That figure was probably cited from here mate, which obtained it's data from the Journal of Applied Ecology. Estimates are apparently derived from a mesure invoving faecal density! ....... Talk about a **** job!!! ;) :D

http://www.league.org.uk/our-campaig...ing--the-myths

See the link posted by NS04, all I did was click and read. :thumb:

Well, I have to say I'm truly astonished. Those numbers really do add up to more than two foxes a week per hunt on average, so unless it's very common for a hunt to catch many foxes per outing, the people who ride with them really must have very little else to do of a weekend.

As the article explains though, even if those are accurate figures, the effectiveness of hunting as a method of population control seems rather questionable.

20,000 more multiplied year on year is a lot of foxes especially when your typical litter could be as many as 8 cubs, if dogs are anything to go by. :eek:

Yeah but a good 6 won't make it to adult hood , at a guess

No way does a hunt always catch a fox either ! :Suspiciou

Just a thought: I sometimes wonder what would happen if the government legalised replacing the lure used in Greyhound racing with a real rabbit. Rabbits are a significantly more costly "pest" to agriculture than foxes ......

Ironically, rabbits are a chief prey item for Mr Fox. :D

But with more and more venturing into towns and cities, available food sources and no predators, wait until all the lovely pampered moggies start to appear torn to pieces on the front lawn, then we'll see how fluffy and lovely the fox is. ;)

Foxes will go for the easy prey, hence chicken pens and lambs being popular.

I love rabbit hunting and they taste great too. :thumb:

Ha, in my experience foxes are very wary of cats! My old tom cat, a vicious creature that terrified dogs too, had no problem going for fox intruders. I'm not sure how pampered fluffy cats would fare with them though!

Surely we wold have seen more shredded moggies before now .....!

So now you're saying that human argicultural and farming methods have interferred with a fox's predation behviour, basically presenting them with an easy dinner and therefore because they've taken advantage of our kind offer they have to suffer? ;) That's entrapment surely :D


If you look at the paper that the estimate is derived from it's a survey of land owners so has the usual limitations in self report data compared to the looking for biological markers of population density.

Given that support for the hunt is likely more prevalent in this demographic is would be in their interests to inflate this figure to justify the hunt as being necessary and effective in keeping numbers they might be liable to inflate the figures. In all liklihood the figures are higher than actuality.

As for the whole, "it's still x thousand foxes that would have been free to have lot of more babies" it doesn't work like that; for starters not all of those animals will make it past being a cub, let alone survive to reproductive age. Also, If I recall there is evidence to suggest that large litters tend to occur in areas where mortality rates are high - as one might expect.

But even if all of them did reproduce and the population needed to be culled the point remains:

CULLING IF IT IS NECESSARY SHOULD NOT INVOLVE PROTRACTED SUFFERING FOR AN ANIMAL AND SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF ENTERTAINMENT!

There really is no defence to that point that I can see apart from something that equates to

"F*ck off, I like hunting animals more than I care about the impact that the method employed in the hunt has on the animal and I should have the right to do this"

The response to which is, of course: No you shouldn't .......you c**t! ;):D

You posted the article, but now only want to accept the aspects that agree with your point of view. :lol1:

I don't believe statistics as they are generally manufactured / results tainted to support the view point of those collecting them.

As for the name calling / conversation with yourself.

Well done, very mature of you. :thumb:

Tbh I also think class war plays a part in it, but the sad thing is it's ordinary working country folk that have been worst hit.

We'll have to wait a few years yet, but as generations of foxes get bigger and braver, I think there will come a day when towns people wish they'd thought a little harder about the consequences.

Depends how many chinese resturants are in the locality! ;) :D

The whole "think about your cats thing" is a total straw man argument! I don't care how many moggies Mr Foxy Woxy tears to bits, it's still not acceptable to make a barbaric and inhumane sport out of population control!

Awaiting the daily mail esque:

Foxes:
Cause cancer
Are responsible for Global warming
The immigrant opoulation influx
and the persecuation of the Jews. :lol1:

How badly does Mr Foxy (or any animal) have to screw up before they are not worthy of humane consideration and treatment!

Er ........:wonder: Begginning to wonder if you're trolling now or just being plain silly! I'll bite for the interim!

Lets just say -for argument's sake- the stats are accurate. THAT IS EVEN WORSE FOR THE HUNT BRIGADE!! Because even with the higher figures in the article hunting still accounts for a very small proportion of the total number of animals culled thus negating the argument that hunting makes a significant contribution to culling!! I was simply offering a methodological critique of the evidence.

I've yet to see ANY evidence from the pro hunt brigade to support hunting other than rehetoric demonising the fox as a mindless killer (which is unsubstantiated bollox - they are a predator and, like many successful predatory creatures are not beyond opportunism. Opportunism that is often man made, btw) and somehow trying to suggest that they are beneath humane consideration.

HOWEVER, LETS JUST SAY IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY THE HUNT WAS TOTALLY EFFECTIVE IN POPULATION CONTROL AND THAT SAID POPULATION CONTROL WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY/ THERE IS STILL THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE LAW SHOULD PERMIT POPULATION CONTROL USING AN INHUMAE METHOD OF CULLING THAT AT PRIMA FACIE SEEMS TO OWE MORE TO BLOODLUST THAN EFFICACY!

