Hunting ban

[AMax 0]

Quote

You are under a common misconception, Animals suffer on the way to slaughter houses
and suffer even more at the slaughter house .

I am not trying to make idealistic suggestion that the animals in slaughter houses do not suffer. My points are:

1) Hunting for food is unnecessary because the vast majority of human population can always buy the meat in stores and those who starve do not hunt.
2) Many kinds of animals popular for hunting (foxes, wolves ect) cannot be used for food.
3) The argument that hunting is absolutely necessary for maintaining a balance in animal populations is completely overstated.
4) The actually reason that drives the vast majority of hunters is FUN (I am talking from personal experience here) All the other arguments are just pathetic excuses.

Edit for spelling

[Zep 0]

Quote

Quote

First I was talking about England with a population of over 55 million people
and a land mass smaller than Texas.
the free spaces where there are wild animals have to be managed
The wild deer are in smallish heards or on private estates.
Stags are moved round the country every couple of years to prevent inbreeding
as a geneticist this you should understand

Your last comment on killing people I have decided to ignore

I still do not get the gene pool argument.
Lets try to dissect the problem using a simple model. Lets say we have 5 families of foxes derived from five different pairs of parents in county A and 5 families of foxes derived from five different pairs of parents in county B. Counties A and B are completely isolated (migration is impossible).

Are you saying that by eliminating some of these animals in county A you will help to avoid inbreeding problem?

No, Imagine a heard of deer in a woodland area this heard is say twenty strong the woodland is thirty acres
the stags do not have access to other heards, with out culling the heard will grow to big for the thirty acres to sustain it.
this culling is our version of hunting.
Now how long can a species go without injecting new blood ie: new genes from imported stags, I dont know how many generations
a deer can go before it suffers from genetic defects.

Gone fishing

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

You are under a common misconception, Animals suffer on the way to slaughter houses
and suffer even more at the slaughter house .

I am not trying make to idealistic suggestion that the animals in slaughter houses do not suffer. My points are:

1) Hunting for food is unnecessary because the vast majority of human population can always buy the meat in stores and those who starve do not hunt.
2) Many kinds of animals popular for hunting (foxes, wolves ect) cannot be used for food.
3) The argument that hunting is absolutely necessary for maintaining a balance in animal populations is completely overstated.
4) The actually reason that drives the vast majority of hunters is FUN (I am talking from personal experience here) All the other arguments are just pathetic excuses.

Edit for spelling

Perhaps in Tex, point 4 is applicable.

For us over here in Europe, point 3 - even not completed - is the begin of an explantion. The ending is BS. Nothing is overstated or what else. We do not have any balance on wild animals here. So we have to intrude into the nature.

Since 16 yrs, I try to explain what hunting means.
Since a more than 3 yrs, I try to explain what skydiving means to me.

Yawn....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[christelsabine 1]

Hi Zep,
Why don't you try to write in proper English? Perhaps folks understand you better, man. I really have troubles to translate what you write. It's hard enough for an uneducated European to understand what the Islanders have to tell to the world...
Please.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[AMax 0]

Quote

Now how long can a species go without injecting new blood ie: new genes from imported stags, I dont know how many generations
a deer can go before it suffers from genetic defects.

Oh there is doubt about that. However, I am a bit surprised that injection of new blood into isolated animal sub populations is what regular hunters do. The fact that sometimes there is indeed a need to maintain the interpolulation crosses (to prevent inbreeding) does not justify 99.9% of hunting.
C'mon. I have grown up with hunters, I have known many hunters and I have heard this "we need to kill some of these wolves because if we don't, the situation will get out of control" bulshit to many times. Let me repeat, I strongly believe that the ultimate driving force for most hunters is FUN rather that a will to help mother nature to maintain the balance.

[AMax 0]

Quote

Perhaps in Tex, point 4 is applicable.
For us over here in Europe, point 3 - even not completed - is the begin of an explantion. The ending is BS. Nothing is overstated or what else. We do not have any balance on wild animals here. So we have to intrude into the nature.

