Giant Fox caught in Kent

Whispered

MACT1RE wrote: »

I, as a pet owner, would not even consider that when choosing my vet as one thing has nothing to do with the other.

But in my opinion one thing does have something to do with the other. I mentioned why in a post above.

I'll give you a quick example (although I'm sure I'll be accused of tarring all with one brush;)). My father hunts, his friends hunt, they have had animals all their lives, when I got my pup he had parvo, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the hunters suggested the best thing to do would be to put him to sleep. I suppose, rightly or wrongly, people see hunters as considering life as more disposable than anti hunting people. I would not like to go to a vet who sees life as disposable.

Whispered

MACT1RE wrote: »

Again you show very little understanding of the natural world of which the Species of Man is a part. Man has not evolved much, genetically speaking, since the development of farming and agriculture, before which the only source of meat to be found was through the Hunt.

you're not hunting for meat though? you don't eat fox? most non-hunters (and a good majority of huters) differntiate between hunting for sport and hunting for food.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

In your higher eveolved state then us mere mortals Discodog, would you humble us with the answer to the question that i had asked before.

Would you, or any other poster infact, have an issue if he had killed a mouse or a rat with a trap?

Discodog, have you ever set a mouse trap or a rat trap in your life???

Good to see you recognising my status

Yep I have two set at this moment for Rats. I will catch them alive & release them. And before anyone says that this is illegal - it isn't.

Apparently the sales of live traps has increased so maybe others think like me.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

Again you don't read. I have constantly posted & urged the Mods here not to block any opinion.

Again???? What didn't i read??????? I was saying that i believe there to be a portion of the public who disagree to the actions of the vet. Maybe if you responded to an entire post instead of the bits that you feel suit an argument then not only would opinion be untampered with in line with your constant requests to mods, but it would also be exchanged and expanded on.

IE: Why have you not answered the question on wether or not you have ever laid a trap for a mouse or a rat.???

Whispered wrote: »

you're not hunting for meat though? you don't eat fox? most non-hunters (and a good majority of huters) differntiate between hunting for sport and hunting for food.

Alot of people hunt fox for the purpose of preserving species that we do eat though. Rabbit, Pheasent, pigeon etc. I've never eaten fox i must say but i have eaten the other three.
They have also taken lamb which i believe we're all fond of :-)

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

Good to see you recognising my status

Yep I have two set at this moment for Rats. I will catch them alive & release them. And before anyone says that this is illegal - it isn't.

Apparently the sales of live traps has increased so maybe others think like me.

everypenny wrote: »

Again???? What didn't i read??????? I was saying that i believe there to be a portion of the public who disagree to the actions of the vet. Maybe if you responded to an entire post instead of the bits that you feel suit an argument then not only would opinion be untampered with in line with your constant requests to mods, but it would also be exchanged and expanded on.

IE: Why have you not answered the question on wether or not you have ever laid a trap for a mouse or a rat.???

Apologies.

Why have you decided to catch the rats? What harm are they doing to you?

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

Apologies.

Why have you decided to catch the rats? What harm are they doing to you?

I am catching them for a neighbour - elderly ex fisherman & his wife. They don't want the Rats killed but they would rather not have them on their bird table.

MACT1RE

Whispered wrote: »

I suppose, rightly or wrongly, people see hunters as considering life as more disposable than anti hunting people. I would not like to go to a vet who sees life as disposable.

I think what you mean is anti hunting people see hunters as considering life as more disposable than anti hunting people.

I as a hunter would feel that hunters are more in touch with the reality of life than anti hunting people. We see animals as they really are; hunters, killers, survivalists. Where as anti hunting people tend to see them all as cute and somehow in possession of human emotions and characteristics, and in need of protection from the harsh reality of life.

As for one thing not having anything to do with the other. I'll give you an example;

I can sit for an hour with my cat on my lap and pet and stroke him. Then I can rise, get the rifle from the safe and go shoot foxes. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

MACT1RE

Whispered wrote: »

you're not hunting for meat though? you don't eat fox? most non-hunters (and a good majority of huters) differntiate between hunting for sport and hunting for food.

I hunt deer and rabbit for two things, meat and enjoyment.

I hunt fox for two things, to have more rabbits to hunt and eat, and for enjoyment.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

I am catching them for a neighbour - elderly ex fisherman & his wife. They don't want the Rats killed but they would rather not have them on their bird table.

I'm suprised you're helping him if he used to kill animals for a living :-P

Whispered

You're doing it again! Please stop assuming hunters have the monopoly on the "harsh reality" of life.

And no I mean that a lot of people in general, who would not even think about hunting mostly, would see hunters as considering life as more disposable.

