Young Writers Society

Seeing as my usergroup status for the Debate forum is pending (??...grr) I'm starting up this debate here.

What's your opinion?

(Personally I think foxes should be completely wiped out but that's just my opinion. Hey - guess which option I chose?!)

Well around here we don't have fox problems so I can't really say. But, my animal lover side says NO!!!

It should be banned !! No living creature should kill anything unneccesarily. It is not in our nature to kill foxes as we don't eat them ( hopefully !!) .

I think the method by which the foxes are killed is terrible also. They are chased by a mob of people on horses and a pack of dogs . These foxes are tortured before their inevitable deaths !

Heres a link where you can see an actual fox hunt. ( watch ONLY if you have a strong stomach )
http://www.arkonline.com/foxhunt.html

Here are some facts ..........

Hunting hounds are bred for endurance, not speed, which means that each fox hunt can last as long as two hours, until the fox is finally seized, and if lucky, shot, before being thrown to the hounds. Sometimes, the fox is literally eaten alive by the dogs, torn to pieces, with the tail, feet and head usually taken as trophy. Some hunts still engage in the practice of "blooding," where the foxes' blood is smeared on the faces of those witnessing their first kill, usually children.


There are roughly 200 official fox hunts in England, entertaining about 50,000 Britons, and translating to the deaths of an estimated 13,000 foxes and 6,000 fox cubs each year.


Like wolves, foxes suffer from generations of myths portraying them as cunning, vicious pests who plunder livestock and kill children and pets. The fact that lambs and other small animals are often found at foxes' earths is no evidence that they were killed by a fox, as foxes usually carry away the carcasses of dead animals for later consumption. In reality, studies have shown foxes pose little or no threat to pets, and a child is more likely to die at the hands of his or her parents, than from a fox attack. Similarly, studies have also determined that livestock deaths are usually the result of poor husbandry, not the fault of foxes. Those who profit the most from these myths are the people who kill foxes for sport and financial gain.


Studies have also exposed the fallacy of the hunter's other favorite excuse: that fox hunting keeps the fox population in check. Hunting is an inefficient form of population control, as foxes naturally balance their numbers based on food supply and territorial availability. Plus, when foxes in a given area are killed, their places are taken by others. Bloody beatings captured on film have proven to be powerful purveyors of truth. The video camera has done more to dispel the myths and realities of bloodsports than anything else, as the brutalities of the hunt are captured for the public eye, bringing the truth onto the tellies of millions of Britons. Filmed evidence of pregnant vixens torn apart by hounds, and live foxes thrown to dogs testify against any humane claims hunters may have.


[i](Hunting the Hunters:
The Bloody Truth about Fox Hunting
by Robin Roth )[/i]

Oh my gosh!
I can't belive that people do that! I mean here in Texas cyoties kill our livestock but you don't see us hunting them like madmen. I won't even hunt a deer for food let alone slaughter a fox for the fun of it. I say ban it!

It should be banned.

I've heard a fox hunter say (and this was one of his very few arguments), 'Nothing gives me more joy than to see the hounds get their fox.' As in, he likes watching the poor fox being ripped apart.

I don't need to watch that video, as I've seen a hunt and I know what happens.

The current law states that a fox may not be hunted by a pack of hounds. However, it has been deemed acceptable by the government that a bird of prey can be used to catch a fox, or the fox may be chased (drag hunting) on condition it's not caught, or, alternatively, the fox can be shot. All of these are ridiculous, as all of these are more painful for the fox.

Plus, there are major loop holes in these new guidelines. First of all, it is not stated what type of bird of prey can be used - it could be a golden eagle. Drag hunting does not guarantee that the fox will not be caught by the hounds, as that is what they are trained to do - and if it is caught, then it can be claimed to be an accident.

Shooting is probably one of the most inhumane ways of killing the fox. You're very likely to miss, which means it dies a very painful death. Hounds, on the other hand, are trained to kill straight away, which caused the fox very little hurt. Also, there are hundreds of hounds bred purely for this purpose. They aren't mistreated, but if hunting was banned, what do you think would happen to them? They'd have to all be put down.

The reason that fox hunting can't be banned is because the countryside is overrun with foxes. If they don't die, the rest of the countryside will suffer. And have you ever seen what a fox does to a chicken?

