Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2010 9:30:06 GMT 1
not a very good example to bring up and a little predictable as well. firstly, did the authorities go and get a local hunt to ride with their dogs around the estate/neighbourhood to sort the problem, or did they set a trap and dispose of the fox humanely? secondly, far far far more people get atttacked by "mans best friend" on a daily basis, yet we dont go after them or their owners with packs of dogs then cheer as the animal is mauled to death. further more, according to the bbc website, there was a similar attack in 2002, 2 years before fox hunting was banned in england. at no stage did Labour prevent the control of this "pest", all they did was introduce a little humanity into it and take some of the fun out of it.
|
|
|
Post by salopianed on Jun 7, 2010 9:33:19 GMT 1
I promise more foxes are killed by farmers shooting them from their tractor than were killed by fox hunting. This point is correct. Indeed, the only reason for many farmers allowing a fox population is [ironically] for the local hunt. Even when the ban came into the place, it was said by government that lamping is a more humane option. The problem here is that lamping often takes places from long range, thus increasing the chances of winging a fox and protracting its death. The concept that many people miss is that foxes will always be killed as a pest - whether hunting is more or less favourable than lamping, gasing or snaring is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 7, 2010 17:11:58 GMT 1
My continuing point is that the population is out of control. Too much competition for food and territory. Fox hunting was one of many measure which had an impact, although marginal, on fox numbers.
And people continue to humanise what is a quite clinical predator. Australia had similar issues with Dingos.
And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Well, nothing basically, as a population cull - which would redress the issues of food and territory - would be vastly unpopular with the voting public.
The fact is the Fox is not an endangered species, so why the huge desire to see it protected so massively? Had the mother of these children not interviened, I'm fairly confident the fox would have done what it always does with prey - decapitated both, and taken one head for food. One 'pest control' expert says perhaps it was scared and attacked the children when frightened. Balderdash, it was a sustained attack on two, and the fox remained in the room when the mother came in and turned the light on - that is not the desired reaction from an animal like this.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 7, 2010 17:29:11 GMT 1
my next door neighbour had one of his ducks killed by a fox. he said that it was his own fault for not securing the ducks well enough (basically we share a brick outbuildingwhich has a shoulder high wall between us and the ducks were in his half. rhe fox came into my shed, scared the ducks into sticking their heads through the gate he had to keep them in, and then went round and bit the head off one). his point was a good one, we can have the countryside filled with foxes if we want, they were there first so why kill them when you can make buildings fox proof. i know plenty of people with domestic fowl of one sort or another, they secure the birds well and have no hassle from foxes. the first option should not be to kill them if pest control is the aim.
the pest reduction argument is as big a red herring as the argument that hunting was banned because it was cruel.
the landed gentry and other enthusiasts like being cruel to foxes as a sport, other people (anglers, people who shoot etc) accept cruelty in their own sport and the majority of the public dont want those sports banned because of it.
the only reason hunting was banned was because it was a way for some revenge on "posh people" after over a decade of quite an oppressive tory govt.
so as far as i can see, it was made illegal for bulls**t reasons and will be re-legalised for more bulls**t reasons. what a ****ed up way to run a country.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Jun 7, 2010 17:34:50 GMT 1
I'll be very interested in seeing how this particular story unfolds Me too.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainGlassback on Jun 7, 2010 17:46:06 GMT 1
Not heard an apology from T B Liar yet!!
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jun 7, 2010 18:58:12 GMT 1
A few years ago I dispaired at some on here for their hard line stance on the unfortunate McCann familiy in Portugal.
This woman left her front door open to cool the house, was she in fact knowingly putting her child at risk ?
|
|
|
Post by thenewblueorder on Jun 7, 2010 19:08:58 GMT 1
It's a horrible sport (if you can call it that) for toffs. Should 100% remained banned! i'm not getting in to a kick off over if fox hunting is right or wrong but trust me , it's far from being just for toffs it's a total myth . tally oh !
