-
Fair enough; but is it then just a matter of tribal​ politics that means they can't just accept thundering about the countryside without the killing at the end of it?
Wouldn't a shotgun loaded with buckshot do for a fox? (I've only ever shot at inanimate objects....)
Thrustvector-
Wouldn't a shotgun loaded with buckshot do for a fox? (I've only ever shot at inanimate objects....)
Why not just use a rifle then? Buckshot (as in heavy gauge shot) isn't good for anything you'd want to eat as it would just mince it, plus you'd still have to get closer than you would with a rifle, which is tricky because rural foxes are quite wary. If you're out rough shooting and came across a fox, even if you wanted to shoot it and were allowed to do so, the shot you'd have loaded for rabbit or pigeon would be too light to be sure of killing a fox. Plus shotguns are a bit less certain than rifles at range, because the shot always has a variable pattern.
ffm
Fair enough - I don't any any evidence beyond anecdotal about fox populations pre and post ban right now so will look in to it later. TBH I think that's symptomatic of the whole debate - largely based on emotions and with scant evidence. In terms of the hunting, most people who partake don't do it for the sick thrill of seeing an animal killed (the vast majority of the field are nowhere near when a fox is killed). Rather, they do it as it's damn good fun thundering around the countryside at high speed with your mates. That's a key misunderstanding, encapsulated by the cunt-slinging brigade in here, because it immediately writes off a large number of decent people (who might have different views towards the death of animals due to the nature of living in the countryside, but are by no means psychopaths) as bloodthirsty lunatics. People in the countryside feel like their way of life has been needlessly interefered with based on prejudice and misunderstanding, and would like to reverse the ban to stick one in the eye of the 'townies'