Read RSS Feed


We’ll never agree on hunting, Mr Burgess

12:40pm Monday 28th February 2011 in Read

SIR – Mr [Jon] Burgess seems to have misundersttood my words (Worcester News, February 1).

My views are perfectly clear. I do not agree with the traditional lifestyle of the hunting fraternity.

Dressing up and socialising is fine but it is where it leads which is so disgusting and is something with which I will never agree.

I do not agree with their desire to inflict cruelty on a fox by chasing it with hounds.

I do not agree with them chasing a heavily pregnant fox and watching it being torn apart and her cubs being spilled out and also being pounced on by the hounds and being torn apart.

Obviously, this did not contribute to the welfare of that fox or her cubs.

I do agree with the freedom of the press providing the reporting is fair, unbiased and equal coverage given to both sides of any argument.

I repeat that 73 per cent of the public who were in favour of the ban would be very angered if the Government pandered to the 27 per cent who want to return to such diabolical behaviour.

I hope it is now clear, Mr Burgess, that you and I will never agree.

MARION LARGE
Lower Wick

Comments(60)

Hymie says...
6:18pm Mon 28 Feb 11

Jon Burgess just keeps ranting out the same tiresome and non factual arguments. Obfuscation mixed with his boring and repetitive claim that the fox population benefits from hunting practices. Clearly Jon and his ilk get pleasure from taking part on horseback or as a bystander, watching the dogs bite the poor, exhausted fox to death. Anyone who derives please from such acts is best described as abnormal!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
6:24pm Mon 28 Feb 11

The last sentence above should say:
Anyone who derives pleasure from such acts is best described as abnormal!"

I apologise for my error.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
11:52pm Mon 28 Feb 11

When hunting was lawful we were told that that was the way to eliminate old and sick foxes. How when the dogs got the scent could they know the age or condition of the fox. Come of it they had a foxes scent if was a fox and the hounds would go after it. Rubbish  to even su

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
11:53pm Mon 28 Feb 11

When hunting was lawful we were told that that was the way to eliminate old and sick foxes. How when the dogs got the scent could they know the age or condition of the fox. Come of it they had a foxes scent if was a fox and the hounds would go after it. Rubbish  to even suggest  that they were after a old or diseased animal. 

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
8:21pm Tue 1 Mar 11

Hymie _thanks for showing us you know nothing about hunting or nature and natural selection. Hounds don't decide which fox they will catch, they cannot judge if it is health fit and clever. What happened was as follows the fit healthy and clever foxes got away, the sick injured mangy and stupid foxes got caught - simple stuff don't you agree. A lot of foxes used to get chopped in covert, that means they were caught and killed without making any attempt at escaping the hounds. The reason for this was they were sick or injured. Now these animals have suffer a long and painful death. If you had a dog that was terminally ill would you allow it to suffer,I don't think so. A trip to the vet one jab and it's all over. The mangy sick and injured fox does not have that luxury, the foxhound was the best alternative to a vet nature could offer.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
9:40am Wed 2 Mar 11

Sharpy, you are quite right in saying that hounds do not ‘decide’ which fox they will catch. But Foxhounds are bred to run more slowly than the fox to sustain a good chase. The fit and healthy fox may initially outrun the hounds until it is exhausted and overtaken by the hounds. And the kill is no ‘quick nip to the back of the neck’. Canid animals do not kill in this way but rather a series of bites and tears. The LACS has obtained post-mortem evidence from veterinary surgeons to support that this is how they have been killed.
.
Whether the animal is fit, healthy, weak or sick is irrelevant. It is clearly outnumbered and will be terrified no matter what. Hunting is cruel by design and has no place in a modern society.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
10:10am Wed 2 Mar 11

Sharpy read what has been posted here (all the above) And in reply other Jon Burgess letters BEFORE you post. I know it's boring and takes time but it is called research.