Well. I am not trying to act like I know better but I have a PhD degree in biology and have taken a class on dynamics of population in college.
Since you have such a strong opinion on importance of hunting on control of sub populations, do you mind identifying the source of information?

Ed to spell check again

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps in Tex, point 4 is applicable.
For us over here in Europe, point 3 - even not completed - is the begin of an explantion. The ending is BS. Nothing is overstated or what else. We do not have any balance on wild animals here. So we have to intrude into the nature.

Well. I am not trying to act like I know better but I have a PhD degree in biology and have taken a class on dynamics of population in college.
Since you have such a strong opinion on importance of hunting on control of sub populations, do you mind identifying the source of information?

Ed to spell check again

Hi,
I doubt that your PhD degree will help you in clarifying the matter of the infringement into wildlife here in Europe. Why don't you just do a google search? A hunter knows clearly what I want to point out. If you never heard about the problem hunters have to explain their "works", I am sorry, I will and cannot help you. There's too much of explanation needed, that will take my whole night, which I prefer to spend in my bed as tomorrow, my work is waiting. Sorry.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[AMax 0]

Quote

I doubt that your PhD degree will help you in clarifying the matter of the infringement into wildlife here in Europe. Why don't you just do a google search?

Lets say. someone starts a post that all republicans in US are idiots. Then the other person replies that all democrats are idiots. I decide to clarify the point for myself and do a Google search. What kind of result I am going to get?

I just wanted to see if your strong point is supported by SCIENTIFIC evidence.

Here is one example from Nature magazine (one the top scientific magazines)

Unique Identifier
14668862
Authors
Coltman DW. O'Donoghue P. Jorgenson JT. Hogg JT. Strobeck C. Festa-Bianchet M.
Institution
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. [email protected]
Title
Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting.
Source
Nature. 426(6967):655-8, 2003 Dec 11.
Abbreviated Source
Nature. 426(6967):655-8, 2003 Dec 11.
Local Messages
ONLINE & CURRENTLY RECD AT SOUTHLIB
Abstract
Phenotype-based selective harvests, including trophy hunting, can have important implications for sustainable wildlife management if they target heritable traits. Here we show that in an evolutionary response to sport hunting of bighorn trophy rams (Ovis canadensis) body weight and horn size have declined significantly over time. We used quantitative genetic analyses, based on a partly genetically reconstructed pedigree from a 30-year study of a wild population in which trophy hunting targeted rams with rapidly growing horns, to explore the evolutionary response to hunter selection on ram weight and horn size. Both traits were highly heritable, and trophy-harvested rams were of significantly higher genetic 'breeding value' for weight and horn size than rams that were not harvested. Rams of high breeding value were also shot at an early age, and thus did not achieve high reproductive success. Declines in mean breeding values for weight and horn size therefore occurred in response to unrestricted trophy hunting, resulting in the production of smaller-horned, lighter rams, and fewer trophies.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Meat processing plant does it better, quicker meaning that the animals do not suffer.

I know many who would disagree with this statement, myself included.

Quote

Plus ... you dot not normally eat foxes, wolves and many other animals people hunt.

Perhaps not, but many do make use of the pelts.

One thing is clear to me, that you have a bias against hunting (whether it's founded based on logic or emotion is irrelevant at this point) and there's absolutely nothing that will change your mind. With that, I'm done.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[AMax 0]

Oh ... there is one more. Again in recent Nature article and this time right on target.
Fox hunting in Britain.

Unique Identifier
12214224
Authors
Baker PJ. Harris S. Webbon CC.
Institution
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK. [email protected]

Title
Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers.[see comment].
Source
Nature. 419(6902):34, 2002 Sep 5.
Abbreviated Source
Nature. 419(6902):34, 2002 Sep 5.

