Young Writers Society

It's a longstanding tradition, which is why there are so many of them. What else can be done with them? Answer me that.

Thegirlwhofateloves I live in the country and an quite familiar with the "fox hunting tradition" and that still does not make me feel any less against this barbaric act.

Foxes are important parts of nature. If, for example, you kill off thirty percent of the foxes in an area the rabbit, hare etc population in that area booms meaning less grass for livestock in that area which can leed to all sorts of problems for farmers.

There are numerous other carnivores that kill poultry etc. Take for example stoats or ferrets or even badgers (omnivores; will kill and eat a chicken if they get in into their heads to do so). There are no organised bloody chases for these animals even though in certain areas they outnumber foxes.

Oh and by the way I have seen a fox killing a chicken. The chicken's death is quick and relativly painless. You can hardly say that about the fox's....

*Shakes head* I was hoping I wouldn't have to this, but...

Hunting is necessary. It is a necessary part of life ESPECIALLY in our increasingly modernized world. Why? You may be asking me. Well, I'll tell you. Because, due to modernization, we humans h ave either killed off completely, or drastically reduced the numbers of the natural predators of most of these animals. For example, where I live, the Deer used to be hunted by Coyotes and Wolves, but we've killed off all the wolves and most of the coyotes. This poses a problem of over population of the deer population. This then leads to: a. scavenging on human junk (i.e. wasted/left over food people throw away) and/or wandering into human areas (either to scavenge, or look for natural food) resulting in many human-deer related accidents, usually in cars.
Not to mention, when winter comes the high population of deer makes it next to impossible for the entire herd to survive on what little food they can scavenge, thus a large percentage of the herd will die each winter. Hunting them solves this problem. With a highly regulated, deer hunting season, the culling of a few of the animals will thus make the herd in itself healthier and more able to survive on its own, especially in winter. While many people view "sport" hunting as just "killing the fluffy cute animals for fun of it", it in reality is doing the overall population of the animals in the area a favor.

While I agree that OVER HUNTING (i.e. hunting to where the animal is endangered) like we did to the Wolf, Coyote, Eagle/Hawk, Buffalo, etc. is a very bad problem, not only for the animals themselves, and for animal rights activists, but it is ecologically unsound, as it destroyes very fragile niches in the ecosystems, and these niches can't be filled by other animals, and introducing foreign animals into foreign ecosystems is a BAD idea (i.e Grey Squirrels in UK, and I think theres an American example, but I forget what). Thats why hunting is, and needs to remain, HIGHLY REGULATED. However, it is a vital necessity to ecology, and must remain legal.

Also, I'd prefer if people ate their kill, but again, I can't force them to do that. If they don't, I would urge them to donate the meat to a homeless shelter. One buck can feed a lot of people. Plus, venison, from what I've heard, is very tasty.

Also, not to go off on a tangent, but "sport hunting" if done correctly, and with a bow and arrow rather than a high powered rifle, is truly sport. Its the way our ancestors hunted for their meals. It is the supreme competition of man vs beast, competing for the ultimate prize: life.

...Okay, um, I think I'm done, and I hope I got my point across.

Yes, maybe fox hunting hounds are being put down becuase of fox hunting bans but, if fox hunting hounds need to be put down just because of the ban then that means they weren't safe in the first place. Why can't they be pets instead of being put down? Because they are mean, wild and unpredictable. So if you people are saying that it is bad to ban fox hunting because that means it will kill a few hundred dangerous dogs then you arent really thinking the situation through.

^No. They are simply bred in a different way. They're working dogs, that's the difference. They aren't that vicious in general, but it wouldn't be advisable for most families to take them on because a) Yes, they could be unpredictable, and not good with children, because they aren't domestic animals and b) There are very few owners who could take them on enough walks to match the amount of exercise that they are used to. They are, for obvious reasons, extremely energetic animals. And they aren't pets. But that doesn't mean they are dangerous. They are trained to hunt foxes, not kill humans.

Sabradan's right, hunting IS necessary. It's a sport, yes, but it's become that over time. It's most definitely NOT just for the fun of killing animals, which is what a lot of anti-hunting people don't seem to be able to grasp. Foxes aren't likely to die out anytime soon.

And by the way, Adam101 - the specifics of the ban I wrote in a previous post. The current 'ban' has so many loopholes, that it really can't qualify as a out and out ban. It's a compromise at the moment, because the government don't have the balls to do it with election time looming.