And just to clarify, this is not a personal attack on you Ditchmeister! But, honestly, do you really think that supporting fox hunting reflects well on your character?

Descending to racist comments about Chinese restaurants is a poor effort, and having no concerns about torn up cats undermines your argument. By your reckoning it's apparently ok for a fox to tear cats apart but not ok for a pack of dogs to return the favour. Why is that?

This is the same logic displayed by the 'animal rights' idiots, who thought it was fine to save the poor mink by releasing them into the wild, without any thought to the enormous damage to wildlife these little monsters have subsequently caused.

It's not about class conflict; the demographic that are best represented in the hunt is incidental. Some things transcend class, just as some things transcend religion.

Humanity, compassion and reason are three of them!

Fox hunting has very little of any of the above as far as I can see.

Oh please, you can't think I was being serious with the Chinese resturant quip. :rolleyes:

I'm really starting to wonder about the thinking of some of the posters on here.

I did not say it was "ok" for foxes to tear cats to pieces, but not ok for dogs to tear foxes apart. My point was about "straw man" arguments that try and justify inhumane behaviour by demonising the animal concerned.

Again, lets overlook the lack of evidence for the incidence of such attacks by the pro hunt brigade and assume that Foxes are public enemy number one as far as cats are concerned.

It's still not a justification for the law or any individual to condone an inhuman method of culling!

This will sound strange but here goes.

I'm not supporting Fox Hunting per say, more what goes along with it as part of maintaining a way of life, I don't think that city people should come out into the countryside and start to dictate just because it offends their delicate sensibilities.

Killing is killing and I don't think that hunting with hounds is the only solution, or aspect of Fox control, but it does bring much needed revenue and employ many many people, but in my long post on the previous page I go some way to explaining about what goes hand in hand with it.

Many aspects of country life are un-paletable, plain and simple, to make an example of Fox hunting as mentioned smacks more of class war and indeed that was a large part of what got the vote through in the first place, not helped by a bunch of what appeared to be toffs marching on Westminster.

I just worry where all this will lead future generations when there are no people left that understand the countryside and all the farm houses are weekend getaways, much like many places here in Croatia that have turned to overgrown jungle that would take years to return to productive farmland, even if people could agree who owns what and what needs to be done.

This is the thin end of the wedge as I said earlier, once key skills and knowledge have gone, they've gone for good.

pro hunters also seem to use the "tradition" argument

as if it has any real significance - and has some inherent "rightness" about it simply because it is a "tradition"

And most of the anti-hunt posters on here will tuck into their meat-based meal tonight without a thought as to where and how this may have been produced. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Very true, and when we no longer produce anything and have to buy 99% of our produce of dubious origin from other countries at inflated prices, in 30/50yrs and theres no one left that knows how to cultivate and manage the land, we'll be like that movie with the Matrix guy, piles of rubbish everywhere and trying to feed crops with gator aid wondering why they won't grow.

Heritage is something to be proud of, you gota know where you're from to know where you're going.

Skills are passed down through generations from father to son, which I'm sure is something you can appreciate, just because some may find it dis-tasteful doesn't make certain aspects of it less important.

There are plenty of people living in rural areas who don't agree with fox hunting so the continual pointing of fingers at it's 'townies' interfering is utter bollox.

I know my dinner won't have been chased by a pack of hounds for fun and the lust for cruelty. Instead it's been farmed for food production. So once again another attempt at a comparison that is no where near a valid one.

sure, that's just an argument for allowing men to stand around in white robes, pointy hats in front of a burning cross

I'm sure there are as in any community, I'll also wager they don't earn their lively hood from associated industries.

I wouldn't go so far as to say utter bollocks though. :thumb:

:lol1: Good point and there's no harm in that, as long as no one is nailed to it.:thumb:

I don't see any argument for hunting with dogs on horseback being necessary for population control. Yes, it helps, but then so does having traffic running them over.

In which case, fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that any activity which inflicts pain and suffering on animals for the sake of human enjoyment has no place in a modern, civilised, society, irrespective of "tradition".

Whether that's bull fighting, fox hunting with horses and hounds or anything else for that matter.

It was "tradition" to burn witches at the stake. And in more recent times in several US states to lynch blacks. So lets not get hung up on keeping traditions alive for the sake of it.

Being farmed for food production keeps your conscience clear does it?

Being a farmer's son I spent a lot of time cleaning out and feeding our very many pigs. They led a reasonable if short life but I like to think we did the best for them in the circumstances. But I have to tell you that my first few visits to the slaughterhouse with a truckload of our pigs was traumatic in the extreme. Having been quiet during the journey they would go into a flat panic as we drove into the yard - they seemed to know what was coming to them. The process they then endured was clinical, cold and heartless. I resolved then that while I would happily defend the farmers I definitely didn't want to be one. Given the choice between being one of those pigs, condemned from day one to a certain and unpleasant death, I would take my chances as a fox any day.

Errr, seriously?