Local Messages
ONLINE & CURRENTLY RECD AT SOUTHLIB
Abstract
Pressure to ban the hunting of foxes with hounds in Britain has fuelled debate about its contribution to the control of fox populations. We took advantage of a nationwide one-year ban on fox-hunting during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 2001 to examine this issue and found that the ban had no measurable impact on fox numbers in randomly selected areas. Our results argue against suggestions that fox populations would increase markedly in the event of a permanent ban on hunting.

[AMax 0]

Quote

I know many who would disagree with this statement, myself included.

If you ever chased a wounded animal for hours you know what I am talking about. Yes, there are "clean" shots, but there are "not so clean" shuts too. While hunting with my dad (who I must say is pretty good at it) we lost a number of wounded animals including wolves and foxes. Tell me they suffer less than a slaughtered cow

I started this argument because I truly believe that "control of animal populations" is a plain BS that hunters use to justify their hobby. If you have some evidence against this statement – please post it.

[craddock 0]

Quote

I started this argument because I truly believe that "control of animal populations" is a plain BS that hunters use to justify their hobby. If you have some evidence against this statement – please post it.

Why? Are you going to take up hunting then?

Right now the Wolf pack population in Northern WI is approaching double what the WDNR would like to maintain. They are in the proccess of trying to implement a season up here to take the burdon off of the DNR to reduce the pack numbers. A recent ruling out West has complicated the issue even as far as the methods the DNR use to control this over population.
The White tail deer has been over populated for years. This year we had an extended season in the southern part of the state that was about 3 1/2 months due to the population and more specifically Chronic Wasting Disease(CWD). Other parts of the state had multiple (early, late) hunts as well as opposed to the traditional 10 day season. It is a problem up here. When I started hunting you had to apply for a doe permit and you were lucky to get one. Now in a better part of the state you are forced to shoot a doe before you can harvest a Buck.
If you don't like it , don't fucking hunt.
As far as purchasing meat. It is very hard to find Venison and if you can you are going to pay a fortune for it. Not only is properly selected and harvested venison much more delicious, but it is SO much more healthy for you. (very few people do these steps properly much less the preparing process, and as a result many people have never truly enjoyed good venison) I love Grouse and Pheasant also. I don't see that at the supermarket much.
As far as suffering the two deer I took last year were both shot through the neck and did not take a step.

IMO, nothing suffers as much as a fish, and it does not matter if it is purchased or caught. You can take a fish out of cold water and it will live for hours dying a slow death. Once you get home and fillet it so that all that is left is the head, entrails, spine and the tail, the fish will still continue to live for a period of time. What do you think is done different with the fish you buy.
Hey it may not be very Humane, but after all there not human and they taste damn good.

If you don't like it don't eat it.

But you don't have a fucking clue why I hunt.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Newbie 0]

thanks Kennedy

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mr2mk1g 10]

I'm really mad that this government has spent so much time on an issue which the vast proportion of the population really couldn't give a damn about.

When asked if they agree or disagree with hunting with a pack of hounds it is true that a majority will say 'disagree'. However, when a third option of "don't care" is provided the VAST majority go for it. [my half-assed memory of mori polls from last year].

Last year in a Radio 4 interview John Prescot impressed me for the first time in history (I had to park up for a while and catch my breath). He made what was essentially a classic Prescot booboo. The subject turned to fox hunting and he stumbled out with the fact that he couldn't see why there was all the fuss about such a little issue.

The interviewer of course pounced, asking if he thought an issue which affected the lives of thousands of people and had spawned street protests could really be described as a “little issue”. Yes - he felt in the grand scheme of things, set against global warming, Iraq, international terrorism, the economy etc whether or not foxes are killed by a pack of hounds or killed by men with guns is a really trivial thing.

For once I found myself agreeing with Fatty-Two-Jags.

I also thought there was a kind of poetic justice in the fact that the day after the animal rights nuts got their way men went out and shot 128 foxes to demonstrate what a pyrrhic victory it was.

On the other hand… if the huntsmen had just abided by the compromise agreement they’d worked out I think it’s likely they would have been able to keep their sport.

[Ripple 0]

Firstly, I completely agree with mr2mk1g. In the overall scheme of things, this is such a trivial issue.