Research then post. For you to say a young fit fox can escape the chase Is arrogant and that's what you come across as, unresearched and arrogant.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
10:29am Wed 2 Mar 11

For the record, Sharpy, a pet dog is part of the family, and no, you wouldn’t want it to suffer. That is our choice for the pet’s best interests. A fox is a wild animal. Mother nature will deal with the weak, sick and old. Wild animals don’t have the luxury of life sustaining drugs. Up until World War II, humans were dying from simple infections that can now be cured by antibiotics. This was only 70 years ago. Before this (say, the last 200,000 years), human and animal population was controlled by nature’s own way of weakness, sickness and old age. Why do you think that humans are now overpopulated? Medicine. No-one controls our numbers so why should we control animal numbers!?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
6:07pm Wed 2 Mar 11

Tubs & hymie - Hounds are not bred to run slowly they hunt by following scent so can only run as fast as their nose will allow.
As for the kill it's over in seconds a crushing bite to back neck or thorax. Hounds weights in at 70 LBs the fox at about 15LBs there is no contest.
Could you please give us details of the research you mentioned into hounds killing foxes. Is it peer reviewed etc.
Tubs - from your last post I take it you believe further medical improvement should stop and if you came upon a wild animal in terrible distress and suffering that had no chance of survival you would walk on by and let nature do it's own thing ????.. Great fun this on-line debating stuff should have joined in sooner.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
7:09pm Wed 2 Mar 11

Sharpy says;
and if you came upon a wild animal in terrible distress and suffering that had no chance of survival you would walk on by and let nature do it's own thing ?"
Although not asked of me your question shows you do not understand. Euthanasia is what all country folk have had to do when a loved cat/dog has outlived it's body. But we would not give up our pet up to a pack of hounds. We would ring the vet. We would ensure as far as possible the foxes life ended painlessly. Research? Look-up Jon Burgesses Letters to the Editor and read the last (say) 20 and comments where available. Then you will not have to trot out your prohunting questions that have already been answered.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
8:45pm Wed 2 Mar 11

Hymie - I am asking you directly now would you walk on by and let nature take it course or put the animal out of it's misery. Answer the question yes or no don't ask me to refer back to Jon Burgess's letters of months ago. As for research I don't hold that much all this book learning I much prefer practical experience and reality.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
9:19pm Wed 2 Mar 11

I would practise euthanasia to any creature that was in pain and would ( and have) made a calculation of the best way forward, be it calling the RSPA, a vet or picking up a stone. What has this to do with fox hunting?

If you expect me to answer "Send for the hunt and have the creature ripped apart then you are not real. Unless you, sharpy, have a point to make about FOX HUNTING that is me out as you do not appear to be going anywhere. What would you do if you saw an old-diseased fox ? Set your dog on it?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
11:02pm Wed 2 Mar 11

Sharpy; by admitting you enjoy this online debate clearly states how selfish you are. You have no concern over animal welfare and all your knowledge of hunting means nothing to me. Therefore, I will not be debating with you any further on this issue due to your selfishness and ignorance of personal satisfaction and pleasure.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

DermotItis says...
11:37pm Wed 2 Mar 11

Could I ask the experts here a question?

Why is that since fox-hunting has been banned, we are overrun by foxes in our towns and cities?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
12:42am Thu 3 Mar 11

Proberly foxes have become more urbanized due to the easy supply of food from the way we live. ie cats, and small creatures who have already moved to our backgardens. No natural predators to keep their numbers down. I understand that foxes move back to the countryside at the high of summer with their young cubs. Just keep your doors closed, your under 5s attended out doors and let the fox get on with it.

I am not an expert -just someone who wants to live and let live.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
5:43pm Thu 3 Mar 11

Tubs - don't get so wound up it's bad for your health too much stress and all that.
Surly we can still have a debate over hunting in it's many forms.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
5:45pm Thu 3 Mar 11

Tubs - don't get so wound up it's bad for your health too much stress and all that.
Surly we can still have a debate over hunting in it's many forms.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
9:00pm Thu 3 Mar 11

DermotItis - interesting questions.
There may have been an increase in urban fox numbers in resent years but this might be due to an increased supply of food. For instance if a council re-introduces black bags instead of wheelie bins there is more food available. In the countryside I think (and this is only my personal view not a scientific study) there are less foxes. Most of the reduction in numbers is very likely down to an increase in shooting. The other possibility is the dramatic. increase in badger numbers. The badger although not directly a physical threat to the fox does tend to take over fox earths so depriving the fox of a place to breed. I also wonder if the badger has caused the number of hedgehogs to decline. Badgers make short work of killing and eating hedgehogs. Their very powerful front pads and claws are capable of ripping out sand stone so the spines on a hedgehog are nothing for them to deal with. The resent fox attacks on children and some adults are for one reason alone, the urban fox no longer sees man as a threat. Where small children/babies are concerned they will be looked on as a meal just as a young lamb, piglet or even a newborn calf. The one big problem for the urban fox is as they live so close together if mange occurs it spreads very quickly affecting a high percentage of the population. Although the food supply may be easier for the fox to obtain in town the down side of this is a mangy fox will tend to live longer but also suffer much longer.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
10:20pm Thu 3 Mar 11

