Fox hunting

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

It's so easy to make a hen house secure. I used some chain link fence under the house.

Really? The feckers will go in under over and through any fence or barrier put up. They will chew and rip wood siding and doors, the only thing that that they can't get through in my extensive experience is concrete. And I'm fooked if I'm putting up 12 foot concrete walls with razor wire on top all around my property. As for other animals Buford above has given quite a detailed account of the damage done to livestock by foxes. I presume you are also suggesting chain link wire fences for fields as well? ...

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

You wouldn't believe anything that might oppose your view.

I won't believe a single organisation in a different country as being relevant if that's what you mean. And I won't believe one person's unsupported opinion either Thanks.

OldRio

I take it you don't keep cats. We do and they are marvellous hunters. Rats mice rabbits stoats and many many birds.
Cruel feckers as well.

As for foxhunting. Myself and family have hunted for the last 15 years with the local hunt. The amount of lies miss information and envy on this thread is sad.
Our hunt works alongside the landowners and farmers. Permission is gained to hunt the land. Farmers ask us to hunt their land.
Anyway enough facts get back to morale outrage.

freewheeler

theguzman wrote: »

Each Fox that is killed is worth more than €1,000 to the economy. A fox could kill a lamb a day, each worth far in excess of €100 in economy activity. Farmers are right to kill as many Foxes as they can, I know lads who routinely poison the land to kill foxes and have poisoned a few wandering dogs also. Foxes are shot, trapped, poisoned and snared routinely by farmers and they are right to do it.

What an ignorant post...Christ i despair for humanity when i read stuff like this..yes lets kill everything that we deem uneconomic or a nuisance..never mind that other animals and birds are killed by indiscriminate traps and poison..anyone engaging in these sorts of activities should have a serious word with themselves!

freewheeler

OldRio wrote: »

I take it you don't keep cats. We do and they are marvellous hunters. Rats mice rabbits stoats and many many birds.
Cruel feckers as well.

As for foxhunting. Myself and family have hunted for the last 15 years with the local hunt. The amount of lies miss information and envy on this thread is sad.
Our hunt works alongside the landowners and farmers. Permission is gained to hunt the land. Farmers ask us to hunt their land.
Anyway enough facts get back to morale outrage.

'Envy' of what exactly??

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

So hunts would break the law regarding animal welfare. The Greyhound industry already dumps it's unwanted dogs on rescues. We can't expect hunters to show any decency when it comes to the welfare of their dogs.

So all hunts break the law about animal welfare do they? Every one of them? You better get on to the relevant body and report this astounding statistic.

And what your saying there is that greyhounds are being handed over to be rehomed? Well that's good and a heluva better than the idiots who dump and abandon their pets in this area on a regular basis.

And then in a single broad brushstoke you make an allegetion that 'we (sic) cant expect to show any decency when it comes to the welfare of their dogs'

Who is the 'we' kimo sabe? I presume it's not a royal 'we' - as pointed out we don't have those here. In my personal experience of hunters dogs they are well looked after. Now I can't make that statement about all hunters dogs because I don't know all hunters or their dogs. Just as you don't either. Like all things in life there are the good and the bad. Much like that 'rescue centre' a few years back where the dogs were found starving and in filthy conditions. There was an interesting thread on Boards about it afaik. But then I'll admit such situations are usually in the minority. Most people with hunting dogs imo look after them because thats the right thing to do. But that doesn't suit the narrative does it?

OldRio

freewheeler wrote: »

'Envy' of what exactly??

Some posts are obviously from people whose prime motive against fox hunting is not welfare of the fox. It's the ill percieved presumption that people who fox hunt have money. The word toffs has been used on numerous occasions.
I can assure you I am not a toff but even if I was what difference does it make to the fox? It seems to matter a lot to some posters.

theguzman

freewheeler wrote: »

What an ignorant post...Christ i despair for humanity when i read stuff like this..yes lets kill everything that we deem uneconomic or a nuisance..never mind that other animals and birds are killed by indiscriminate traps and poison..anyone engaging in these sorts of activities should have a serious word with themselves!