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 7, 2010 20:52:29 GMT 1
My continuing point is that the population is out of control. Too much competition for food and territory. Fox hunting was one of many measure which had an impact, although marginal, on fox numbers. And people continue to humanise what is a quite clinical predator. Australia had similar issues with Dingos. And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Well, nothing basically, as a population cull - which would redress the issues of food and territory - would be vastly unpopular with the voting public. The fact is the Fox is not an endangered species, so why the huge desire to see it protected so massively? Had the mother of these children not interviened, I'm fairly confident the fox would have done what it always does with prey - decapitated both, and taken one head for food. One 'pest control' expert says perhaps it was scared and attacked the children when frightened. Balderdash, it was a sustained attack on two, and the fox remained in the room when the mother came in and turned the light on - that is not the desired reaction from an animal like this. Humanise what is a clinical predator? Aren't you doing that by talking of a 'sustained attack on two', as if the fox is some vulpine re-incarnation of Jack the Ripper, rather than an animal acting on instinct. Terry Nutkins has this to say in today's Guardian: It reportedly entered the house through an open door, without knowing where it was going, and probably panicked when it found itself in a room with these two infants. When a fox is stressed, it runs about a lot and it could easily have injured the children accidentally. What I am definite about is that this fox did not go "on purpose" to attack the two children; that's simply not what foxes want to do. Any injury it caused those children would have been, in that sense, accidentalWhen a very rare incident like this involving a fox does occur, it is never the animal's fault. Foxes are not like wolves. They will never hunt humans, but only defend themselves if they feel that their own lives or their young are being threatened. You also write And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Do you extend these setiments to the firearms debat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2010 21:48:54 GMT 1
My continuing point is that the population is out of control. Too much competition for food and territory. Fox hunting was one of many measure which had an impact, although marginal, on fox numbers. And people continue to humanise what is a quite clinical predator. Australia had similar issues with Dingos. And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Well, nothing basically, as a population cull - which would redress the issues of food and territory - would be vastly unpopular with the voting public. The fact is the Fox is not an endangered species, so why the huge desire to see it protected so massively? Had the mother of these children not interviened, I'm fairly confident the fox would have done what it always does with prey - decapitated both, and taken one head for food. One 'pest control' expert says perhaps it was scared and attacked the children when frightened. Balderdash, it was a sustained attack on two, and the fox remained in the room when the mother came in and turned the light on - that is not the desired reaction from an animal like this. I cannot believe that you actually think that the fox would have " decapitated both" and "taken one head for food". Think i better buy some fox proof wire just in case a fox decides to bite me or the wifes head off as we sleep. What a nightmare we live in, tax rises, spending cuts and now head chomping foxes from hell. Doh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2010 23:27:57 GMT 1
My continuing point is that the population is out of control. Too much competition for food and territory. Fox hunting was one of many measure which had an impact, although marginal, on fox numbers. And people continue to humanise what is a quite clinical predator. Australia had similar issues with Dingos. And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Anyone know how much fox hunting, pre or post the ban, occurs in East London?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 8, 2010 3:44:27 GMT 1
Ant: I can't recall saying there were fox hunts in East London, but I did point out that fox hunting was one of many control measures of the population, now removed. Fox's are happy living in the city because it is easy pickings - food and shelter are readilly available, and furthermore, the countryside population has swelled to proportions where an urban fox would not be able to migrate should it need to do so. Shrewsace - apportioning whimsical sentiment to the animal is humanising, something best left to poets and Terry Nutkins. A clinical predator is exactly what it is - Clinical {detached} {objective} {unemotional}. Perhaps the use of the word 'sustained' may have been misplaced, but how else would you describe an attack leading to these injuries? Acting on instinct, as you say? Do you mean instinct to find food, or in self defence? It is not too outlandish to suggest that an infants cry would be similar to that of a wounded lamb or rabbit, which would certainly perk the interest of this animal. Extending these 'sentiments' to the firearms debate is a tenuous retort - are you suggesting my posts in that thread lead you to believe I support the actions of that murderer? I would like to see how Terry Nutkins has concluded that an accidnetal defensive action by this animal has left two toddlers in hospital, one with quite critical head injuries; more so as I have already stated when the animal had a clear escape route - its route of entry - and failed to be phased by a screaming mother, in a house, with the lights being on. Nutkins perhaps is concerned of a public backlash on the animal? Bayston - ask any sheep farmer what a fox does; how it kills; and what it does with its prey. Then ask why the other toddler had critical injuries to the face and head. and if you think people's concerns are outlandish, have a chat with the neighbours of the family involved in this incident - they have real concerns. Should these concerns be nullified, simply because this incident is so unusual? Tout le Monde - read back through my posts in this thread, I think I made it fairly clear I am not a supporter of fox hunting per se. However it seems to some on here that cuddle foxy woxy can do no wrong... Anyone jumping on the Welsh Badger Cull band waggon this week for more uninformed debate?