DermotItis –
.
I don’t really think that the urban fox population has increased since the ban. But I will keep an open mind. If they have, then I don’t really see the problem. I think the media play on these horror stories of children getting savaged by urban foxes as a form of propaganda.
.
Urban foxes have been colonizing in cities since year dot, but it became more noticeable after the Second World War where food was more plentiful and humans began their ‘throw away society’ regime. Cities became bigger therefore foxes moved in. Hunting in the countryside was at its peak but foxes still roamed our streets even back then.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
10:35pm Thu 3 Mar 11

Tubs - yes the press did go to town on the 2 children being attacked in their beds but it was not propaganda as it was a fact. Both children were badly injured and will need surgery for some time. The rural fox is from time to time a problem, we have (had) a country solution called hunting. It kept fox numbers in check, dispersed them, got rid of the sick and injured and I don't recall a single child being attacked.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
9:23pm Fri 4 Mar 11

Fox attacks on humans are not common but when the press gets hold of a story like that they do go to town on it. There are only three isolated fox attacks on people in four years:
.
Arizona, November 2008, a jogger was bitten by a rabid fox. Kentucky, July 2002, a 14-week-old baby was attacked in a house. London, June 2010, 9-month-old twin girls were bitten on the arms and face when a fox entered their bedroom.
.
Three attacks in four years, despite claims that our cities are overrun by foxes!? How many people, do you suppose, have been attacked by family pets in four years?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
12:23am Sat 5 Mar 11

A quick and sinple comment on fox hunting with hounds.
.
I have never been part of, and don't intend to be part of fox hunting.
.
If sharpy and his mates wish to do so, please carry on, nothing to do with me !
.
It is not my place to tell him or his mates what they can or cannot do.
.
Bring back huntingm allow people to enjoy it if they wish.
.
New labour has gone (thank goodness), now to just have to reprogram people away from banning anything and everything they don't wish to take part in.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
12:10pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Biggles quotes: “If sharpy and his mates wish to do so, please carry on, nothing to do with me! It is not my place to tell him or his mates what they can or cannot do”.
.
But it’s ok for you (Biggles) and sharpy to tell the government and us antis what to do? (with opposing the law)
.
Somebody steals clothes from a shop or someone mugs an old lady in the street. We should leave them to carry on with that then?
.
Another quote: “Bring back hunting allow people to enjoy it if they wish”.
.
Summed up in a sentence! You and I now agree that humans hunt for pleasure, which is what I’m against. Hunting is not humane because people enjoy watching hounds ripping apart a fox. Thanks for backing me up there, Biggles!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
12:25pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Prohunters are blinded, either by their nature or due a past experience or teaching in formative years. from the obvious act of cruelty that involves an outnumbered fox been pursed and ripped apart alive. That can equally be a young cub, vixion in pup, old fox or sick/lame fox. So it is not nature disposing of the weak. But the sick human gaining pleasure from the act of causing suffering to wild life making excuses for deviant behavior.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
12:46pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Janet Katherine wrote:
Prohunters are blinded, either by their nature or due a past experience or teaching in formative years. from the obvious act of cruelty that involves an outnumbered fox been pursed and ripped apart alive. That can equally be a young cub, vixion in pup, old fox or sick/lame fox. So it is not nature disposing of the weak. But the sick human gaining pleasure from the act of causing suffering to wild life making excuses for deviant behavior.
I'm not particularly pro hunting, I'm just very "anti" people like you, and big windup.
.
Of course people get enjoyment from hunting, why else do you think they do it ?
.
What gives you the right to say they cannot ?
.
You whingers won the "ban", I just hope the pro hunting lobby get it overturned, not because I support hunting, I actually couldn't care less
.
I'd like you whingers banned !
.
If you don't like it. or feel you wouldn't gain enjoyment from doing whatever "it" is, then don't do it, but ........... please don't feel you have the right to tell others what to do.
.
Perhaps you need to find some hobbies yourselves, and worry less about what others are doing ?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
2:48pm Sat 5 Mar 11