*Twilight* wrote:Yes, maybe fox hunting hounds are being put down becuase of fox hunting bans but, if fox hunting hounds need to be put down just because of the ban then that means they weren't safe in the first place. Why can't they be pets instead of being put down? Because they are mean, wild and unpredictable. So if you people are saying that it is bad to ban fox hunting because that means it will kill a few hundred dangerous dogs then you arent really thinking the situation through.

Fox Hounds are a working dog, why cant they keep as pets? Who the hell wants about 25 fox hounds to KEEP, FEED etc... It costs money which no average person could afford.

yes there are loopholes for example (i dont know whether you said this) if you go out with a single dog and it kills a feild mouse, thats ok, if you go out with two and they kill a feild you coild be fined.

It is a necessary part of life ESPECIALLY in our increasingly modernized world Sabradan

I was of the impression that as we, as a society, became ever more modernized we were straying away from the barbaric, more animal side of our nature; that we were becoming more humane - more preoccupied with the world and the people which surround us. Not ripping them apart at every opportunity.

How many hunts are done with a bow and arrow ?( by the way it is ridiculous to state that hunting with a bow and arrow is more humane for the fox. A gun has more power and kills the fox quicker as it is easier to penetrate the skin)

It is not the foxes fault that we are infringing on their habitat ! Must we make things worse for them by not only taking their homes but killing them off so they don't come near us !

If killing foxes is not a sport then what is it ? Surely you cannot state that it is for the foxes own good or to lessen the population for the good of the wider community. A hunt may only kill one fox in a days hunt. That means that they affect very little of the general fox population. What frightens me is that these people get satisfaction from this torture (there is no other way to describe it )of an innocent. It is a sick sport hidden behind the pretense of the wider good !

Eyes wrote:

It is a necessary part of life ESPECIALLY in our increasingly modernized world Sabradan

I was of the impression that as we, as a society, became ever more modernized we were straying away from the barbaric, more animal side of our nature; that we were becoming more humane - more preoccupied with the world and the people which surround us. Not ripping them apart at every opportunity.

How many hunts are done with a bow and arrow ?( by the way it is ridiculous to state that hunting with a bow and arrow is more humane for the fox. A gun has more power and kills the fox quicker as it is easier to penetrate the skin)

It is not the foxes fault that we are infringing on their habitat ! Must we make things worse for them by not only taking their homes but killing them off so they don't come near us !

If killing foxes is not a sport then what is it ? Surely you cannot state that it is for the foxes own good or to lessen the population for the good of the wider community. A hunt may only kill one fox in a days hunt. That means that they affect very little of the general fox population. What frightens me is that these people get satisfaction from this torture (there is no other way to describe it )of an innocent. It is a sick sport hidden behind the pretense of the wider good !

Insert "read the thread" smiley here. Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, you wouldn't be askin gme these questions.

How many hunts are done with a bow and arrow ?( by the way it is ridiculous to state that hunting with a bow and arrow is more humane for the fox. A gun has more power and kills the fox quicker as it is easier to penetrate the skin)

In the British Isles I suspect VERY little if none at all. It is banned and even pro hunters see this as in humane.

To clarify a fact here: I doubt that there are many people are screwed up enough to hunt for the pure pleasure of killing. Hunting is done either to control animals (eg: fox hunting), or for food (eg: rabbit, or pheasant).
Take where I live. The local countryside is over populated by foxes. This has bad effects on farmer's economy, for one.
By the way, did you ever here of that child who got killed by a fox? A baby was in the kitchen floor, left by his mother for a second, and a fox came in through the open garden door and ate the kid's face.
So, why did that happen? I'm not saying all foxes are evil or whatever...I'm making a point that the reason this happened was likely to be because there was very little food elsewhere, as foxes are overpopulated. When you think about it, controlling their numbers is actually helping the species survive. And from what I've heard, starvation is a far more painful death than being killed instantly.

By the way, did you ever here of that child who got killed by a fox? A baby was in the kitchen floor, left by his mother for a second, and a fox came in through the open garden door and ate the kid's face.

How often has this happened ? This was a once of - foxes do not go around looking for babies to eat. So what your saying is that this once off occurance is justiication for the thousands of cubs - BABY foxes- that are ripped apart by hounds each year.

Insert "read the thread" smiley here. Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, you wouldn't be asking me these questions.

