Ca Photo Competition

S

Sara

At the Start
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,731
There is still a week to submit a photo on a rural theme to the Countryside Alliance photo competition, the winners of which will be featured on the next year's calendar, also prizes on offer etc

See http://tinyurl.com/ypbjxk
 
Has anyone got this years CA calender? If so - is it the calendar where Febs picture is racing at Wincanton?? If it was - and someones still got it - can I have the picture please? Its a horse I used to look after ( I was the only one here who liked him - he was pretty free with his teeth to everyone except me!) but hes gone now and is very happy in his new home - and I havent got any pics of him.
 
What about this one??

foxhunt2.jpg
 
A valid entry, I'd say: excellent definition, and a fine example of some traditional British sporting life. As the CA constantly exhorts people not to criticise country sports without knowing something about what the sports entail, I think this would make a useful addition to their programme of enlightenment.
 
Indeed. It almost has its place in a calendar really - to prove that on the odd occasion a fox isnt killed by one bite to the neck, the way it dies is quick and there is no question of it being left so die slowly. Then,as a comparison, other months could follow the progress as a shot one is wounded and left to die,alternate months could be pictures of the cubs as they starve to death - then they could do a picture board ending with the christmas picture being the various stages of a fox(obviously wearing a santa hat in teh final pic as its December) caught in a trap chewing off its leg....

Shall we put you down for one Paul?? Im sure one of the various so-called animal rights organisations will be planning one for next year,if they dont already do one.... :ph34r: :nuts:
 
I can't be arsed to go into this again, so this is a one-off post but as a farmer who naturally knows a lot of other farmers in the area, this is how foxes are dealt with here - bearing in mind our farms are hunted over and we have a shoot.

We have a lot of foxes. We have, in fact, more foxes that ought to have with natural selection, because the RSPCA, in their infinite wisdom, use a small copse opposite one of our pens to release foxes that they have caught in urban areas (they will deny they do this as they use unmarked vans but we have evidence that is quite sound that this is the case). These foxes are healthy when they are released but, as they obviously don't know the area and are moving into territory held by indigent foxes, they are usually the first to be caught and/or pick up infections like mange.

I've had the Hunt three times across the farm this season and the hound couple put up three foxes, two of which were shot, the other wasn't caught. I have also permitted one further fox to be taken when our gamekeeper went foxing one night a few weeks ago.

I have since seen three or four foxes on the farm in different locations, all looking healthy and mange-free and one vixen is often caught on my yard cameras at night hunting for food. They are positively welcome, as a reasonable fox population is an asset.

If you ask me honestly, I readily admit I would much rather a fox was shot expertly as it is without doubt the quickest and cleanest death but there are very few shots that will get it right every time, whereas hounds always do. Fear is a natural part of any wild animals daily life. They don't go around whistling all day with unadulterated happiness - fear is an essential part of their makeup and without it, they wouldn't survice five minutes so whether it's inflicted by humans or other predators, they will experience it many times throught their lives.
 
Contrary to what a lot of people think - Im actually pretty much on the fence when it comes to this - I cant abide one sidedness in something that has such high emotions, which is why i dont have a lot of time for antis - you will do well to find hunting people who arent prepared to listen to reasoned argument,adn you dont often find hunting people starting trouble.(thats not to say that it never happens - but its not often in my experience)

As for my personal feelings on foxes and hunting - I dont like the fact that they get killed - BUT I dont like the "other" methods more.

SO

Until such times as someone comes up with a quick,despatch emthod that is guaranteed to kill the animal outright with as little suffering as possible, Im all for hunting as it used to be.Soon as they come up with soimething else, Im happy to switch to the other side (well, I'll resume my apathetic state of not really givign a toss!)

Im with Julie in her statements that a healthy fox population in reasonalble numbers can be an asset.

And,before anyone tries the "you dont know what youre goign on about" line,I spent the best part of 6months reserching all the various aspects of Fox and Stag hunting for a college dissertation - my finished report was sent to the house of commons for William Hague ( sorry - thought id get in a bit of namedropping!!) to use.Aparrently it helped change the minds of a few mp's - some were pro and then werent sure, most were either anti or not sure but changed to pro) so dont anyone try telling me I dont have any idea what goes on! :laughing:
 
I wouldn't dream of it in your delicate condition, Troods! There needs to be a HEALTHY fox population, just as there needs to be a healthy songbird population, as much as a healthy human population. Unfortunately, I've seen foxes with mange in Staffordshire and wondered why the f. someone hadn't shot them out of compassion for this wretched condition?