With your cat on your lap, you are not making life and death decisions for the cat, in the way a vet does.

MACT1RE wrote: »

I think what you mean is anti hunting people see hunters as considering life as more disposable than anti hunting people.

I as a hunter would feel that hunters are more in touch with the reality of life than anti hunting people. We see animals as they really are; hunters, killers, survivalists. Where as anti hunting people tend to see them all as cute and somehow in possession of human emotions and characteristics, and in need of protection from the harsh reality of life.

As for one thing not having anything to do with the other. I'll give you an example;

I can sit for an hour with my cat on my lap and pet and stroke him. Then I can rise, get the rifle from the safe and go shoot foxes. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Chris_Heilong

This has nothing to do with hunting, what are you all on about.

The guy killed a trapped animal, an extreamly rare specimen at that. Foxes dont really hunt large animals like cats unless they are sick and old which this one was, they are just "opportunistic". Everyone like to shoot guns and make a game out of it but shooting living things shows a great lack of respect for them.

If you really wanted to hunt vermin you would be on your knees hunting rats and mice but the there is no glory in that.

everypenny

Whispered wrote: »

With your cat on your lap, you are not making life and death decisions for the cat, in the way a vet does.

But what he is saying is that he can decide not to kill his cat, and to later kill a fox.

So can the vet. I don't think if i brought my dog to him he'd kill it and i think its unrealistic if not foolish to assume that a vet who hunts would be quick to kill someones pet. Firstly it wouldn't make good economic practice and secondly its a bit of a leap of an assumption.

MACT1RE

Whispered wrote: »

You're doing it again! Please stop assuming hunters have the monopoly on the "harsh reality" of life.

Its not that I think hunters have a "monopoly" on it, I think they're just more aware of it because of their direct involvement in the cycle of nature.

Whispered wrote: »

With your cat on your lap, you are not making life and death decisions for the cat, in the way a vet does.

I was trying to show the difference between having an emotional attachment and a duty of care to a domesticated animal, and hunting a wild animal. A good vet and well balanced person should have an understanding of this.

everypenny

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

This has nothing to do with hunting, what are you all on about.

The guy killed a trapped animal, an extreamly rare specimen at that. Foxes dont really hunt large animals like cats unless they are sick and old which this one was, they are just "opportunistic". Everyone like to shoot guns and make a game out of it but shooting living things shows a great lack of respect for them.

If you really wanted to hunt vermin you would be on your knees hunting rats and mice but the there is no glory in that.

Hi Chris,

Have you ever shot a fox? Have you ever hunted? On what experience or knowledge are you basing the statement of "This has nothing to do with hunting" on.

What is your definition of hunting in that case?

Why was the specimin of fox rare? Is it ok to kill rats and mice? Why isn't it ok to kill other animals so? Do you think that there is ''glory'' in fox hunting?

LB6

Discodog wrote: »

The Hunting forum has some new rules & we are no longer welcome.

"There are also some rules specific to this forum:

1. This is a hunting forum so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts;
you are going to be offended. If you must post, please remember the first rule of the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another.
2. Posting in Hunting to troll users in Animal Welfare or Animal&Pet Issues is not acceptable; nor are regular posters from Hunting who troll in those forums.
In both cases, infractions and/or bans may be given by mods in both forums even if the user only posted in one forum."

BTW - those are not new rules - they've been there a long time!

Please show me where it says you are no longer welcome. There the also the next sentence that says;-

"If you must post, please remember the first rule of the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another."

Nobody says you are unwelcome anywhere!

Discodog

MACT1RE wrote: »

I can sit for an hour with my cat on my lap and pet and stroke him.

Would you shoot a cat ?.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

Would you shoot a cat ?.

A wild cat? Yes. I like song birds. Populations of them have been decimated in my area by feral cats and cats bred in the wild. The ammount of uneaten carcases i find when i'm out and about hunting is unbelievable. Cats are indiscriminate killers/ But then i've always been a dog person :-P

Discodog

LB6 wrote: »

Discodog wrote: »

so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts;
you are going to be offended. If you must post,

Hardly encouraging !. Don't post, don't read posts, & be prepared to be offended.

"If you must post" is hardly feel free to post or your comment is welcome.

I would interpret it as we don't want you but if you insist then we are likely to offend you.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

A wild cat? Yes. I like song birds. Populations of them have been decimated in my area by feral cats and cats bred in the wild. The ammount of uneaten carcases i find when i'm out and about hunting is unbelievable. Cats are indiscriminate killers/ But then i've always been a dog person :-P

So if MACT1RE's cat strayed onto your land you might shoot it ?.

The question was directed at MACT1RE.