I do feel that the real reason that anyone is against fox hunting is the perception that those who hunt are "rich, drunk , pompous assholes". Not that killing a fox using hounds is cruel.

I really feel that this issue needs to be looked at in a far less emotive, more balanced way.

When a fox kills, it will kill more than it will eat at that one time. It buries surplus food as a store to ensure future provisions. This is pretty frugal and clever but has been misunderstood as wanton killing in the fox. Nevertheless, this does mean that farmers and other livestock producers do suffer large losses. Foxes will also kill pets as they move into urban areas.

So, there is no doubt that as the fox doesn't have a natural predator, fox numbers need to be controlled. Just as, for example, deer are culled.

Now, killing a fox with hounds. Perhaps it is cruel, I don't know. All I can say is I've seen this quite a few times (admittedly I haven't hunted in the last 14 years) and each time its been fast. The hounds do not want to hang about torturing a fox that could and would, bite back.

Many foxes that are caught are incapcitated in some way. Injured by someone who's tried to shoot them or trap them or poison them. Though of course, this doesn't count for all foxes caught. Cub hunting anyone?

Some hunts are inconsiderate, they do have arrogant bastards as members, they do park their vehicles in the way, they don't control their dogs as they should, etc. But not all hunts are like this.

So what are the alternatives to hunting? As trapping and poisoning are both unacceptable for a number of reasons, it seems that the only viable option is using marksmen. However, because of the expense and time involved, I can foresee farmers etc. taking the matter into their own hands and leaving us with many more injured foxes, and consequently suffering foxes, than ever before.

The argument that hunts use that horses and hounds will have to be exterminated holds no water whatsoever. Drag hunting can be used in place of hunting with little change to the status quo at all that I can see.

Personally, I prefer drag hunting. Hanging about waiting for a fox on a cold, wet, tired horse was never much fun.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[miked10270 0]

And there Ripple has the whole thing in a nutshell. Although the amount of press coverage & protesting from both saides of this debate tend to suggest that quite a few people care passionately about this?

Perhaps we can now move on to the next (from long out of) The UK Bash?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Meat processing plant does it better, quicker meaning that the animals do not suffer.

I have seen and participated () in to many challenging chasings of wounded animals to believe in quick death.

Plus ... you dot not normally eat foxes, wolves and many other animals people hunt.

First, have you ever been to a slaughter house, or seen uneditted video of the entire process? If not, just go find a militant vegan and ask about how the "animals do not suffer." They'd be happy to describe the "interesting" living conditions, the "interesting" transportation to the house, the "interesting" use of a bolt-driver or sledge hammer, the "interesting" way the animals are strung up while alive and sliced so they bleed out, etc etc etc.
("interesting" replaced horrid, torturous, and other not-so-nice words)


Second, how long did you track the wounded animals that you never recovered? What went wrong (that they were wounded instead of killed)?


Third, can you really see no reason why wolves, foxes, other vermin and varmints should be controlled? Do you think you know better than the scientific agencies that study this very topic? If you do understand why animal numbers need to be controlled, do you have a more "humane" way of doing it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AMax 0]

Even though your comments are made in quite aggressive style I will reply anyway.

Quote

First, have you ever been to a slaughter house, or seen uneditted video of the entire process?

Yes I have.

Quote

Second, how long did you track the wounded animals that you never recovered?

Long enough to realize they suffered from the wounds.

Quote

What went wrong (that they were wounded instead of killed)?

I choose not to post any details here. If you do not understand what I am talking about, then you probably do not know enough about hunting. If you do understand what I am talking about, I would be happy to share the details in PM.

Quote

Third, can you really see no reason why wolves, foxes, other vermin and varmints should be controlled?

They need to be controlled on some rare special occasions. My thoughts about hunters using animal population control arguments to justify their hobby are already expressed in previous posts.

Quote

Do you think you know better than the scientific agencies that study this very topic?