As for fear, I've read articles by hunting people to say that foxes are not running from hounds in fear at all. They are - they say, and as they are the experts in their field, who am I to contend with them? - following scent trails and are oblivious to hounds until they are upon them. In other words, all that caterwauling and tootling on bugles isn't fritting them at all - they may consider them a nuisance to the business they're going about, and are simply trying to get away from that, but not in a sense of being terrified.

A couple who work at a number of the courses I work at are great hunting/ptp folk. Tim's convinced that while foxes can be quite bright in many ways, they aren't any more gifted with perception about their situation when being hunted, than being able to read the Financial Times and watch their stocks.

Perhaps using emotive terms like 'terror' are anthropomorphic - the hounds are bred to hunt foxes, just as other dogs are bred to hunt game, bears, wolves, or fight in other societies. They presumably don't feel 'happy' about hunting - it's just a job, like cleaning loos. I can see how a dog abused by humans becomes cowed and 'terrified' of further ill treatment, because it's probably not able to escape and join up with a feral group. It's dependent on the wretched human for its food, even though it knows it gets kicked and beaten at the same time. Cowering is also part of canine behaviour in the wild, though, showing you recognise who is boss dog/wolf/hyena, so while we say 'this poor dog is terrified of humans', it's one whose hierarchical response has been over-exaggerated by ill treatment, rather than actually 'feeling' terror. Or is it?
 
On this subject, and not the orginal one of the photo competition (sorry) did anyone see that program the other night about city foxes? It was really interesting and sad for a few reasons. The biggest being how well it showed how far so many people are from understanding nature. 'Red in tooth and claw', as Kipling so aptly said.

The guy and his wife who lived in city splendour but wanted ,'to be green' by having a few chickens and eating organic eggs and feeding the birds but were shocked and outraged that by attracting one kind of nature they got the rest, ie foxes.

I wanted to ring the silly wife's neck and shoot the pompous husband.

I have to wonder why they kept 10 hens anyway as that is an awful lot for one family to have eggs from, and in town they would sure cluck up a lot of noise, which is what one neighbor said when he said he preferred the foxes to the hens. Actually this guy was real funny because he gave it all an air of porn as he excitedly talked about the fox mating and their shrieks of delight.

The first lot of hens they had were taken by wily fox, and they simply replaced them with another 10, never a thought as to correcting the ease with which fox got at the hens. They were kept in a kind of viewing cage, which kept them in, but not the fox, or even a cat for that matter, out. Never once was this mentioned. They blamed only the fox.

The program ended with an expert shot killing a pregnant vixen and her mate, and at least it was immediate. But the fox got the last laugh, as nature always does, when a week later other foxes moved in to the territory. This couple were so absurd to believe that they could 'outfox' nature.

I always say about situations like this where people want nature on their own terms - 'nature sanitised for our pleasure'.

I first came upon it in America where they give you cloths dipped in antiseptic in national parks just in case you may have picked up a germ whilst touching a tree.

I had hens as a child and our Father made sure that they were safely shut in at night, we never lost one until the day we missed shutting one in. We were taught to respect the fox.

Also recently read that the reason the fox kills all the chickens instead of just one he takes is because he will return to get the rest when he has time. They do not know where their next meal is coming from and they bury their food. I had seen them burying food but never put the two together. When you know this it does make them seem less cruel.

Like everything we need balance. I hate to see any animal suffer but the do gooders who release city foxes into the country are condemning them to just that.
 
Can anyone point out to me definitive proof that the fox in the picture is alive??


....no, thought not......

...and well said, Jules.
 
