“Okay so given the choice between the rather sinister AH from Norfolk who manages to save bullets by just using one on a mother and allowing all her children to starve and a bunch of toffs who's activities don't actually kill many foxes and are generally just there to enjoy the riding and a bit of mutual blood smearing afterwards, it seems we have banned the latter.

Would it really be better if all the horay Henries and Henriettas got down of their horses, armed themselves and engaged in modern efficient fox control.

I'm unconvinced. Although they would probably wipe out our fox population and several of each other in the process so maybe it would be a solution of sorts....

Personally when a fox rifles through my bins I generally just shout at it or maybe throw a shoe. It may be inefficient but it works for me.”

“Oh yes it is Oh no it isn't

To be honest Giles - just carry on what you're doing and stop telling us about it - I don't have the time to spell out in words of one syllable.
As you make assumptions of numbers that I didn't declare your logic fails.

Nice to see the city view.”

“The idea that Fox Hunting is efficient fox control is complete nonsense. The truth is that hunts encourage foxes to breed so they can hunt them.

I manage a large estate and every spring we were told to lay off the foxes to give them a chance to breed. Since the ban we come down on them hardest during the spring. Each vixen we take out means a whole den of cubs. This is much more effective.

As for wounded foxes, they are very unlikely to breed.

A good countryman with a few chaps to help can keep a large area of land virtually fox free.

The truth is that most people who go hunting do not have a clue about fox control, they are just there for the fun of it.

If they got down off their high horses and used a gun then they could kill far more animals.”

“The fact is that when someonetakes their horse to a hunt and chases a fox and hounds he/she is not doing it because they feel the need to control fox numbers or to perform the role of an apex predator. They are doing it because it is fun and they are satisfying a hunting instinct that we all have, although in most people it is sublimated into another, seemingly unrelated activity (even trainspotting, you might argue, certainly bird spotting or wildlife photography).

The question is whether hunting in its raw form is acceptable in today's society. Arguments pro and con could take account, for example, of the fact that for thousands of years we have manipulated animal populations by domestication, and the conditions under which this is done are still less than optimum from the animal's point of view - just come and look at the herd of Holstein-Friesians down the road from my house - they have less flesh on their bones that a corpse from Belsen.”

“BN -- Your argument does not actually make sense. If there were a humane trap that caught only 5% of the population of course it would not be pointless! In fact replacing some of the less humane means of killing foxes with that trap would be a good thing surely? And we could always use twice as many traps couldn't we! Under your logic we would ban it because it wasn't 'efficient' enough or because we didn't like the people using it.

I have to say Giles does seem to be right when he says that your position is not informed by any concern for animal welfare. I wonder what it is based on.

I also strongly disagree with you when you say that logic and evidence has nothing to do with the debate. Such a contentious law should be logical. The fact that it isn't is one of its failings. This is recognised by all sides.

Giles -- I think the world and his wife now know that the Hunting Act as it applies to your activities makes no sense. They obviously accept this as otherwise you would have been prosecuted a long time ago. Unless your aim is to wind them up by making them look stupid maybe tone it down a touch and concentrate on the welfare/ecology angle? Much more interesting!

Mike -- you are coming across as very small minded in my opinion. Perhaps try and lift the level of your debate a little.

And all of you -- play nicely now!”

“When I have the fox hounds on my land I know they may well catch and kill a fox if one is lingering round. That's a natural consequence of allowing a pack of dogs to rampage round an area.

Sorry BN but no matter what you think this isn't going to stop happening.”

“ps kindly point out where I am being insulting BN.

Or are you insulted by the fact that the law is too stupid for me to bother obeying and too stupid for the police to be able to stop me breaking?

I can understand that you might feel strongly about this and infuriated that there is nothing you can do to make me obey the law however maybe you should try and get a Government capable of passing a decent one. Just a suggestion :D”

“You simply miss the point I am making BN.

We know that shooting produces wounded foxes which suffer horribly.

We also know that the search and dispatch function of hunting is the most effective way to root out and kill these animals.

Hunting compliments shooting as a means of control. It would be better if there was more hunting and less shooting because this would mean less wounded animals.

Why would a humane way of killing 5% of the population be pointless is the alternative was more cruel? There is no logic in that statement whatsoever.

Hunting is completely economic because it is paid for by the mounted field who get a good day out. There is no wider economic cost either to the landowner or the country as a whole.”

“Ah, the descent to insults and childish petulance - took a while.
Little of this issue is based on logic - an interesting concept in this debate - and plenty on supposition rather than real evidence.
As usual you have missed the point
One of the arguments of hunters is that it is an effective way of controlling fox numbers yet they account for such a small percentage that this is clearly nonsense (strangely one of the defences used to be that they rarely caught one)
It is therefore not an efficient control.
To reach a meaningfull percentage we would end up with hunts running across the countryside almost daily. That sounds like a rather expensive option and therefore inefficient from an economic viewpoint. Were they to run so often this would become the exclusive realm of the 'toffs' so rather playing to the bigots you love so much.
Even if I accept your position that it causes less suffering than the vast majority of deaths(which I don't) your figures still leave 405,000 who die more horribly.

Any method of control has to be evaluated on a quantitative basis as if the quantity is too low it isn't controlling (but see my previous comment regarding your qualitative measure). For example: a humane trap is a pointless piece of equipment if it only catches 5% of the population.

At the end of the day, no matter how you dress it up (pun intended), hunting is a sport of a type that should not be tollerated in a civilised country. If it were not a sport you would only get half a dozen participants.
The sooner the ban which is supported by the majority (how apropriate in a democracy) is accepted the better”

“Beaten Mike? What are your grounds for saying that?

No one has yet persuaded me that there are good grounds for me to stop chasing deer on my land with dogs.

The chances of me being prosecuted for doing so are extremely remote because the police aren't interested and the politicians know they have made a stupid law.

You're only chance of getting me to stop what I do would be to persuade me there is something wrong with it and I am afraid you have failed so you need to put up with it.

As for the Tories not getting in because of the hunting issue. You are having a laugh I assume?

:D :D

did you see the latest opinion polls?

All sides agree the law is a mess and the Tories are the only party promising a free vote to resolve it.

I will never stop doing what I do because I know it is a less cruel option than shooting.”