Nope. Dynamics of animal populations is not my major area of research. Do you mind identifying these agencies and providing a list of solid references to SCIENTIFIC literature so I can study the topic better? And by the way, do you mind sharing your opinion on two Nature articles I sited above?.

Quote

If you do understand why animal numbers need to be controlled, do you have a more "humane" way of doing it?

The second article I sited clearly suggests that hunting does not affect the size of fox sub population in England. Do you mind presenting any opposite examples supported by SCINTIFIC evidence?



Ed to spell

[AMax 0]

Quote

If you don't like it don't eat it.

But you don't have a fucking clue why I hunt.

I do. You hunt because it is fun. Isn't it the ultimate reason?

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

we lost a number of wounded animals including wolves and foxes. Tell me they suffer less than a slaughtered cow

I started this argument because I truly believe that "control of animal populations" is a plain BS that hunters use to justify their hobby. If you have some evidence against this statement – please post it.

>>I'm having a hard time staying out of this one. I know some people don't like to hunt and that's fine with me. It's not for everyone and I respect their right to think as they do.

But AMax several of your statements just don't add up. Maybe buying meat is more humane in your mind, but it certainly isn't in mine. Most of the people I know here in Montana raise beef. Ever been there at branding time. I don't imagine it would be much fun to be a calf. Being separated from your Mama then roped and dragged next to a fire where somebody puts a hot iron to you. Then if you are a bull calf someone cuts open your nut sack and pulls out your family jewels till the cords break. Having your horns burned off and being pumped full of growth hormones, doesn't look like much fun either.

And then one day when you are fat enough someone takes you to the slaughter house where the smell of death is everywhere. Some butchered animal have their throat cut (depending on the species and butcher shop) and then they are hung up to bleed while still alive. Sure some of them are shot. Some of them have an electrical gun that blasts them in the forehead. I suppose that's better than having someone hit you between the eyes with a sledge hammer, as it was once done in the old days.

Shooting an animal in the head doesn't always work well either. A friend of mine was a butcher. He used to use a 22 to dispatch his victims. One day he was a little off, or maybe the skull was a little too thick, and the steer went through three fences before they could finish it off. This happens to a lot of pigs when they are butchered. It might take multiple shots.

Then there is veal. Ever buy that stuff? A calf is kept in a very small pen after being taken away from Mama at birth. It is nearly force fed for a month or two then butchered when it is still a baby.

And then their are commercial chicken houses, where litterally thousands of chickens are crammed together and forced fed. My Dad used to butcher chickens in a slaughter house. They used to cut their throats and then hang them up to bleed.

So don't tell me butcher shops are humane. I know better. The thought of butcher shops make me sick. Most folks don't have a clue where meat really comes from. They go to the store and it comes in a neatly wrapped package.

I was eating dinner one night with a gal who hated hunting. She tried to tell me it just isn't right or humane to go out hunting. I think the term was that it wasn't natural. Guess what she was stuffing her face with? You guessed it....VEAL!

Now, on the contrary wild game lives a life free like they were meant to be. Most game has extremely keen hearing and smell. From birth they are often taught to evade man. I know some hunters that hunt, all fall, without killing anything, because it's not always easy.

My family seldom eats store bought meat. I raised my daughters on venison. We hunt together and butcher it ourselves. When they got their first taste of beef hamburger they didn't like it. It was too fat.

The reason you lost a number of wounded animals is because you were taking shots you weren't sure of. I know there's a lot of hunters who do that. Most of them shouldn't be hunting in my mind. Yes, wounding shots do happen even to the best hunters. No self respecting hunter feels good about that. I make every effort to see that it doesn't happen when I pull the trigger or release an arrow. I don't shoot unless I'm sure, because I don't want to cause needless suffering.

Sure there may be some suffering invoved. I mean a game animal is being shot with a bullet or arrow. I don't imagine that would tickle much. But I'll bet the suffering involved would be far less than if an animal that starves to death, or if an animal is chewed to death by predators.

