Fox hunting and other country matters

Also, unfortunately I think this is probably a politically astute move from May - the hunting community gave a lot of support to Conservatives in previous years, so she's giving them a carrot to keep them campaigning for the Tories, and she's calculated that Labour are in such a shit state that she can get away with it this time.

Not arsed about foxes but hate the wankers who do it. Fuck wankers!

Iirc my grandfather stopped the local hunt crossing his land

Do "the hunt" have any right to swan across people's land in pursuit or do they have to ask permission first? Surely they cover great distances on their epic conquests to kill foxes.

They don't have a right - they (in an ideal world) get the landowners permission in advance and cooperate with them. Those few who do charge around willy-nilly as if they're entitled to be there give the majority of hunts a bad name.

Good to know. Thought there may be some arcane countryside law of: Toffs on horses can go wherever and whenever in the pursuit of murders.

I've never found the population control argument that convincing; have fox populations exploded since the hunting ban? As to shooting, is there any reason why you need trained marksmen to shoot foxes but not rabbits?

I can see there's an appeal to thundering around the countryside in a group - I quite like to do the same on a bike - but I don't see why that urge can't be fulfilled by point-to-points and drag hunting.

majority of hunts a bad name.

They've all already got a bad name, and they are cunts.

Other country matters

Swarms of lycra clad city dweller cyclists clogging our country lanes without even paying road tax. I stopped a few last weekend by driving at them when they didn't give way that gave them a taste of their own medicine the lower class cunts that they are dropping litter everywhere and generally getting in the way. #aboutthelevelofthisthread

is there any reason why you need trained marksmen to shoot foxes but not rabbits?

The most efficient way I've heard of to reduce a rabbit population (short of myxomatosis) is lamping i.e., on the back of a landrover with a big spotlight and some people with shotguns. Rabbits are small enough that a shotgun will usually kill them quickly, or at least disable them enough to get to them and finish them off by hand.

Foxes, as I understand it, are tougher than that. You need pretty heavy shot in a shotgun to kill them, which most people don't carry round with them (which makes spontaneously shooting them if you're out for edible stuff unlikely). As a result you'd usually use a rifle to kill them. Rifle shooting needs tighter control and more training as the bullets carry further (shotgun pellets are ineffective above a couple of hundred yards).

finish them off by hand

Fnar.

Rabbits are classified as vermin but foxes are not, hence why you are allowed to shoot them willy nilly.

Its worth remembering that its not just foxes that you can't tear to pieces with packs of hounds, its any animal that is not classified as vermin that you can't touch like that.

Hares, foxes etc are off limits. Rabbits and people with less money than you are fair game.

Lamping for rabbits with dogs is pretty popular in East Anglia. And perfectly legal of course.

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'

Fnar.

I assure you it's not a happy finish for either party.

Still cunts though.

^^^ this. Foxes are bigger and more skittish so you need a big rifle to kill them. These rifles are more expensive, need more complex licensing and therefore more training.

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....)

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.

Well aye; but if you're a farmer out rough shooting and worried about foxes on your land how much extra faff is it to stick a couple of buckshot cartridges in your pockets?
And is thundering about the countryside with 30 horses at a time actually a better pest control method (hunting advocates always make a big deal about how the noble fox often gets away...)? Because if not, the argument against drag hunting seems to be 'fuck you, we like tearing animals apart like we always did'.

Well aye; but if you're a farmer out rough shooting and worried about foxes on your land how much extra faff is it to stick a couple of buckshot cartridges in your pockets?

Unfortunately, by the time you've switched out the rabbit/pigeon shot for the buckshot the fox will have fucked off. That was really my point. Getting within clear shotgun range of a fox is sufficiently unlikely that it's not worth going around with suitable shot already loaded. Culling foxes is something you need to go about in a very focussed systematic way AFAIK.

And is thundering about the countryside with 30 horses at a time actually a better pest control method

I don't know. I wouldn't really defend fox hunting as a pest control method other than by saying, "if people want to spend their own time and money controlling pests in an inefficient way let them get on with it. " My issue with the ban was really that the arguments against hunting weren't clear or specific enough.

Gotcha - I hadn't realised country foxes were quite so wary; I'm only really familiar with the Saarf London kind, usually facing me off over a bin-bag...

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.

Well hold on a moment. If they aren't in it for the killing, why the fuck are they involved with a hunt. You don't need to try and kill a fox in a fundamentally unhumane way to thunder around the countryside at high speed. So any involvement is pretty much condoning the practice.

People in the countryside feel like their way of life has been needlessly interefered with based on prejudice and misunderstanding

As a person who grew up in the countryside and has always been against hunting, I think I can safely say that that statement is

largely based on emotions and with scant evidence

Here's the thing though, despite the prejudice and misunderstanding, there's a lot of evidence showing that the practice is inhumane. Arguing for it, and by extension, participation in a hunt, whether you see the kill or not, is a statement that you think it's acceptable. What else then is acceptable to hunt members? Kitten punching, kicking buzzards, shitting in the eyes of a badger?

Perhaps we ought to look at another side of an argument and ask what is it about people participating in a hunt that doesn't make them terrible people trying to preserve a redundant yet elitist and inaccessable tradition?

So then

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'

Kudos for sticking your neck out on this. I've found I was wrong to make the assumption, based on my own experience, that it was just ignorant, predjudiced 'townies' that opposed hunting, just as it's wrong to assume it's only the posh who hunt, or are involved in hunting. It's not been brought up yet that many who support hunting don't hunt themselves, but are part of the economy that relies on it. None of this, however, diminishes people's perfectly valid moral reaction against bloodsports.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that they still do it? They still ride around on horses getting pissed chasing foxes, with dogs (for 'flushing out'), so what's the issue? If it is really just about riding around having fun on horses, there's nothing to stop them?