As a GP for the past 35 years during which in addition to using my professional care to help from child birth to the last moments of life do consider myself a compassionate human. Thank you, but you do not understand in the least, do you. Compassion and care for life is not something you or I can turn Off/On at will. You can not, clearly, make yourself a compassionate person - because within you their is no unselfish love of life. Your all right, you are unlikely to be ripped apart and that's all that matters. Do not expect those who feel otherwise to require you not to express your thoughts and how dare you want to curtail my free will to express mine. I lead by example of love for all life. Do not rip me verbally apart like you would actually a fox.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
4:05pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Biggles I find it hard to respect you, not for the first time. You are not even handed. You say you sit on the fence on the Fox Hunting issue. You have not said to pro fox hunters that they should not advocate fox hunting but

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
4:06pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Biggles I find it hard to respect you, not for the first time. You are not even handed. You say you sit on the fence on the Fox Hunting issue. You have not said to pro fox hunters that they should not advocate fox hunting but you tell us anti's that we should not voice our objections. You should consider that the law does not support you and other pro "rip the live fox apart" people and in your one sided support you could be seen to encourage pro hunters to commit acts which are against the law.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
8:25pm Sat 5 Mar 11

I am not an overly compasionate person.
.
A fox is just that, a fox, an animal, in this case considered vermin.
.
The pro hunting lobby do not seek to enforce their views on others, in no way are they seeking to enforce anyone to take part in hunting of any kind.
.
The anti hunt lobby wish to force their views on others who don't agree with them.
.
Again, if you don't wish to take part in hunting, then don't, but just because you feel sorry for basil brush, don't expect others to agree with you.
.
And ........ there are far more important things to worry about than the odd fox, if you wish to be compasionate (which I don't) I'd be more inclined to worry about human life loss, rather than a mere fox suggest

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
8:26pm Sat 5 Mar 11

I am not an overly compasionate person.
.
A fox is just that, a fox, an animal, in this case considered vermin.
.
The pro hunting lobby do not seek to enforce their views on others, in no way are they seeking to enforce anyone to take part in hunting of any kind.
.
The anti hunt lobby wish to force their views on others who don't agree with them.
.
Again, if you don't wish to take part in hunting, then don't, but just because you feel sorry for basil brush, don't expect others to agree with you.
.
And ........ there are far more important things to worry about than the odd fox, if you wish to be compasionate (which I don't) I'd be more inclined to worry about human life loss, rather than a mere fox suggest

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
9:08pm Sat 5 Mar 11

You are a hypocrite Biggles!

The pro hunting lobby do not seek to enforce their views on others, in no way are they seeking to enforce anyone to take part in hunting of any kind.

The law says fox hunting with hounds is illegal. Prohunters are trying to have the law changed by changing our lawmakers minds when the subject has been dealt with. When slavery was abolished I am sure their were some who would want to repeal that act making the same claim as you.
"You do not want slaves but do not impose on us your views" times have moved on. Dog fighting, bear baiting, slavery and fox ripping apart with dogs displease the majority of the public! Get over it!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
9:27pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Me get over it ?
.
The namby pamby brigade succeded in getting a law passed that outlawed other peoples passtimes.
.
They wish to challenge that law, and our present government, when in opposition, said they would change this law back.
.
You seem worried this may happen, I couldn't care less about this particular law.
.
I am however concerned that do-gooders like yourself worry far too much about what other people do.
.
Fox hunting doesn't impact upon my life one little bit, neither would bear baiting ( I wasn't aware there were any roaming about to need protecting to be honest).
.
Do-gooders do cause me concern however, I dislike them, their life must be so empty

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
9:40pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Janet Katherine - interesting to note you are an experienced GP who is against hunting and I suspect all field sports. Being a GP does not give you the right or moral authority to impose your ideas on hunting etc on others. There are plenty of doctors dentists vets nurses paramedics policemen and women firemen and women and teachers who hunted went coursing shoot fish and still, thank goodness, go shooting and fishing as part of their way of life. They like the rest of us who enjoy the field sports have no desire to make you or your friends join in. Finally please please get this idea out of your head that hunting people get their pleasure from seeing a fox ripped apart alive. To begin with the hunt followers are just that, 'followers' following the hounds so by the time they get to the end of the hunt the fox was dead in seconds and then the hounds broke it up or eat it. Take it from me very few people see a kill, one blink and it's over, in my personal view it's quicker than shooting and was 100% certain never to leave a wounded fox to suffer.