You claim to know a lot about wolves. Ever seen an animal chewed to death by a pack of predators. Most of us never have or ever will, unless we watch the animal channel on TV. Most of these photographers edit out the really bloody parts. Not always though. My daughter used to start crying at times watching this because not only are my daughters hunters, they also love animals. I know this one is hard for a non-hunter to understand.

Most predators, when they get an animal down, will literally start eating it before it is even dead. In the far north it isn't unusual to see a live moose with part of it's hind quarter eaten off, by wolves. This doesn't sound too humane to me. But maybe that is because that is what nature is all about....Animals don't live happily ever after.....If they don't die from starvation or disease, it may be a predator chewing them to death.

Man is a predator too. Hunting is something man has done for thousands of years. I don't think Man has lost the need to hunt. Sure most of us can afford to buy meat from the butcher now. But there is more to it than that. Hunting is something that has been bred into human beings. In the old days, if you weren't a good hunter, you died. Those who were good at it survived. In my mind there is nothing more natural and rewarding than going out into nature and pitting your skills against another animal.

Oh sure, it can get real easy. I mean this is the day of high powered rifles....If it seems too easy, try bow hunting. That is much more difficult than rifle hunting. If a compound bow is too easy try a recurve. Hunters not only hunt for meat, but also because it is very challenging. Killing is only part of the hunting experience. If I had to work In a butcher shop, I'd hate every minute of it.

And as far as your last argument.....That there is no proof that hunters can be used to control animal populations....That hunters are only saying this to rationalize hunting........I wonder how you could be so naive to think this.

Every state has a fish & wildlife division. Many of those workers are wildlife biologists. There sole purpose is to manage fish and wildlife populations. If hunters take too much...some wildlife species could even become extinct.

This is another fact...Since hunting has become a regulated sport, no game animal has been placed on the endangered list in the United States. Many game populations before the turn of the century were very much on the verge of extinction. Now those numbers are flourishing in most areas...because of sound management. Also this management is being paid for by Sportsmans dollars through the sales of licenses.

Another serious problem is the overpopulation of some game species. Most game animals are prolific breeders. Whitetail deer often have twin fawns. Most deer (does) have fawns every year. It doesn't take long before there are too many of them. They very often overpopulate their winter range. Many will eventually die from starvation, or disease. So, it boils down to how to bring their numbers down. Hunters do this very effectively. Call any fish and game office if you don't believe this.

Or we could use another form of predator, namely wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. This idea doesn't always work perfectly though. When there gets to be too many predators there isn't many game animals left and the predators will start dieing off from starvation and disease until their prey starts coming back. This results in a yo-yo effect in the number of predators and games species. Game departments regulate the number of animals that can be legally taken by hunters. This does not cause wildly oscillating game numbers.

Actually this is very simple. If you are a rancher, are you going to let your herd get so big you can't feed them?

And then there is the argument that predators only kill the weakest critters. Usually this is true, but don't forget this includes a large abundance of new borns. In some places bears have been know to kill most of the newborn fawn, elk, and moose in an area.

Some say we need predators to keep the gene pool strong. After all they do kill the weakest and stupidest animals first. I agee with some of this thinking.

I also like to just see predators out there in the wild. They have a right to survive too. But, I don't think they are they only means to control wildlife numbers. Man is another predator that deserves the right to hunt also.....Steve1

• Quote

[craddock 0]

Great post !

bt- MN is currently trying to bring back a bounty for Coyote in an attempt of encouraging more hunters to help reduce the population. I would like to think the MN DNR has some knowlegde of wildlife managment.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

First, have you ever been to a slaughter house, or seen uneditted video of the entire process?

Yes I have.

You are really going to sit there and claim that the things that go on in slaughterhouses is easier on the animals than being taken by a hunter?

I really don't see how the things I listed above can be considered quicker or less painful than one shot stops (the majority of hunts end this way).

Quote

Quote

Second, how long did you track the wounded animals that you never recovered?

Long enough to realize they suffered from the wounds.