If your livelihood depended on it you'd quickly change your tune. Farmers are the keepers of the land and they know what is best, the same people who protest the burning of the hills want to save the foxes too. It all comes down to Jealousy of not having wealth or property of their own. The majority of hunt saboteurs in the UK are welfare class, council housed and with a serious chip on their shoulder.

freewheeler

OldRio wrote: »

Some posts are obviously from people whose prime motive against fox hunting is not welfare of the fox. It's the ill percieved presumption that people who fox hunt have money. The word toffs has been used on numerous occasions.
I can assure you I am not a toff but even if I was what difference does it make to the fox? It seems to matter a lot to some posters.

You're right about one thing it makes no difference to the fox as to who is trying to kill it...but i think most rational and compassionate people (myself included) just find it impossible to understand how some people can't find anything better to do with their time than torture the local wildlife for no good reason. :mad:

theguzman

freewheeler wrote: »

You're right about one thing it makes no difference to the fox as to who is trying to kill it...but i think most rational and compassionate people (myself included) just find it impossible to understand how some people can't find anything better to do with their time than torture the local wildlife for no good reason. :mad:

Foxes are vermin and have to be controlled, killing foxes not only saves the lives of lambs which is the primary economic reason; however Nature gets a welcome boost from lowering their numbers, rabbit numbers increase, countless mice, voles, shrews and birds nests are saved from a cruel death at the hand of the fox. In terms of wildlife the death of one fox saves countless lives in the nature chain.

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

You're right about one thing it makes no difference to the fox as to who is trying to kill it...but i think most rational and compassionate people (myself included) just find it impossible to understand how some people can't find anything better to do with their time than torture the local wildlife for no good reason.

The removal or dispersal of foxes is for very good reasons. Buford has posted many of the reasons about this in detail above and I'd suggest you read those and other posts to know why sometimes this is necessary.

freewheeler

theguzman wrote: »

If your livelihood depended on it you'd quickly change your tune. Farmers are the keepers of the land and they know what is best, the same people who protest the burning of the hills want to save the foxes too. It all comes down to Jealousy of not having wealth or property of their own. The majority of hunt saboteurs in the UK are welfare class, council housed and with a serious chip on their shoulder.

The ignorance continues unabated i see..firstly it has been proven that losses to foxes are negligible in terms of overall lamb mortality rates.
Secondly these venerable 'keepers of the land' think its ok to lay poison indiscriminately which kills ANY animal unfortunate enough to consume and also then poisons its way up the food chain and don't even get me started on snares!!
Oh and just to conclude..people who care about animals 'have no wealth or property'?? really? You really should educate yourself before making such generalised and ignorant comments.

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

The removal or dispersal of foxes is for very good reasons. Buford has posted many of the reasons about this in detail above and I'd suggest you read those and other posts to know why sometimes this is necessary.

The hunting with hounds ban in the UK has had NO significant effect on the numbers of foxes there which completely blows the 'control' argument out of the water (even though they are of course still hunting foxes illegally)

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

The ignorance continues unabated i see..firstly it has been proven that losses to foxes are negligible in terms of overall lamb mortality rates.
Secondly these venerable 'keepers of the land' think its ok to lay poison indiscriminately which kills ANY animal unfortunate enough to consume and also then poisons its way up the food chain and don't even get me started on snares!!Oh and just to conclude..people who care about animals 'have no wealth or property'?? really? You really should educate yourself before making such generalised and ignorant comments.

Ah an expert I see. How about having that conversation with the poster who details the very real dangers of foxes and lambing in several posts above. Exactly where did you pick up the bs that all land owners 'lay poison'. That if you excuse my French - is absolute bollox. I do agree though that "You really should educate yourself before making such generalised and ignorant comments" (sic) ...