Heres a question for you, why according to the hunting act is it ok to hunt a rat with as many terriers as you like but not a fox with as many hounds as you see fit. Either it is right to hunt a mammal with a dog(s) or it's not. Very interested to know where you stand on this one....

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
10:27pm Sat 5 Mar 11

My position with regards to hunting a rat with a pack of hounds?   You really can not understand, can you?

It's the same position as hunting a cat -* with hounds. It is cruel.

* enter the name of any  species.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
10:51pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Janet Katherin - correct me if I am wrong here.
You would like to have the killing of rats by a dogs made illegal under the hunting act. Yes or no will do

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
11:05pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Sharpy you remain absurd. I am spending half my time answering your questions and the other half confirming my answers.

That will do now.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
11:09pm Sat 5 Mar 11

Janet Katherine wrote:
My position with regards to hunting a rat with a pack of hounds?   You really can not understand, can you? It's the same position as hunting a cat -* with hounds. It is cruel. * enter the name of any  species.
Do you appreciate that others will not share your view ?
.
There are a lot of laws, introduced under new labour, that I dissagree with, hunting with hounds is just one of them.
.
People tell me that the vast majority of people support the ban on hunting with hounds, That isn't my experience, in my circle of friends I don't know anyone that gives a jot either way.
.
I dislike the smoking ban, most of my friends, both smokers and non smokers also dislike the smoking ban.
.
I dislike the anti car rules, bus lanes and the like, again most of my circle of friends agree
.
All the time we get told the vast majority of people support these things ........ I've never been asked, and I don't know anybody who has

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
11:28pm Sat 5 Mar 11

We are still discussing hunting with hounds

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
11:30pm Sat 5 Mar 11

We are still discussing hunting with hounds but I cannot but comment on what you and your friends think of the anti smoking ban in public places.

On Thursday I concured with sending a patient home from hospital who a week earlier I sent for test taking a few days.
A young family man with a wife (non-smoker) pregnant with their second child. A barman since 19 years old. A non smoker. Lung cancer. No more, perhaps than 2/4 months to live.

How I wish that smoking in public places had been banned years and years ago.

Proving that sometimes we do not know what is best for us.

Until the next letter on hunting or whatever takes my fancy. I have said my bit and done all for now I can do. I know my limits.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

worcestermum says...
8:18am Sun 6 Mar 11

Compassion?! posting such sensitive information about a young man with a terminal illness on a public forum. yes, you haven't named him BUT you have given enough information to potentially distress his family who are most likely reeling from the news that he has 2/4 months to live.All in order to win your arguement about fox hunting/smoking ban on a local newspaper forum. I wouldn't like a GP that did that, not at all :0(
Back on topic - we use a shotgun to despatch the foxes that insist on slaughtering our young stock, quick and efficient.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
9:56am Sun 6 Mar 11

My sister in law works in totally another area which regular on-line contributors know. She chooses to live in Worcester. When you consider that last week alone 10 young people 20-35 years have the same news in Britain I do not think you are entitled, Worcestermum to get on your high horse, but your post tells us a lot about your disposition!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

worcestermum says...
10:27am Sun 6 Mar 11

Hymie, I may not contribute as regularly as you (and your family) but I read often.
My post tells you nothing of my 'disposition' I have not commented on fox hunting as such, just how we protect our youngstock.
however, I think your post tells us a lot about you.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
10:30am Sun 6 Mar 11

Janet Katherine - I'm trying to get a straight forward answer to a very simple question. If it is wrong to allow/encourage dogs to kill a fox according to the hunting act why is alright to allow/encourage a dogs to kill rats according to the hunting act??? Both the prey are mammals and both the predators are canine mammals.
This is a question that has perplexed many people on both sides of this debate.
PS I won't wonder off into the pro/anti smoking debate.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
11:03am Sun 6 Mar 11

Yes worcestermum I do hope my posts do.