If you never recovered them, what makes you so sure you didn't just miss the trail and leave the body accidentally?

(I've never left a wounded animal in the woods, so I have no experience with the situation you're describing. With the trails I've had to follow, I can't imagine not reaching the body)

Quote

Quote

What went wrong (that they were wounded instead of killed)?

I choose not to post any details here. If you do not understand what I am talking about, then you probably do not know enough about hunting. If you do understand what I am talking about, I would be happy to share the details in PM.

Oh, I understand tracking just fine. It's just that I've always been successful. I look forward to an enlightening PM.

Quote

Quote

Third, can you really see no reason why wolves, foxes, other vermin and varmints should be controlled?

They need to be controlled on some rare special occasions. My thoughts about hunters using animal population control arguments to justify their hobby are already expressed in previous posts.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree (vehemently) on that topic.

Quote

Quote

Do you think you know better than the scientific agencies that study this very topic?

Nope. Dynamics of animal populations is not my major area of research. Do you mind identifying these agencies and providing a list of solid references to SCIENTIFIC literature so I can study the topic better? And by the way, do you mind sharing your opinion on two Nature articles I sited above?

The first article does not impress me. It does not even mention, let alone take into account the many other forces that affect the changing genetic pool of a species. I've read articles stating that more upland birds are runners rather than flyers. Very hyped up. Later research showed this to be untrue in nearly all areas, and possibly true in only one area (a private hunting area accused of over hunting several species and introducing poor stock in the past).

Also, if that idea (about Rams) were accurate, one would imagine ther ewould be a drastic decrease in the size and weight of whitetail bucks in the USA. Quite the opposite is true, and big bucks don't seem to be an endangered speices in the slightest.

Each of the fifty states has an agency tasked with this topic. Words in the title after "Department" include Fish, Wildlife, Fisheries, Game, and a few other.

Quote

If you do understand why animal numbers need to be controlled, do you have a more "humane" way of doing it?

The second article I sited clearly suggests that hunting does not affect the size of fox sub population in England. Do you mind presenting any opposite examples supported by SCINTIFIC evidence?

[Stumpy 256]

I agree with ripple and mr2mk1g. The main reason for the ban of fox hunting has nothing to to with foxes - its more about the fact that rich country people are enjoying themselves doing something that other people can't and blair and his idiot cronies don't like it. The hunts are a full time business for some and put a lot into estate maintenance and the general upkeep of the country. A lot of people on hunts couldn't care less whether they are following a fox or not (mike i am sorry you had a bad experience but most of the hunters i have met are not "arrogant arseholes"). True the hunters come up with some crap excuses - population control is a crock, guns work much better.

A note on drag hunting - watch how quickly a drag hunt changes direction when a real fox is scented..... although this is the one type of hunting i have participated in in the past and its good fun.

What annoys me most about this is that a lot of the people leading the hysterical screaming for hunting to be banned are keen fishermen. WTF?! Personally i haven't got any problem with any of it particularly, but if the fishermen are going to ban hunting then they should have fishing banned as well. It might become obvious how much of a nanny state culture we are promoting if the laws were applied equally....

Edited to add - sorry about the nonsensical ramble.... been a long day

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Kennedy 0]

I always thought all those fish probably suffered a lot more than my first deer (he didn't make it 75 yards).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

I just realised my mistake when you said,

OK, let's start a new thread: Ban the hammers in the UK, or much better: Ban horses!

I took "ban the hammers" to mean the London football club Totenham hotspurs

now I realise you ment to say "ban hammers"

By the way your English is excelent,

Thx for the last sentence. Still learning every day.

Hey, no wrong statements about the Tottenham Hotspurs, pleeease. My dad used to love English teams, at least about 10 yrs ago when their play was a little more interesting But he dislikes Beckham, that Spanish model guy Sorry, just a side note.

OK. Let's go back to the ban: Tdy, in the news I read that after the new law tock place, same WE about 91 foxes were killed. Nothing changed, right? There seems to be the one or the other hide-out, clever hunters discovered?

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105