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

The hunting with hounds ban in the UK has had NO significant effect on the numbers of foxes there which completely blows the 'control' argument out of the water (even though they are of course still hunting foxes illegally)

You really have read absolutly nothing in this thread. Hunting has nothing to do with large-scale population 'control (sic). It's about dispersing foxes and sometimes removing problem ones in conjunction with local land owners. Some landowners use shooting to this end. The ban in the UK was as a result of a class war and has NOTHING whatsoever got to do with trying to prevent hunting btw. Foxes are still legally shot and eradicated in their thousands by shooting and pest control companies in the UK btw. That you are obviously familiar with the absolute bs of the British anti / sab bolloxology tells me more than anything in your actual comment. We don't need that type of propaganda and bull**** here. Thanks.

theguzman

freewheeler wrote: »

The ignorance continues unabated i see..firstly it has been proven that losses to foxes are negligible in terms of overall lamb mortality rates.
Secondly these venerable 'keepers of the land' think its ok to lay poison indiscriminately which kills ANY animal unfortunate enough to consume and also then poisons its way up the food chain and don't even get me started on snares!!
Oh and just to conclude..people who care about animals 'have no wealth or property'?? really? You really should educate yourself before making such generalised and ignorant comments.

The only animals that eat the rotting meat are foxes and or pet dogs both of which are fair game if found on the land.

You must really know very little about snares as the new types on the market don't kill the animal merely trap them. I have caught Badgers in a snare laid on what I thought was a fox path, let me tell you that I'd have much preferred had it killed him as releasing that badger took thick leather gloves and a fireplace thongs to avoid he biting me.

It is fine to care about animals, what is not okay is to humanise them in the way so many people do with their pets, lets dogs and cats have the run of their houses, despite the smell and disgusting lack of hygiene. People keeping Huskys and Malmutes in their apartments; in my former line of work I often had to go to peoples houses and I would often refuse to carryout my work there because of the presence of a dog there for health and safety reasons.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

So all hunts break the law about animal welfare do they? Every one of them? You better get on to the relevant body and report this astounding statistic.

And what your saying there is that greyhounds are being handed over to be rehomed? Well that's good and a heluva better than the idiots who dump and abandon their pets in this area on a regular basis.

And then in a single broad brushstoke you make an allegetion that 'we (sic) cant expect to show any decency when it comes to the welfare of their dogs'

Who is the 'we' kimo sabe? I presume it's not a royal 'we' - as pointed out we don't have those here. In my personal experience of hunters dogs they are well looked after. Now I can't make that statement about all hunters dogs because I don't know all hunters or their dogs. Just as you don't either. Like all things in life there are the good and the bad. Much like that 'rescue centre' a few years back where the dogs were found starving and in filthy conditions. There was an interesting thread on Boards about it afaik. But then I'll admit such situations are usually in the minority. Most people with hunting dogs imo look after them because thats the right thing to do. But that doesn't suit the narrative does it?

You really need to make a cup of tea, sit down & read posts properly before you rush to reply.

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

Ah an expert I see. How about having that conversation with the poster who details the very real dangers of foxes and lambing in several posts above. Exactly where did you pick up the bs that all land owners 'lay poison'. That if you excuse my French - is absolute bollox. I do agree though that "You really should educate yourself before making such generalised and ignorant comments" (sic) ...

No more of an expert than you (although you seem to think you are) if you'd care to read the post i was replying to the poster claims that landowners do lay poison and are 'right' to do so! ..also get your facts straight at least i never said 'all' landowners do but some do (as you well know I'm sure) a little research wouldn't go amiss on you before you come on here making a fool of yourself! :rolleyes:

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

You really need to make a cup of tea, sit down & read posts properly before you rush to reply.

I read your posts thanks. I would suggest you really need to drop the use of exaggeration and hyperbole before replying at all.

freewheeler

theguzman wrote: »

The only animals that eat the rotting meat are foxes and or pet dogs both of which are fair game if found on the land.

You must really know very little about snares as the new types on the market don't kill the animal merely trap them. I have caught Badgers in a snare laid on what I thought was a fox path, let me tell you that I'd have much preferred had it killed him as releasing that badger took thick leather gloves and a fireplace thongs to avoid he biting me.

It is fine to care about animals, what is not okay is to humanise them in the way so many people do with their pets, lets dogs and cats have the run of their houses, despite the smell and disgusting lack of hygiene. People keeping Huskys and Malmutes in their apartments; in my former line of work I often had to go to peoples houses and I would often refuse to carryout my work there because of the presence of a dog there for health and safety reasons.