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Jun 8, 2010 4:06:21 GMT 1
Argh, don't get me started on badgers! Vile creatures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 6:17:30 GMT 1
Ant: I can't recall saying there were fox hunts in East London, but I did point out that fox hunting was one of many control measures of the population, now removed. surely the fact that such an "attack" took place before the fox hunting ban came into being illustrates that there is little connection between this attack and the ban on fox hunting. those with vested interests will however use is as some kind of platform to legalise their "sport".
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jun 8, 2010 7:55:32 GMT 1
Urban foxs have been amongst us for decades, they have not suddenly been forced there because of some mythical explosion in the rural fox community.
More to this story than meets the eye I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jun 8, 2010 8:42:30 GMT 1
Urban foxs have been amongst us for decades, they have not suddenly been forced there because of some mythical explosion in the rural fox community. More to this story than meets the eye I reckon. Have to agree with you Jamo.Expect more devepements on this one.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 8, 2010 8:47:02 GMT 1
Urban foxs have been amongst us for decades, they have not suddenly been forced there because of some mythical explosion in the rural fox community. More to this story than meets the eye I reckon. Have to agree with you Jamo.Expect more devepements on this one. Which may see the fox's role diminish?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 8, 2010 9:49:54 GMT 1
A few years ago I dispaired at some on here for their hard line stance on the unfortunate McCann familiy in Portugal. This woman left her front door open to cool the house, was she in fact knowingly putting her child at risk ? This is a terrible thing to happen and you have the audacity to compare this incident to going out for a meal, in a foriegn country and leaving your children sleeping . The fact that she was trying to cool the house down to make it more comfortable for everyone in the house, including the children means that she showed more care, not less. Perhaps a stair gate would have prevented the fox from getting to the bedroom or the door being held ajar, rather than wide open, but to blame the mother as your post seems to be doing is harsh in the extreme. The McCanns chose to show less care for their children, when extra care was required and if they had been a couple of p1$$heads from a sink estate in Manchester or Leeds rather than proffessionals from the sleepy middle class Shires they would have been universally slaughtered by the press and the public.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jun 8, 2010 12:46:06 GMT 1
This is a terrible thing to happen and you have the audacity to compare this incident to going out for a meal, in a foriegn country and leaving your children sleeping [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img]. [/quote] So please answer the point, were the children put in a position of danger due to the actions of a parent leaving a door open and then failing to guard it. Further to that you state by leaving the door open and unguarded she in your opinion showed "more care". You also state "this is a terrible thing to happen" does this indicate the what happened in Portugal wasn't ? Interesting how opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jun 8, 2010 12:52:51 GMT 1
Have to agree with you Jamo.Expect more devepements on this one. Which may see the fox's role diminish? Correct Sean
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 8, 2010 13:43:09 GMT 1
Shrewsace - apportioning whimsical sentiment to the animal is humanising, something best left to poets and Terry Nutkins. A clinical predator is exactly what it is - Clinical {detached} {objective} {unemotional}. Perhaps the use of the word 'sustained' may have been misplaced, but how else would you describe an attack leading to these injuries? Acting on instinct, as you say? Do you mean instinct to find food, or in self defence? It is not too outlandish to suggest that an infants cry would be similar to that of a wounded lamb or rabbit, which would certainly perk the interest of this animal. Extending these 'sentiments' to the firearms debate is a tenuous retort - are you suggesting my posts in that thread lead you to believe I support the actions of that murderer? I would like to see how Terry Nutkins has concluded that an accidnetal defensive action by this animal has left two toddlers in hospital, one with quite critical head injuries; more so as I have already stated when the animal had a clear escape route - its route of entry - and failed to be phased by a screaming mother, in a house, with the lights being on. Nutkins perhaps is concerned of a public backlash on the animal? A fox may be a predator but it doesn't prey on humans. Demonising the fox involved in this incident (if, indeed, a fox was involved at all), is humanising the animal as much as portraying it as cuddly and cute. I know you think the fox hunting ban was a political move, rather than a rational decision, but the message of your original post seems to be 'See what happens when you ban fox hunting - babies get attacked'. I think you've made a big jump to link this incident to the ban in fox hunting. Where is the evidence that there is a link, direct or indirect? As Jamo states, urban foxes are not a new phenomenon unheard of before the ban. Of course I'm not suggesting you support the actions of Derrick Bird. I'm saying that both are rare, 'freak' incidents. In the case of the Cumbrian murders you take the view that you can't legislate for such rare, freak events, but for some reason don't seem to apply this thinking to the 'fox' incident