A pack of dogs is very unlikely to be able to kill a fox instantly. Dog's teeth are designed to rip and tear, and there is no way - save destroying the brain almost instantly - that a dog could 'painlessly' kill it's prey.

Shooting a fox, as long as bullet hits the head. Such a shot could pulled off with the correct training and practice.

Fox's aren't overrunning the countryside. Or, at least, there is no real evidence for this. However, reducing the fox population will increase the prey population... which will then increase the fox population (and decrease the prey population), and so on. Hunting foxes will throw the natural equilibrium out of order.

Raising dogs for the only purpose to hunt foxes doesn't strike me as being all that kind. And if you have to put down those dogs simply because they can no longer hunt for you, what does that say about you?

It's a longstanding tradition, which is why there are so many of them. What else can be done with them? Answer me that.
It really annoys me when people who don't know very much about the countryside get all uptight about animal rights. Yes, some terrible things are done to animals. Fox hunting is far from being the worst. The majority of the people I know who hunt have pets and love them to bits. I have 2 dogs.
Fox hunting and cruely to animals are two completely different things.

FOx Hunting has been banned in the Uk, and wrongly so. I agree with foxhunting, it is a livlihood and very old sport in which people of all ages and classes socialise.

Yes it is barbaric, yes its not humane but the fox dies instantly, the bloodhound is trained to break the nech first, then after the dogd tear it apart.

*Twilight* wrote:Well around here we don't have fox problems so I can't really say. But, my animal lover side says NO!!!

ANimal lover side? If you were an animal lover you would agree with fox hunting. Now that the hunting ban is in force many royal houses have hat t put down hundreds of fox hounds because they are no use and a money leech now. More animals are saved when the hunt is on.

Foxes are a vermin, like rats. They infest and kill livestock as well as spread disease. WOuld you cry over killing a rat? No, so why a fox?

All I have to say to those here who believe in "Animal Rights": We, as humans, are on top of the food chain for a reason. This gives us certain rights, and responsibilities. I'll see if you can figure out what that means.

I agree with the ban, its cruel to kill any animals and that goes for the cull of the grey squirrels(sp?) too.

I don't know if it should necessarily be banned, as that would take away more of our freedoms, (ha, like I believe in that argument )...

No, but seriously, why would anyone want to kill anything for pure sport? I could understand if you actually needed food to kill deer or something, or if you for some reason couldn't go to Wal-Mart and buy clothes you could kill some animals so that you'd be clothed, but if you don't need to use it, don't kill it. I've never gone hunting and never plan to.

Doe wrote:I agree with the ban, its cruel to kill any animals and that goes for the cull of the grey squirrels(sp?) too.

They did that because the red ones are dying out or something.

Noxious wrote:

Doe wrote:I agree with the ban, its cruel to kill any animals and that goes for the cull of the grey squirrels(sp?) too.

They did that because the red ones are dying out or something.

Grey squirrels were introduced into Britain, however they are vermin, kill birds eggs and they drove Red Squirrels into the scottish pine forests.

As for hunting for sport, yes it is cruel but thefact that the ban is in place has killed more animals. For example farmers let the hares breed on the land for the anual waterloo cup. Now there isnt the water loo cup (which only killed 3 hares a year) farmers shoot the hare s off their land in the hundreds. The ones for the ban are the ones who are cruel

Hmm...
This is a hard question to answer because the status or population of foxes will vary from state to state; country to country. Here, in Vermont, moose and deer are regulated because their population is plentiful.

But wolves? I believe the last one was killed somewhere in the forties. Their cousins such as the coyote's don't seem to have a high pop so there is no hunting/trapping them. As for foxes, I think their is a ban on trapping them too. Or at least is against the law to hunt them.

I've see two foxes in my entire life. Though this doesn't amount to much since they're nocturnal but foxes seem to be scarce in my state. It would be wrong and heartless to hunt something that could be the verge of extinction, like certain subspecies of wolves.

Also, snare traps are nasty. THOSE should be outlawed as they are inhumane. If it's legal to hunt foxes where you live, then the only things that should be used is a gun or bow/arrow. Run a search on snare traps. You'll see what I mean and why I hate them as a hunting tool.