Sorry but you are wrong again...many animals and birds eat carrion or in the case of birds-of-prey eat the animals which consume the poison which then kills them too and also you can assure me that no-one is still using the old type snare? ReallY?

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

No more of an expert than you (although you seem to think you are) if you'd care to read the post i was replying to the poster claims that landowners do lay poison and are 'right' to do so! ..also get your facts straight at least i never said 'all' landowners do but some do (as you well know I'm sure) a little research wouldn't go amiss on you before you come on here making a fool of yourself! :rolleyes:

That is one poster - And yes you've implied in turn that all landowners do so. That's is bollox.

freewheeler wrote:

...Secondly these venerable 'keepers of the land' think its ok to lay poison indiscriminately which kills ANY animal unfortunate enough to consume and also then poisons its way up the food chain

Yes I do know about fox predation and hunting methods here as do many other posters on this thread. None of which you clearly have read. Something that is glearingly absent in the information you gleaned from British sabs / antis rubbish social media sites.

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

You really have read absolutly nothing in this thread. Hunting has nothing to do with large-scale population 'control (sic). It's about dispersing foxes and sometimes removing problem ones in conjunction with local land owners. Some landowners use shooting to this end. The ban in the UK was as a result of a class war and has NOTHING whatsoever got to do with trying to prevent hunting btw. Foxes are still legally shot and eradicated in their thousands by shooting and pest control companies in the UK btw. That you are obviously familiar with the absolute bs of the British anti / sab bolloxology tells me more than anything in your actual comment. We don't need that type of propaganda and bull**** here. Thanks.

I've definitely read the posts from people who obviously know what they're talking about and i can see that that's not you! 'Propaganda' haha thats a laugh the levels of ignorance on here from you and others frankly beggars belief.

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

That is one poster - And yes you've implied in turn that all landowners do so. That's is bollox.



Yes I do know about fox predation and hunting methods here as do many other posters on this thread. None of which you clearly have read. Something that is glearingly absent in the information you gleaned from British sabs / antis rubbish social media sites.

I have never implied that all landowners do this if you choose to interpret my posts that way thats up to you...i notice that you don't wish to comment on those who do?
Also you have no idea (a common theme) where i get my information from?

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

I've definitely read the posts from people who obviously know what they're talking about and i can see that that's not you! 'Propaganda' haha thats a laugh the levels of ignorance on here from you and others frankly beggars belief.

Nope. If you had read posts in this thread you would have thought twice before stupid statements such about foxes not killing lambs , poison etc. Your quoting such rubbish about the UK says enough. I've seen the same rubbish here repeated ad nauseum.

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. If you had read posts in this thread you would have thought twice before stupid statements such about foxes killing lambs , poison etc. Your quoting such rubbish says enough.

you still choose to ignore my question....no surprise there...

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

you still choose to ignore my question....no surprise there...

Was there a question amongst that diatribe?

freewheeler

freewheeler wrote: »

I have never implied that all landowners do this if you choose to interpret my posts that way thats up to you...i notice that you don't wish to comment on those who do?
Also you have no idea (a common theme) where i get my information from?

just a couple of posts back...as i said a little bit of research goes a long way!:rolleyes:

gozunda

freewheeler wrote: »

just a couple of posts back...as i said a little bit of research goes a long way!

Thats as clear as mud. And the actual question was?

If by chance it's about your repeating irrelevant UK anti / sab rubbish.

This was your very first comment to me

The hunting with hounds ban in the UK has had NO significant effect on the numbers of foxes there which completely blows the 'control' argument out of the water (even though they are of course still hunting foxes illegally)

And yes I've seen the same repeated ad nasuem on same. No surprise there then

freewheeler

gozunda wrote: »

Thats as clear as mud. And the actual question was?

If by chance it's about your repeating irrelevant UK anti / sab rubbish.

This was your very first comment to me



And yes I've seen the same repeated ad nasuem on same. No surprise there then

If you'd care to actually read the posts in this thread i stated that you have NO IDEA where i get my information from ( a point you choose to ignore)

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: Seeing as the ability to discuss the topic without insulting the opposition seems to have deserted us, I'd say this thread has run its course.


I'm sure a similar topic shall reappear in the very near future so take care until we reconvene there.


Buford T. Justice.