Well, I'll tell you. Because, due to modernization, we humans h ave either killed off completely, or drastically reduced the numbers of the natural predators of most of these animals. For example, where I live, the Deer used to be hunted by Coyotes and Wolves, but we've killed off all the wolves and most of the coyotes. This poses a problem of over population of the deer population. This then leads to: a. scavenging on human junk (i.e. wasted/left over food people throw away) and/or wandering into human areas (either to scavenge, or look for natural food) resulting in many human-deer related accidents, usually in cars.
Not to mention, when winter comes the high population of deer makes it next to impossible for the entire herd to survive on what little food they can scavenge, thus a large percentage of the herd will die each winter. Hunting them solves this problem. With a highly regulated, deer hunting season, the culling of a few of the animals will thus make the herd in itself healthier and more able to survive on its own, especially in winter. While many people view "sport" hunting as just "killing the fluffy cute animals for fun of it", it in reality is doing the overall population of the animals in the area a favor

Yes I read it. Did you read what I said? Try it ! It might surprise you...

Well, if you've read what I said, why are you asking me about why in modernization we should stop hunting? I said above, that its because without hunting they a. wander into human areas, and b. it helps the animal's group overall, by culling the weaker animals in the group so they can survive as a group throughout the winter.

Eyes, it was an example, dammit!

Yes I read it Sab. Perhaps I should repeat myself .......

Surely you cannot state that it is for the foxes own good or to lessen the population for the good of the wider community. A hunt may only kill one fox in a days hunt. That means that they affect very little of the general fox population

So it is ridiculous to say that by tearing this one fox apart that no fox is going to a. wander into human areas, and b. it helps the animal's group overall( the hounds don't care whether a fox is sick or healthy. They are not going to stop chasing a fox because it is healthy. For all you know you could be killing off perfectly healthy animals .)

Hunting is an inefficient way of dealing with the fox population. It is a sad fact of modernized society that there isn't enough room for animals and humans to live separately - there is going to be infringement and sadly hunting is not going to help. There has to be compromise.

It's got nothing to do with whether or not the fox is healthy. What has that got to do with anything? That's simply survival of the fittest, a whole different thing. If it's unhealthy or old than it's going to die anyway - whether the hounds catch it or not.

If you think about the number of years foxes have been hunted for, then you'll understand not only that foxes are not likely to die out anytime soon - but also that if hunting was stopped entirely, there would be a potentially disastrous influx in their numbers.

And, as for your comment about how this is an ineffectual way of dealing with the fox population - well, how else to you suggest it's done? I suppose you think that we should all keep them as fluffy little pets and take them on walks on a lead?

How many hunts are done with a bow and arrow ?( by the way it is ridiculous to state that hunting with a bow and arrow is more humane for the fox. A gun has more power and kills the fox quicker as it is easier to penetrate the skin)

Eyes-

Actually, quite a few people hunt with bows and arrows. Some believe in the 'old school' method. In Vermont, there is a season solely for bows and another for guns.

Now, as for your point of view, stating a gun has more power in penetrating the skin, this is not necessarily true. Hunting depends on a keen sense of sight and aim. So, it would be no different then shoot a rifle and having the bullet connecting into the hindquarters of the animal. Same thing with the bow; if the arrow doesn't connect into the neck/head area, then yes of course, the animal won't die immediately. It's not necessarily the power of the firearm but more related to the sense of sight of the hunter.

A bow is just as effective as a gun.

As for me, claiming a bow is more humane (assuming you were referring to me), I meant compared to snare traps, bows AND guns are far more humane than those awful things.

Edit, I agree with this:

If you think about the number of years foxes have been hunted for, then you'll understand not only that foxes are not likely to die out anytime soon - but also that if hunting was stopped entirely, there would be a potentially disastrous influx in their numbers.

When a population becomes overrun, the only successful way to bring the pop down before it becomes out of control is to hunt. Same thing goes for deer, moose and foul.

Last year, there were five reported car accidents; 1 death in my state. The cause? Moose. When the pop of an animal causes that kind of chaos, then something needs to be done. The same would go for any other animal, such as groundhogs. Back in the late forties (I think) it was legal for farmers to kill groundhogs on contact and their was a five dollar reward for the pelt. The reason for hunting the groundhogs was because the tunnels and holes they were digging were causing cows to trip, thus breaking their legs. Of course, it is illegal now. My dad told me this; the groundhog hunting.

Hunting for sport, such as foxes, and hunting because it's mandatory for people to co-exist within the animal kingdom are two entirely different things all together.

From my standpoint, I detest hunting for sheer sport (Even when I fish, I mainly catch and release) but when it calls for bringing the pop down of an animal overrunning the countryside; I respect that.

That's life, plain and simple. Just as long whatever is being hunted is properly regulated so the species doesn't become threatened or endangered.