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jun 8, 2010 14:15:17 GMT 1
My continuing point is that the population is out of control. Too much competition for food and territory. Fox hunting was one of many measure which had an impact, although marginal, on fox numbers. And people continue to humanise what is a quite clinical predator. Australia had similar issues with Dingos. And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Well, nothing basically, as a population cull - which would redress the issues of food and territory - would be vastly unpopular with the voting public. The fact is the Fox is not an endangered species, so why the huge desire to see it protected so massively? Had the mother of these children not interviened, I'm fairly confident the fox would have done what it always does with prey - decapitated both, and taken one head for food. One 'pest control' expert says perhaps it was scared and attacked the children when frightened. Balderdash, it was a sustained attack on two, and the fox remained in the room when the mother came in and turned the light on - that is not the desired reaction from an animal like this. Humanise what is a clinical predator? Aren't you doing that by talking of a 'sustained attack on two', as if the fox is some vulpine re-incarnation of Jack the Ripper, rather than an animal acting on instinct. Terry Nutkins has this to say in today's Guardian: It reportedly entered the house through an open door, without knowing where it was going, and probably panicked when it found itself in a room with these two infants. When a fox is stressed, it runs about a lot and it could easily have injured the children accidentally. What I am definite about is that this fox did not go "on purpose" to attack the two children; that's simply not what foxes want to do. Any injury it caused those children would have been, in that sense, accidentalWhen a very rare incident like this involving a fox does occur, it is never the animal's fault. Foxes are not like wolves. They will never hunt humans, but only defend themselves if they feel that their own lives or their young are being threatened. You also write And so what if attacks like this are 'rare' - the fact is that any attack is truly sickening. Suppose it was your kids? Would you not want to know what the government is doing to eradicate the problem?? Do you extend these setiments to the firearms debat? -------- Very good points. Foxes do what comes natural to them, they're just looking for food. They're not doing things for a laugh or seeking pleasure. I'm far more sickened by attacks by grown humans on other humans, children and animals. I'd rather see scum like that dealt with severely - perhaps they could be hunted with hounds instead
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 8, 2010 15:06:20 GMT 1
Shrewsace - apportioning whimsical sentiment to the animal is humanising, something best left to poets and Terry Nutkins. A clinical predator is exactly what it is - Clinical {detached} {objective} {unemotional}. Perhaps the use of the word 'sustained' may have been misplaced, but how else would you describe an attack leading to these injuries? Acting on instinct, as you say? Do you mean instinct to find food, or in self defence? It is not too outlandish to suggest that an infants cry would be similar to that of a wounded lamb or rabbit, which would certainly perk the interest of this animal. Extending these 'sentiments' to the firearms debate is a tenuous retort - are you suggesting my posts in that thread lead you to believe I support the actions of that murderer? I would like to see how Terry Nutkins has concluded that an accidnetal defensive action by this animal has left two toddlers in hospital, one with quite critical head injuries; more so as I have already stated when the animal had a clear escape route - its route of entry - and failed to be phased by a screaming mother, in a house, with the lights being on. Nutkins perhaps is concerned of a public backlash on the animal? 'See what happens when you ban fox hunting - babies get attacked'. I think you've made a big jump to link this incident to the ban in fox hunting. Where is the evidence that there is a link, direct or indirect? As Jamo states, urban foxes are not a new phenomenon unheard of before the ban. And here is the confusion?? I did not state that banning fox hunting leads to attacks on humans; I stated I believed this ban was a removed control measure thus encouraging the population to go unchecked; and also challenged many people's belief that the fox is a cute and cuddly creature... I merely posted in this thread rather than create a new one linking to fox's. Still topical as, as previously mentioned, fox hunting was a form of control - again to re-iterate, a small one, but a control nonetheless. I hear what Jamo is saying, yes urban fox's have been with us for many years. However, a growth in population has led to more competition for territory, forcing human/wildlife interaction where perhaps it should not be. And perhaps this incident is the consequence of 'urbanising' a wild predator. People hand feed these creatures, encourage them into their houses, and they appear to have lost their natural fear of humans and human habitation. Perhaps this has emboldened the animal to such a degree it now interacts with us in a way which will lead to more incidents such as this. Time will tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 15:56:47 GMT 1
