REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

"Does it matter if a fox is caught or not as to the amount of money spent on a hunt?".

Ovver, I'm not sure what you mean by this question - are you asking whether a hunt is "paid by results"? Well, I've already outlined hunts' main sources of income. Of course, if a hunt kills virtually no foxes at all a farmer/landowner might well reconsider whether to allow the hunt across his land!

The other main service carried out is the collection of fallen stock. Clearly they get paid by results in this instance, although the sums are pretty nominal I believe.

"There must be a kill if possible otherwise the hunt would be deemed a failure."

221, well I suppose so, but no more than if an angler fails to catch a fish, for example. It's what happens over a period of time that counts. You're never going to get a 100% success rate. At least with hunting-with-dogs, the quarry is either 100% dead or 100% alive - you don't get the wounded animal situation where the creature, injured by bullets or poison, crawls off to a slow death.

<blockquote data-quote="Venusian" data-source="post: 2037205" data-attributes="member: 64949">&quot;Does it matter if a fox is caught or not as to the amount of money spent on a hunt?&quot;.Ovver, I&#039;m not sure what you mean by this question - are you asking whether a hunt is &quot;paid by results&quot;? Well, I&#039;ve already outlined hunts&#039; main sources of income. Of course, if a hunt kills virtually no foxes at all a farmer/landowner might well reconsider whether to allow the hunt across his land! The other main service carried out is the collection of fallen stock. Clearly they get paid by results in this instance, although the sums are pretty nominal I believe.&quot;There must be a kill if possible otherwise the hunt would be deemed a failure.&quot;221, well I suppose so, but no more than if an angler fails to catch a fish, for example. It&#039;s what happens over a period of time that counts. You&#039;re never going to get a 100% success rate. At least with hunting-with-dogs, the quarry is either 100% dead or 100% alive - you don&#039;t get the wounded animal situation where the creature, injured by bullets or poison, crawls off to a slow death.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Venusian, post: 2037205, member: 64949"] [i]"Does it matter if a fox is caught or not as to the amount of money spent on a hunt?".[/i] Ovver, I'm not sure what you mean by this question - are you asking whether a hunt is "paid by results"? Well, I've already outlined hunts' main sources of income. Of course, if a hunt kills virtually no foxes at all a farmer/landowner might well reconsider whether to allow the hunt across his land! The other main service carried out is the collection of fallen stock. Clearly they get paid by results in this instance, although the sums are pretty nominal I believe. [i]"There must be a kill if possible otherwise the hunt would be deemed a failure."[/i] 221, well I suppose so, but no more than if an angler fails to catch a fish, for example. It's what happens over a period of time that counts. You're never going to get a 100% success rate. At least with hunting-with-dogs, the quarry is either 100% dead or 100% alive - you don't get the wounded animal situation where the creature, injured by bullets or poison, crawls off to a slow death. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?