MACT1RE

Discodog wrote: »

Would you shoot a cat ?.

Yes, I would shoot a feral cat without hesitation as they are one of the most disease ridden creatures ever inflicted on the Irish country side and are a direct result of human negligence and misguided sympathy.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

LB6 wrote: »

Hardly encouraging !. Don't post, don't read posts, & be prepared to be offended.

"If you must post" is hardly feel free to post or your comment is welcome.

I would interpret it as we don't want you but if you insist then we are likely to offend you.

But it doesn't say "be prepared to be offended" it says
"so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts; you are going to be offended. "

The reason it was said is because people go on to the hunting forum daily and hurl abuse at posters there because of their actions. Posters there recieve all types of abuse and get called horrible things.

If it was happening to you i would understand if you posted guidelines in your forum charter.
I wouldn't how ever twist those guidlines on my own forum in order to misreresent the intention of those guidlines in order to start agro, animosity or ill will between two groups of people, twice in a matter of hours.

MACT1RE

Discodog wrote: »

LB6 wrote: »

Hardly encouraging !. Don't post, don't read posts, & be prepared to be offended.

"If you must post" is hardly feel free to post or your comment is welcome.

I would interpret it as we don't want you but if you insist then we are likely to offend you.

If you are "Anti-Hunting" then it stands to reason you would be offended by a forum whose very reason for existence is the discussion of hunt activities in some detail.

Discodog

MACT1RE wrote: »

Yes, I would shoot a feral cat without hesitation as they are one of the most disease ridden creatures ever inflicted on the Irish country side and are a direct result of human negligence and misguided sympathy.

What's the difference between your pet cat & the feral, who may of been a pet that was thrown out ?. Just because an animal is uncared for does that justify killing it. How would you know that it wasn't someone's pet ?.

And we are going way off topic again.

LB6

"Hardly encouraging !. Don't post, don't read posts, & be prepared to be offended.
"If you must post" is hardly feel free to post or your comment is welcome.
I would interpret it as we don't want you but if you insist then we are likely to offend you. "

I agree, not encouraging - but not telling you not to post either. As it's a "hunting" forum and the lads and girls there hunt, then it's just a fore-warning for graphic pics and text.

ANTI-HUNTING would suggest that you would not like what is posted and to beware of the content you will be reading.

By all means post, but like it says - be civil about it.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

So if MACT1RE's cat strayed onto your land you might shoot it ?.

The question was directed at MACT1RE.

No. I said FERAL CAT OR CAT BORN IN THE WILD.

Shanao

MACT1RE wrote: »

Yes, I would shoot a feral cat without hesitation as they are one of the most disease ridden creatures ever inflicted on the Irish country side and are a direct result of human negligence and misguided sympathy.

I'm sorry, what? You're saying that your answer to human negligence, is to shoot the poor animal that's been neglected?

Bizzum

Discodog wrote: »

Well you are entitled to your perceptive biased view - do you ever shoot ?.

Thanks Peter. My view is neither perceptive or biased. Just a statement of fact.

Whether I shoot or not, neither adds to, or takes from the post.
I always try and be impartial!

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

in order to start agro, animosity or ill will between two groups of people, twice in a matter of hours.

Read my posts. I keep having to repeat that I welcome opposite opinion. I have only posted on one thread in Hunting & my posts were totally civil as they are here.

Chris_Heilong

@everypenny
Here is a definiton of Hunting "The activity or sport of pursuing game." not shooting a fox in a box which is a sort of "execution", I think you can grasp what I am getting at, that this is not what I would consider hunting.

The fox was the largest ever caught in the UK, I dont think that fact escaped the vet before the killling.

Yes, people consider the fox a trophey. It looks impressive and Im sure trill hunters would love to parade a dead fox they have killed more so than a dead rat.

In relation to numbers and potental risk to humans I think rodents are a much bigger treat and hunters should be trying their skills at something worthwhile, not just shooting fish in a barrel(or a fox in this case). I am not against hunting in the right cicumstances but I disagree with certain attitudes, for example on a deer hunt all the hunters want to bag a stag, just because it is an impressive trophey where as they would be doing alot more good at controlling deer numbers by killing a few does instead.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

What's the difference between your pet cat & the feral, who may of been a pet that was thrown out ?. Just because an animal is uncared for does that justify killing it. How would you know that it wasn't someone's pet ?.

And we are going way off topic again.

A pet cat has an owner. Its someones pet. I would have a moral issue with shooting that cat. A feral cat or a cat born in the wild however i would class as disease ridden and a pest to native wildlife. There for by reducing the numbers of these predators the species of song birds etc increase. Its the same reason i shoot magpies.