[However, a growth in population has led to more competition for territory, forcing human/wildlife interaction where perhaps it should not be. And perhaps this incident is the consequence of 'urbanising' a wild predator. and again the point, this is not the first such attack, there was one in 2002 BEFORE the hunting ban. So it follows that no matter how people try, this incident cannot be linked to the ban on hunting. As comrade James points out, urban foxes have been around for hundreds of years, thus your statement above suggests that the fox population has grown for hundreds of years, which again suggests that fox hunting is no good at controlling them. Far more children get bitten by jack russels every year than they do by foxs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 20:17:26 GMT 1
I feel that we are talking about two completly different animals in this debate. The urban fox is an animal which we have encouraged to live with us by our "feeding" of them. If you feed them they obviously become more used to humans and have no fear of them. They become what can be described as "socialised" animals, and therefore you get incidents such as the one last weekend. Unfortunately, the experts will tell you that controlling urban foxes is difficult, expensive, and never succesful. The moment you increase the mortality rate, foxes compensate by increasing the population of breeding vixens. The natural wild fox is the fox of our childhoods, "brer fox" "the gentleman in the red waistcoat" the fox that our children read about in stories and fairytales. The truth is, it is a natural born killer, which, as we all know, can decimate a hen house, chicken coop, etc in minutes. I understand that its numbers need to be controlled, but by people on horseback with hounds, no. How can the argument stand that it is a control measure, when the success rate is neglible. Very few foxes get caught this way, but i abhor the suffering those that do get caught go through before death.
The fox is an animal we eulogise about in writings, poetry etc. throughout the ages, yet we as humans cannot find a way of living in harmony with. I think our failings say more about us than they do about the fox!
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Jun 9, 2010 4:25:54 GMT 1
I'm confused Baystonblue. You say the population needs controlling, but not by dogs and people on horses. I assure you the dogs do a much more efficient job of killing the fox than a person with a rifle ever could. The dogs go straight for the neck, killing it instantly, whereas a perfect head-shot would be needed by a gun. Which isn't easy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 8:31:24 GMT 1
The dogs go straight for the neck, killing it instantly, ! The man with the gun goes straight for the head, niether necessarilly hit the target. Not heard an apology from T B Liar yet!! T B Liar gosh thats just so original and funny he never has and never will need to make an apology.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jun 9, 2010 8:35:31 GMT 1
I'm confused Baystonblue. You say the population needs controlling, but not by dogs and people on horses. I assure you the dogs do a much more efficient job of killing the fox than a person with a rifle ever could. The dogs go straight for the neck, killing it instantly, whereas a perfect head-shot would be needed by a gun. Which isn't easy! How many times does a hunt catch a fox ? not every time which is hardly efficiency in practice is it ? Please stop trying to patronise us with details of the actual kill whilst avoiding the issue of the morality of the issue. Hunting is a sport and carried out for sporting reasons , nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Jun 9, 2010 8:36:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Jun 9, 2010 9:08:42 GMT 1
How many times does a hunt catch a fox ? not every time which is hardly efficiency in practice is it ? Please stop trying to patronise us with details of the actual kill whilst avoiding the issue of the morality of the issue. Hunting is a sport and carried out for sporting reasons , nothing else. There there Jamo, there's no need to feel patronised *pats Jamo on the head* I'm not arguing that the hunt is an efficient practice, I was going to make the point that hunts don't always catch the fox. I'm arguing that the kill itself is quicker when it's done by dogs. Which it is, there's no denying it. I agree it's also a sport, but so is going round shooting them. I'm not pro hunting I just disagree with the law, it's pointless. The law saying it's OK to shoot them is a complete contradiction. If you ban hunting with dogs then all forms of 'cruel' sports should be banned otherwise it's hypocrisy. Do you think dragging a fish from it's environment via a hook to the mouth is moral? I don't think so but fishing is something many people enjoy, including me, I caught a nice Snapper from Phillip Bay the other day for me this is the same as fox hunting.
|
|