As everyone who knows anything at all about hunting knows, the fox IF caught is killed quickly and cleanly by a bite to the neck and a good shake by the lead hound. The huntsman then allows the pack to have a good pull and chew of the carcase as a 'reward' for the hounds. All those photos taken by anits of this procedure to 'prove' that hunting is cruel are either daft or dishonest - usually the latter

The sad thing is that a young fit fox would ususally escape hounds, in the past; and an old and mangy one which could no longer catch its food nor chew carrion would be caught and despatched before it declined into a horrible death - but not any more. Any fox put up by hounds is liable to be shot, and many are not killed outright. Foxes are now dying of gangrene from their wounds as unlike dogs they have no anti-infection 'healing' facility in their spittle.
 
Sorry, I've got lost on that last point, Headstrong. Any fox 'put up by hounds is liable to be shot, etc.' - so hunts are continuing to flush out foxes for, presumably, farmers to take a potshot at? I thought the point of farmers owning guns was so that they could use them against whatever they deemed vermin (which is about half the countryside's wildlife, it appears to me), so why would they be such crap shots? Or is winging something without despatching it cleanly of little concern to them?

As someone who knows nothing about hunting apart from what I'm told, cubs are surely pulled from their dens, aren't they, and just chucked to the hounds to tear to bits? I'm not being sentimental here - I just want to know the truth about this business. From the way hunting people and their supporters tell it, there's one quick bite and the job is done. On the other hand, other hunters I've known have told me that's the purpose of the Master's gun - to shoot the fox and THEN let the hounds have their fun with the corpse. As far as keeping numbers down is concerned, plenty of perfectly fit foxes are chased and are given best if an enjoyable run's been had, in the hope that the hunt can have another run with it anon, so the issue isn't - it would appear - to be about killing foxes per se, just when it's presumably not in the hunt's interest to keep them alive. I assume they have to come up with a quota to please landowners, in order to keep gallumping over their acres? So keeping down the 'vermin' (or God's creatures, depending on your point of view!) is really more subjective than objective, yes? No?

I wonder if there can ever be a straightforward and TRUTHFUL DISCUSSION on this subject, without the dissemblance one comes to expect from both sides of the coin?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Apr 25 2007, 12:46 AM
A valid entry, I'd say: excellent definition, and a fine example of some traditional British sporting life. As the CA constantly exhorts people not to criticise country sports without knowing something about what the sports entail, I think this would make a useful addition to their programme of enlightenment.
Click to expand...
Hear hear
 
Originally posted by trudij@Apr 25 2007, 10:29 AM
you will do well to find hunting people who arent prepared to listen to reasoned argument
Click to expand...
What like the ones who threatened the late Nick Hagan at Cheltenham for example .
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Apr 25 2007, 02:10 PM
Can anyone point out to me definitive proof that the fox in the picture is alive??


....no, thought not......

...and well said, Jules.
Click to expand...
:ph34r:

Not after that I should have thought SL
 
I think that people who complain about urban foxes should throw the blame at the feet of farmers. There has been a systematic destruction of hedgerows over the past 20 years or so and this had led to the elimination or reduction of many parts of the fox's diet, leading them into cities to hunt for food.
 
WHAT????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

That takes the biscuit, that really does!!!!! Urban foxes the fault of the farmers?????? The fox population has exploded, that's what has happened!!!! The fox has no lack of diet, believe me - there is plenty of wildlife out there as well as livestock that they help themselves to - they kill what they want & leave most of what they have killed.

Tell me, is this an urban dweller staunchly against hunting yet also adamant that they don't want the fox living in their town??! Pray tell what should be done with them then if their population shouldn't be controlled??!!
 
I haven't said the fox population is under control, please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't say I don't want foxes in my town; that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Again, words in the mouth. It is hard to deny that the disappearance of hedgerows has had an impact on the number of foxes needing to hunt farther afield. If there is plenty of food in the country (their natural habitat) why go into the towns?
 
Why bother to go chasing around a field after it when it is left out for you every night in dustbins and back alleys?

I think that urban dweller's bad habits are far more to blame for the boom in urban fox population than anything that is occuring in the countryside.
 
The loss of the hedgerows is a different matter altogether and can be blamed for the loss of plenty of wildlife but it cannot be blamed for the existence of the urban fox. There is plenty of food about for foxes - they only eat around 50% (if not less) of what they kill! It is the boom in the fox population that is the reason behind the urban fox along with the amount of food being readily available due to sloppiness amongst town dwellers, as Betsmate rightly points out.
 
Back
Top