What yours tell me is that you would rather fire a shotgun rather than fence your 'stock' (vulnerable animals to attack by Fox). Bearing in mind you live
at C

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
11:08am Sun 6 Mar 11

Yes worcestermum I do hope my posts do.

What yours tell me is that you would rather fire a shotgun rather than fence your 'stock' (vulnerable animals to attack by Fox). Bearing in mind you live
at Cleeve Prior with travelers children in
close proximity to you using a scatter gun, I cannot but think how dangerious that must be - a little bit of fenching
would save £s on cartridges. We have friends at North Littleton and the travelers from your end cause unlimited bother - calling asking for milk for their children, taking scrap from their yards and so forth. Perhaps you are used to that and do not notice?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

worcestermum says...
11:46am Sun 6 Mar 11

don't live at cleeve. near it yes but not in cleeve.
my stock are not accessible by passers by so that's completely irrelevant as is most of your latest post, to this whole subject.
go and have a rest, nice cup of cocoa would probably do you good by this time of day.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
12:13pm Sun 6 Mar 11

What a condescending person you are. A little bit of fencing would keep your stock safe from both hungry fox and people, without risk of shooting the stock with a shotgun.

I will not be rude back to you by suggesting you go for a liedown as rudeness is not an answer to thick skinned quarrel pickers.

Go on, if you are not the travelers yourselves tell us all how you know they pay their taxes (but not road tax).

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
2:00pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Hymie - the only way to make sure you keep the fox away from livestock is to build an 8ft high fence of 1ins wire netting for the first 3ft then 2ins wire netting above this. A further 1ft needs burying below ground. The finishing touch is a double strand of electric fencing outside just away from the base of the netting at 4ins and 10ins high. The grass must be spread off below this because if allowed to grow up and touch the electric fence it shorts it out. Then a suitable fence to keep the stock from escaping or damaging the fox proof fence is required, normally pig netting and double barbed wire. This would need to be erected on both sides of the anti fox fence in most fields. It would also reduce the amount of hedges grown as it would be impossible to cut them given the hight and proximity of the fox proof fence. There is also the problem of public footpaths, I doubt the ramblers would take kindly to being surrounded by fences similar to Stalag 13. Hope this give a fare view of the difficulties of fencing out Mr fox.
One other interesting thing is according to the hunting act one terrier may be used to bolt a fox from it's earth to shot
to protect game birds from attack . However the same terrier cannot bolt the same fox from it's earth to protect
lambs or piglets from attack by the same fox. Interesting don't you think.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
2:13pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Live and let live, let's be honest and consider animal husbandry. Cows inside barns in stalls that do not allow turning for the winter months. Excreta pilled high. Farm animals bled to death to met the Muslim requirement.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Hymie says...
2:15pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Live and let live, let's be honest and consider animal husbandry. Cows inside barns in stalls that do not allow turning for the winter months. Excreta pilled high. Farm animals bled to death to met the Muslim requirement. Now days, all school meat is killed by slitting the animals throat and leaving to die, hung as well.

Farmers are not best to decide on the rights of fox hunting - their hands are not clean.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
2:59pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Hymie - the farmer only raises the animal. He does not slaughter and butcher it. If the public want free range organic meat they can buy it but it is more expensive. The big problem is imports of meat from countries where animal husbandry is very poor. Lets ban the imports unless they meet or standards - do you agree with this , any comment on the fencing.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
4:40pm Sun 6 Mar 11

I don’t get why people like Biggles poke their noses in to a debate just to express their dislike of other peoples views when they don’t really feel that much passion for what’s being debated in the first place. The hunt fraternity don’t understand why us anti’s feel that much passion towards an animal. They are more concerned about the livelihood of their society. They keep harping on about why we worry more about animals than people, yet they keep on arguing and insulting against their own fellow species! They have no passion towards animals or people alike. The last 51 posts reflect that.
.
Sharpy, if foxes are vermin, then why not take the necessary steps to fox-proof your livestock (like you so clearly documented), or can people actually be bothered to do so? If they can’t be bothered then don’t blame it on the fox.
.
Example: I left my front door open all night and someone burgled my house. Who's fault was it?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
4:52pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Hymie - One has to ask would the people of this country accept the type of fencing I have described is one thing we would have to look at here. The second thing is the thief is clearly responsible according to both the spirit and letter of the law. By the way I see you have not commented about terriers and the hunting act any reason why ???

