in a similar fashion.

The difference is that the fox, or any other prey, is not aware of this fact until the final attack.

While a wolf may hunt a prey for up to 10 miles the prey itself is only aware that they are being hunted when the final attack happens. That is done on purpose, because alerting the prey to the fact that they are being hunted greatly decreases the chances that the prey can be caught. Surprise is the wolves best friend.

After the actual attack happens if within the first few hundred meters of the chase the wolves have not managed to kill the prey they will give up on that prey and turn to another, in an effort to conserve energy. This is the wolves playing the odds and balancing the chance of actually catching this prey that has evaded their initial attack against the energy they are using to continue the attack.

So if the prey manages to survive the initial attack for more than 500 or 600 meters they are pretty much home free. The wolves will turn to a different prey with better odds of capture.

With in the first 5 minutes of the attack you have either escaped or you are dead. As such the prey have evolved to deal with this specific situation.

A human hunt is different for a number of reasons

Firstly the fox appears to be aware that they are being hunted for a long period of time. In nature a predator would take huge steps to avoid this happening, as it greatly decreases the chance of success. But in human hunting that isn't true so there is less need to hide the fact from the fox. In fact it would kinda defeat the purpose of the hunt if the fox didn't know it was being hunted and as such didn't run away allowing the hunt to give chase. The purpose of the hunt is not a quick silent kill.

Secondly the hunt will consistently target one fox for the entire hunt. Again in nature this would not happen, as a wolf or other predator would not use up energy chasing an animal that is already aware of him and has already demonstrated the ability to escape. That is a was of the wolves energy. It is better to stop the chase of this animal and turn to a different animal with a better chance of success.

Thirdly the hunters have no need to consider the balance of energy used over energy gained for the kill, since the hunters are not hunting for food and are using fell fed and maintained horses that vastly out power the fox in terms of energy. As such a human hunter will never give up because they have used too much energy on a given fox.

A fox hunt is not really a hunt in any type of natural biological sense. As such it would be incorrect to assume that the fox sees it as such from their point of view.

togster wrote:

I have also heard of this and have seen foxes cross busy roads or try to cross bog holes indicating a severe need to flee and resulting stress. But is that not a natural instinct of every hunted animal ... to avoid death.? I doubt its suicidal.

No, as has already been mentioned, foxes, like most animals, have systems to deal with the stress of attack from natural predators. In fact they need these systems to allow them to do things like view escape methods, without being gripped by pure panic of the initial attack. If you have ever seen a cat escape a dog that has wandered into the garden and started barking you will see that the cat is still able to perform spectacular feats of acrobatics over bins, walls and roof tops at high speed and under the stress of an "attack"

All animals have instinctive systems that tell them what to do and what not to do in certain situations, and all animals have systems to manage stress (we would call it fear) to still allow for either the flight or fight response.

But these do not last forever especially under hightend sustained stress levels.

The fact that the foxes they are doing things like those mentioned above means that the systems they have to deal with stress have started to fail.

This happens in humans as well, and it is experienced in times of war with men (and women) caught up in sustained fighting. There was case of a Japanese soldier who was behind US lines on an island in the Pacific for 6 days who tried to escape capture by swimming out to sea where he drowned.

Zombrex

fits wrote:

If sustained hunting were something that foxes cant deal with, how come so few are killed?

Put simply its because we aren't very good at it, nor do we rely on it for survival.

fits

Wicknight wrote:

.....and are using fell fed and maintained horses that vastly out power the fox in terms of energy. As such a human hunter will never give up because they have used too much energy on a given fox.

... but its not the horses that are doing the hunting.. its the hounds... this is a point that is missed repeatedly. The followers on horseback are merely following the hounds. Foxhounds have been bred for stamina rather than speed, that much is true.