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Biggles says...
11:59pm Sun 6 Mar 11

Tub thumper
.
Me poking my nose in ? ...... really ?
.
I dissagree with do gooders, like yourself, telling people, like sharpy and his mates, what they can and can't do in their own time.
.
Are there anymore passtimes that people enjoy that you'd like outlawed ?
.
If you don't like hunting, don't do it.
.
If sharpy likes hunting, keep your nose out and allow him to hunt.
.
Simples eh ?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Janet Katherine says...
12:58am Mon 7 Mar 11

So, if sharpie likes to hunt keep you Noise out and let him hunt. Simple eh!

Yes. Simple. There goes the right to debate. Biggles, who do you come on the WN web-site if it's not to debate a subject? Biggles, may I suggest that you would be happier and less wound up if you found something else to do with your computer and left the rest of us to use WNs site for the purpose they provide it!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

pudniw_gib says...
9:08am Mon 7 Mar 11

I think we should down and rip Biggles and his other un-compassionate comrades to bits in an really unpleasant way.
It is the only language they understand.
There is a saying that you can judge a country by the way it treats it's animals, if this is true then this country is fairly far down the nice country list.
Also there have been studies showing that those who inflict cruelty to animals are far more likely to down similar to humans. They are mentally unbalanced and have no empathy.
Self justified, immoral and repugnant behaviour, the denial of what is in front of their eyes will lead to their eventual mental decline and lonely old age when they will believe everything they read in the Daily **** and insist that the world might be better if we were all locked up for our own good.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
10:06am Mon 7 Mar 11

Biggles, you keep going over the same stuff. You might as well copy and paste your comments and duplicate them as most of the posts you have left keep repeating themselves! If I’m a do-gooder, what are you? And, no, I’m not telling people what to do. I am expressing my views in debate form – something that you obviously don’t understand.
.
There are plenty of ‘pastimes’ out there that don’t harm anyone or anything, so I don’t see the reason to ban any of those. Fox hunting has been defined by the pros as pest control. This is getting pleasure from killing an animal. I don’t particularly like benefit scroungers – I think they are more of a pest to society than a **** fox!
.
Here’s a good one for ya! How about we chase sharpy or biggles with some chavs? The chavs are in their hunting attire of Burberry and bling and they have a pack of slavering Staffies. The chavs follow behind, mounted in their modified Vauxhall Nova’s blasting Drum ‘n’ Bass as a warning call. Sharpy or Biggles are frantically running away and find their selves surrounded in a concrete jungle clearing with tenement buildings blocking their very escape. The staffies pounce and do their job. The chavs cut off their heads, hands and (er, nether regions) and take them as a trophy to the Crown and Anchor for celebratory jovialities of Carling lager and dry roasted nuts.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
7:35pm Mon 7 Mar 11

Tubs - I fear this debate has run it's course ( to coin a phrase ) any attempt at joined up thinking has gone by the wayside. Shame as I thought we were making some headway. Never mind no doubt someone will kick things of with another anti letter to the W/N, Jon Burgess will reply demolishing their propaganda, then 2 or 3 people on this site will get hot under the collar and off we go again!!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

tub_thumper says...
8:07am Tue 8 Mar 11

Making headway? It finished ages ago for me! I’m sick to death of going around the same old arguments – I keep answering questions but get no answers back. We were discussing fox hunting yet some people venture off onto other irrelevant things. Just admit that you pros can’t answer a question and I’ll be happy with that. From my last post, you can clearly see how silly things have got. I thought the best way to get across to people was to be just as silly with my answers as I keep getting from others. If Jon Burgess stopped writing letters then we’ll be in a better place.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

sharpy says...
5:55pm Tue 8 Mar 11

Tubs- Your comment about Jon Burgess brings us back to square one and the original letter to the W/N about
censoring news about hunting. I think it was finally established that the W/N don't give unfair advantage to hunting. In fact has a whole it would seem to be under reported.
Go on then fire a simple fox hunting question at me and I'll reply, keeping strictly to the subject.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree