HOME | DD

Decanii In reply to MafiaDogz [2014-01-09 15:05:52 +0000 UTC]

It's not okay to hunt foxes in the UK with dogs because it's illegal, friend.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MafiaDogz In reply to Decanii [2014-01-09 22:45:25 +0000 UTC]

Oh, with dogs? Sorry. Wasn't paying attention. :S I think it's wrong to do it with dogs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to arbutusbreedery [2012-09-02 21:47:57 +0000 UTC]

Sure use it wherever you want.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to Arcanine-lv-Ninetale [2011-12-09 18:17:37 +0000 UTC]

I can see your point of view and thanks for commenting respectfully. However do not view all hunters as "killing innocent animals" hunting is a way of life for many, many people and most hunters have a lot of respect for nature and the animals in which they hunt. Also when an animal is shot they are killed in seconds (an injection requires a lot of money and infact it takes longer for the animal to die off and would not be a productive way to manage population). When you see an animal get shot by a skilled hunter sometimes the animal is so unware of its death a grazing deer for example would still have the grass in its mouth from the point of death. When you see a shot animal move its limbs etc that is only muscle and energy being released, because the death was quick the muscles still have energy to release so it will still move.

Even though I do not like blood sports (people hunting for fun) hunting for management and for a living is a whole new kettle of fish you may not change your view but try to keep an open mind about these people because hunters are probably the only people on this earth that fully respect nature and how it works. (Not just any hunter think about tribal people and the inuits who have hunted for thousands of years and not just for money).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Arcanine-lv-Ninetale In reply to ghostwolfen [2011-12-09 20:51:48 +0000 UTC]

true but blood sport it very cruel though

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to MoonlightWite [2011-09-24 13:29:15 +0000 UTC]

Personally I do not disagree with hunting for culling purposes (Thats fine to me) and I don't agree with foxes being kept as pets either. This stamp is only against the "Fox hunting" where foxes are hunted and killed for the soul purpose of a fun sport and the fox,hounds and horse all get harmed in the sport sometimes even get killed. I don't agree with fox hunting because its a brutal way for an animal to be killed (being ripped to shreds on intent).

Just thought I might state the meaning behind the stamp this isn't against general hunting or culling .

Thank you for your view anyhow.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to Halethewolfman [2011-08-23 13:25:11 +0000 UTC]

Yep I agree thats not right at all .

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to Foxfire1mia [2011-07-12 00:27:43 +0000 UTC]

Thank you very much for the comment -sorry for the uber late response- I 100% agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to littlehummingbirdy [2011-04-25 21:55:14 +0000 UTC]

XD indeed and its a good way to hunt and have fun without killing or harming anything else in the process .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

littlehummingbirdy In reply to ghostwolfen [2011-05-02 12:58:24 +0000 UTC]

so do i

--
sry 4 my baaaaad english ;D

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to KidateCalf [2011-03-04 21:44:16 +0000 UTC]

Yes this stamp targets the sport based fox-hunting

- I believe in nessary cullings due to over-population of a spieces etc (to balance out ecosystems in a humane way). But I believe that the fox-hunt sport really isn't the way to go about it its creul and barbaric and also is the waste of the kill itself and can seriously cause harm to the hounds involved too. Thats my overall basic view on the subject-matter

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Shamrock733 In reply to Cursico [2010-11-22 01:08:29 +0000 UTC]

You think its wrong to kill a fox, but what about killing a deer?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to Shamrock733 [2010-11-22 09:53:26 +0000 UTC]

It is also morally incorrect... but I make a distinction between 'population control', 'sport hunting' and hunting for food... though I think any death is upsetting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Shamrock733 In reply to Cursico [2010-11-22 11:48:22 +0000 UTC]

True, that last part, I find too. I only really believe in hunting for food if it is done correctly, therefore it avoids supporting cruel slaughterhouses, but even then it is still upsetting. I think that hunting for a trophy is just sickly wrong, exploiting a dead animal by hanging it's head on a wall. But there is canned hunting, and poaching, witch is just sick a cruel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-18 22:39:44 +0000 UTC]

I have read all your comments and thanks for your input.

1) Gun's are used in hunting for a purpose, its quick and easy and takes a lot less time then it would do with hounds to actually kill the animal. If you are a SKILLED huntsman (not saying that gunsman would be a perfect shot every time but it deos count) you are albe to track down a fox that has been causeing an issue carefully and shoot it in its den -Which for a fact is mostly done during the day where you would take out a trained dog to dig out the fox and shoot on sight. Most of the time the animals are un-aware of this and so less stress is caused.

2) Even though you have stated that the hounds kill the fox just by the neck you are mistaken. Yes hounds are just like their wild cousins and will kill through the neck, however this deos not happen every single time you hunt with hounds. When I saw the inncident take place the fox was in fact alive while the hounds were all over it tearing it apart. I have NOTHING against wild animals hunting however when humans hunt for the key part of the blood-thrill and pleasure ride its sickening to me. The whole process of the hunt also stresses out the fox no end and even if the gun-shot misses the fox less stress is caused to the animal then a hunt would (even though both are terrible).


3) Population is NEEDED in the UK whether you and I like it or not, the reason for this is of us basically whipeing out the natural preadators within our country so population booms in animals such as fox and deer. By simply stepping aside and letting the population rise would lead to more famine and desease amongst the animals which would lead to a more long-term graded death during the end of it.


I know how you feel I am strictly against snaring, fur-farming and poisening its simply not the way to go at all. There are also new found inventions and ways for modern farmers to use to protect their livestock. But sadly farmers will never be happy with whatever scientists try to tell them what to do with these issues humanely (not all but most).

. I am against all animal creulty and even though population control and shooting geos against my key morals sometimes it deos have to be done BUT not in all cases sadly most hunters use it as an excuse.

Thank you so much for wording your view and for reading this ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-19 10:05:54 +0000 UTC]

I agree that If the marksman shoots correctly then the death is instant... but I have seen the men with guns chase the fox anyway... and then when it is tired they shoot it with the gun. I don't think that reduces the immorality at all, and it also raises another issue: natural selection. As it is with guns, only foxes fast enough to outrun and dodge bullets (matrix style) would be able to survive... but we know that doesn't happen. So there is no distinction between the weaker and stronger foxes, all will get shot. Now in a hound hunt, a very cunning and swift fox will have a better chance to survive and pass its strong genes on to its offspring. Okay, that sounds like the last thing a hunter wants, but from the anti-hunter standpoint it helps the entire population if they can evolve properly... Even if they are amazingly suited to living in an environment and even thriving when annually 25000 are killed in England Alone.
I still believe that hunting with hounds has a better chance of a fast death, but there are mistakes to be made with both methods. At point-blanc range the fox will stand no chance and will probably be shot straight in the head, but foxes aren't conveniently found in their earth all year round. In fact, they usually only go underground in pupping season (well, they must have learned they are sitting ducks when stuffed inside an earth) and sometimes in severe weather that hunters wouldn't want to hunt in. They mostly sleep under trees, hedgerows and bushes, using their long thick tail as a blanket. That fox is not going to be caught easily, it would hear a hunter coming and be able to just run off. It would be convenient if you could just walk up to a fox earth and quickly dispatch of a troublesome fox that has learned to prey on chickens (they do not naturally prey on chickens, in fact I have seen a fox run away from an angry rooster... I was tempted to run away from that bird, it was actually growling like a dog! Dear Lord! A very hungry fox will try it, or chase them if the chickens start to run, and then after it learns they are food it will become a menace and frequent chicken coups... they are easy prey when not properly secured so I can't blame a fox for trying) but unfortunately there are usually a criss-cross of trails from foxes of the same pack, and maybe even a fox from a different pack (or a nomad) will run across the trail and then the wrong fox is hunted down and the problem is not resolved. When the farmer finds their chickens are still being harassed, they will believe it is another fox, and hate all foxes for being chicken-coup-raiders. I know a bunch of fox hunters and lots of farmers... their irrational hate for the animal is stunning, and they blame foxes for everything.
Why, if so many are being killed in such a small area, are they surviving? Well, foxes have a pack basis, although unlike wolves they don't hunt together. You get your typical alpha pair that are usually the only ones that mate. Each year they produce roughly 4 offspring, 3 of which will probably die before they are even a year old. So on comes the hunter, and kills one of the alpha's... the pack structure goes through an unstable phase whereby the females will all try to mate. Soon another alpha pair will emerge (the remaining former alpha will probably move on to avoid mating with their own kin) but in the unstable phase there are far more pups being born. So by killing one, the hunter (in a pack of foxes where there were 3 subordinate females) could create 12 new pups. Only the most intensive hunting and culling would have a real effect, so the idea of population control is extremely faulted. And with the issue that they might exceed their food resources- I disagree. There is more food available for them than ever before with the uprise of cities and urbanisation. When I went to London, I saw foxes everywhere, there was even one sitting in the back garden once as bold as can be: why are there so many? It is not because there are no hunters to slaughter them in an attempt to gain control, it is because they have enough food to thrive. If they have it, I say let them take it. Foxes keep rodent populations down, and people wouldn't be happy if a bunch of rats were running around their house. As soon as you remove a fox from an area with ample food, it creates like a vaccuum, there are plenty of other foxes to come in and fill up the space.
Naturally population crashes occur according to the food supply, and yes on small islands there is the danger that if one food supply goes out the entire ecosystem will feel the impact- but in places as big as England and America... you would need something catastrophic to have a real impact on the population. Animals have faced famine, disease, natural disasters for millenia, and they are still around. Not because humans were going around trigger happy and controlling everything, but because that is the way it has evolved.
The basis of population control is "We're taking away their land, so they can't cope... so let's kill them so that they can survive without giving them a chance to do what comes naturally to them". In extreme situations, the strongest would raise their heads and survive, which is just another step in evolution. Killing at random disrupts that and creates imbalance. The world was not made by a human mind, and a human mind shouldn't attempt to take power over it.
It works differently with deer that do not form single relationships, but population control in the UK (roughly 400 deer killed annually from a 2002 survey) has not helped, and they are still considered overpopulated and there are national parks working to preserve deer as well! This conflict of interests doesn't help anyone. However, even though on an island somewhere near America when the natural predators were all killed, and the deer population boomed to 40000 before collapsing- it was humans trying to control things that had created the population in the first place. Small island ecosystems are far more fragile than those of larger land-space, but to me that means all the more reason to Not interfere. Those deer that died were being hunted while their population was exploding out of control, and it did nothing to their numbers because the lack of predators had given them more space which opened up greater food resources which they used to expand their population with.
Now, in England there are debates on whether or not to reintroduce wolves so that they can reduce the deer population... which I am against. Sounds silly, I know, humans are trying to put right what they messed up, but I think the ecosystem has moved on and wolves just won't be able to fit in again. There is not enough space for them to live, not enough shelter for them to side. Moving forest-loving wolves into open country side and cities? It'll be a disaster! The deer population could be decimated as they have forgotten what wolves are... and deer are incredibly stupid and easy to sneak up on. They don't even run immediately, that reducation in fear from having no 'natural' predator will be their downfall. After so many years of them continuing to live even in the absence of wolves, I take that as proof that wolves are unnecessary, and if humans are really worried about population control, we should take a good hard look at ourselves. We are 6.7 Billion strong and still growing... Only small insect populations can match our numbers. It is our population I am worried won't be able to survive, we have come off the beaten track and that puts us on uncertain grounds. Who knows what might happen, but I myself have taken a pledge not to have children, as more are not needed, and I don't want to give birth to something I suspect will have to suffer as the human population reaches its peak point and suddenly finds is fuel gone, it's food sources (which are reliant on fossil fuels for fertilisers, pesticides, ploughing, harvesting, packaging and shipping) dried up and suddenly finding ourselves in a very different situation from the dominant species of the earth. Afterall, when one species is so adapted to the environment that it can come head and shoulders above the rest... when that environment changes, it is the most specialised that feel the brunt of the change. Maybe we will persevere, we are smart and resourceful... then again, maybe we won't as we have few natural weapons and poor senses to survive away from what we know today.
You are right in saying that an ecosystem needs balance, but I just don't believe humans have what it takes to know exactly how to kill, when to kill, what to kill and most of all when to stop killing. It doesn't need to be the way it does, but there are humans out there that simply enjoy being cruel, and cruelty becomes like a hobby to them. In Psychology, these people taking out their anger and hate on an innocent animal is known as sublimination. Because non-human animals are considered lesser beings, it is acceptable for them to hurt animals... unless that animal is a pet. HA! Discrimination, right there!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-19 10:55:57 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for the interesting information (as you have proberly gathered I'm more a wolf biologist then a fox one (I study larger carnivours such as wolves, bears and african wild dogs) so it was very helpful for the information on its smaller cousins).

However I wasn't stateing that it would be RIGHT to re-introduce our natural larger carnivours, as you have stated its a little too late and would do more harm then good. For example due to england being a small continent and now that most of our large spaces of land have been cultivated, wolf and bears would be more attracted to the lager cities and towns to feed and would in effect cause more trouble. However it is still a factor that populations are rising because of that as well as desease, natural selection and so on.

Also reverting back to where you stated that foxes would become "faster" from the hunts and generations move forward. Yes, spieces do adapt in generation to that sort of thing however such expanses of natural selection takes generations if not hundreds of years to fully take on a mass effect and for the genomes to be set in place. Which is why hunting with a gun or with your hounds would simply not make a different unless you did it consistantly for many more generations. Even though fox hunting has been around for god-knows how long you cannot say foxes have become faster* as an overall spieces. Most hunts are successful and still are (depending on what time of year of course, in the winter hunts rarely take place its mainly I believe to be in the autumn/end of summer time for prime hunting).

I reason why I personally prefer guns is because IF its done properly it is very successful and more humane in aspects. However as you stated its NOT always going to work that well and depends on many factors includeing the person holding the gun the first place, whether its some hired professional who knows what they are doing and do the killing within regulations OR a self-obsessed idiot who simply deos it for the money. So I do hear you out on those points but thats what I think if guns were given to people who had capable hands. Also! -now hear me out on this- fox hunts are not right in my opinion YES some foxes do get away and are fast enough to escape however most of the time with hunts its normal healthy wild foxes which have no connection to towns etc. With controlled guns hired by the land-owner or officials its foxes who are causeing trouble in the local farm or whatever or are known to contain desease such as a strain of motosis or a form of rabids.

Wouldn't the fox just die anyway?
Well yes it would however if that certain animal carries on that illness to the next generation then the desease becomes worse and in effect kills off more of the population. If the animal is shot on site no damage will be done to other animals in that area.

Wouldn't the hunt kill it anyway?.
Maybe. However foxes infected with motosis or rabies that strain deos not effect its health it could still outrun hounds. Also if that animal bites the hounds then your dog will in effect be infected.

Motosis/rabies are quite rare in the country.
Yes, however due to the warm summers it is actually making a comeback and I wouldn't risk my safety or a dogs saftey and health purely for the aspect of hunting. If you get what I mean.

Basically I'm still guns over hunting, even though like hunting guns can be not the right way to go about it and depends on the person actually holding it. Not everyones going to be a concerned person. However your not risking anything to go about it no horse injuries, no dog injuries, no passing on illness and the kill is more or less done as quickly as possible where-as with a hunt you are taking a big gamble.

The world will never be the way it was sad truth but it has to be faced. The only people who can change things are us, humans. I agree we should definatly watch where our populations are going I can't have children anyway so thats not really a factor for me. But there are so many different people and you can't simply go up to an mp or a member of the goverment and give them lots of facts to control OUR population but they will not listen and you'll always get the people in socity who just want money, money, money or more and more kids. (Like pet holding women can actually have a mental illness -quite common- where they just more and more kids to "love").

- Oh and another thing Grey wolves and European wolves actually don't live in forests that much, its mainly shrubland/young forest levels and open space of the american subsitute of moorland and ferns. Yes they do move into forests however its not the dense forest/woods that you and I would imagine them to live in (Sorry I had to pick you up on that ). Which is why recently there was a debate whether to bring back wolves to Scotland or not, because its the right environment. (Obviously not gonna happen and luckily it won't it wouldn't be fair on the animals or people).

-Not all hunters want to kill just for the sake of killing, some are actually concerned people for the ecosystems and are actually following close rules with scientists and biologists in one ecosystem. However most hunters do kill for the sake of killing but just be aware not all are like that at all. Populations and ecosystems CAN be managed properly by the right people and nature together.


The thing that I don't get is that biologists (such as me) come up with almost 100% effective ways to deter foxes,wolves and other predators from livestock however people still want to not evolve and go within the ways of hunting and gunning and stuff. So not matter how hard we can bring these people facts they will always be iggnorant and go with the pre-historic ways of hunting.


-Also with deer the reason why they are copeing so well is because of population control and hunting. Deer are prized game and will still be hunted and proberly used as an excuse for population control. However it still has be continued otherwise the population would boom back and we'll be back to square one. However I DO agree that we shouldn't consistantly hunt them (unless for food purposes) and we should let any population recover. Large predators are no longer needed BUT some amount of population control is needed in order to maintain that part of the ecosystem. Also monitering over-culling etc.


Thank you so replying however it was hard to read (XD but I got there eventually DA has very small font atm for some reason). I do agree with most of your statements however I thought I might fill in the gaps with some data I was sent while on my biologist course.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-19 12:06:37 +0000 UTC]

Because a lot of this is moot point (just agree to disagree) I'm going to shorten my answer... cause there's a lot of writing going on right now O-o"
I have done plenty of research on foxes Though I did use to have wolves as my favourite animal, it just sort of shifted. O-o I always thought timber wolves preferred pine-forests... hm, but either way an urban environment is not well suited to a wolf. Nice to know you're a Biologist I'm going for a University degree in Zoology next year YAY Science! <3

And on how quickly evolution happens, I'm going to use a selective breeding example (because I have next to nothing on the evolution of foxes ) you may have heard of it- the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev who bred the tame foxes. In one generation, the foxes visibly showed less aggression, and after 8 generations the foxes began to get curly tails, shorter tails, shorter legs, floppy ears, started to vocalise more, showed affection for humans, gained white patches and new fur colours... This experiment wasn't evolution, but it does show how quickly an animal can change. Eight generations of foxes that can breed once a year means that it only took eight years for these effects to become commonplace (although there were foxes that retained their heritage look, they were still much more affectionate to humans and were more vocal), though I do think that the rigorous breeding regime is hardly going to happen in the wild, it just goes to show that people can make a huge effect on wildlife in their life-time.

Dogs are more at danger in contracting diseases by eating slugs in the back garden But yes, I see what you mean, animals can carry lots of nasty things... but if a fox is dispatched by a gun before it infects other animals, there is still the chance that detrivores will pick up the pathogen and then spread it that way. Controlling foxes is hard, controlling microscopic bacteria is even harder and I would hesitate to say impossible if not for the fact that you can go and live in a sterilised bubble xD Vaccinations for these diseases are your best bet, like there was an experiment in a valley where there was a movement of rabies that was spreading through foxes. The valley branched off, and on one branch the foxes were given oral vaccinations (before the rabies reached them) through chicken heads and were not hunted for the experiment, on the other branch of the valley there was no vaccination but hunting was allowed (I do not know if hunting happened with guns or not, it didn't say) and the side that had been vaccinated were unaffected by rabies and it didn't continue, but on the other side where the foxes had been hunted, it continued.
Okay, vaccinating everything in site sounds like the most foolish and endless task, but small-pox was removed from England that way. Herd immunity is the most effective method of removing diseases And it helps everyone! (Even if it would probably tear a hole in a rich persons pocket...)

That is all... tried to shorten it the best I could But I like to waffle!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-19 12:39:42 +0000 UTC]

XD yes I like to go on a bit too (btw just so you know I never hate anyone or anything if they disagree with me or have a different opinion I just simply banter a bit ).

Btw zoology is awesome its really enjoyable and interesting <3! (personally I've gone down and specialised more into large carnivores etc. but one of my close friends is really enjoying it and I would certainly reccomend it espicially from the information I have gathered from our coversation you would be definatly well suited for the job!).

Timber wolves did go in forests however as before they don't live in them. Forests are like cakes they are divided into sections for example young trees and shrubs, the middle layer full of mostly adult trees and more plants and ferns, then you have dense forest. Wolves I would say swap between the first and second layer.

Yes I have heard of that experiment and it was interesting for me to learn about it when I was studying it at one point in my course . I also agree with you that it can be done but proberly not to the same degree as it would in the wild but some changes would have been made to foxes over the years.

Vanninating again a good idea and in theory would work (as from the results of that experiment) but again as you put you then have the problem of money for the injections for each area of country across Britian. (which will cause conflicts with poeple too I'm sure ).


XD its no problem really I like to read what other people think on very tough suituations such as hunting and wild-life management !.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-19 19:22:54 +0000 UTC]

Banter and blather is so much fun Now I need a third B-word to complete the alliteration and I'm set! xD

I want to narrow my course down to foxes when I get... wherever it is I need to get first O-o Study foxes in my Masters perhaps, but I haven't really found any good leads into it. Still, I have 3 or 4 years until that decision! Who knows, my sudden like for sea lions might take over and I could suddenly change to training them for a living at Flamingo land! ^-^ It's going to be a lot of work, that's for sure! And I plan to make every day count, even if I'm having a grumpy moment
Ecological succession? I suppose they would need to adapt to wherever their prey is- if there is a large elk herd then they're more likely to congregate on plains than say a roe deer. O-o" Though red wolves that hunt rats for a living just baffle me... an entire pack living off rodents not much bigger than their paw!

Changes in evolution could, in theory, happen quickly if only certain characteristics could survive. But environmental factors may not represent genetics, so things get a bit hazy around the edges... who knows, a super race of foxes that can hide so perfectly from humans that they have not been seen could be hiding out there- a diamond in the rock Wishful thinking much? Haha If anything, it will be ants that take over the world. Did you know that the biomass of ants on this planet is almost the equivalent of human biomass!? Lord, I almost choked on my drink when I heard that. Dinosaur ants creep me out so much O-o

Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man's world! I wonder if they can develop a vaccine that can pass between the wild population naturally (like, using cowpox stopped smallpox) now that would only need a select few to be vaccinated for there to be an affect across the population! But let's see how that works out, ey?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-20 21:59:05 +0000 UTC]

XD lol yush indeed, and ants freak me out dude 0.o however they are very very awesome !. I am a big insect fan ^^ they really ineterest me but yes the fact that ants can and will proberly take over the world is a disturbing ideal *shivers*

I really hope the courses go well for you and I wish you the best of luck for the future of studying animals and foxes and maybe just maybe with the reasearch you and others do the world might just might become a better place .

So sorry for the lateee reply I've had my hands full lately lol its been fun talking to you on a high level basis on animal economics and thank you so much for taking your time out to comment and reply back !


I wish you the best of luck!
Kudos
~Ghostie

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-21 12:33:49 +0000 UTC]

I'm not a fan of certain insects... like wasps, ants, mosquitos, spiders (okay, they're arachnids... but they look insecty enough) and horse flies O-o" But I think that's all!

Lol, it's a bit of a stretch It would take a lot of work to undo the tradition of hating foxes! But I shall try my best *Salutes*
Had some fun arguing it out with you It's always good when an argument doesn't have to involve stupid insults... no one ever gets anywhere with those O-o"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-21 12:45:38 +0000 UTC]

Horse fly bites hurt D:! I like moths and beetles a lot personally !, I saved a few months over this last week XD (mostly from water) if you look at a moth closely they have really fluffy cute bodies X3 just like spiders.

Indeed, I don't go around DA expecting people will have the exact same view as mine I'm very open minded so I don't just ignore other peoples views I simply talk and see what I can do to understand them as it also widens your knowledge. I feel the same why seriously whats the point in randomly insulting people just because they have a different opinion to you?.

I mean from this banter I have noted that yes we do have different ways of approaching population control. But we are both agianst the practice of fox hunting (I think thats it anyway XD if I'm wrong just poke me on that) and we WANT animals to not suffer the creulty of some of the people in this world .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cursico In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-21 16:13:53 +0000 UTC]

:3 I have a moth character, called the Moth Warrior It almost looks like he has a fur scarf on! Moths and Bumble-bees are very cute and fluffy :3 I prefer moths to butterflies for crying out loud!

Yes, I'm certainly against fox hunting Not only because I love the animal (<3) but because it allows certain people to enjoy killing... >-<

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to Cursico [2010-11-23 23:34:39 +0000 UTC]

XD I definatly prefer moths to butterflies anyday .

I definatly agree with you there, I don't think killing any animal should be "enjoyable" or farming animals just for their furs. Even though we farm animals for food at least thats natural and needed, furs are not useful anymore unless your living in the north-pole etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to hakuzo-nightfox [2010-11-18 18:25:52 +0000 UTC]

I agree to your statement to some extent, however population control on foxes and deer is needed in the uk. (and some other places)

Why?
Well for the simple reason of us making our natural wolves and bears go extinct and all of the large native predators (Along with some other birds of prey includeing the scottish *Golden eagle). The reason to this is because foxes and other animals are increaseing because the number simply is not decreaseing in the natural way it should, even though there are other causes with illness etc. The animal populations are increaseing so much that they cannot cope themselves.

Why can't the new population cope?.
There are many factors that can lead on from over-population, for example due to the increase in fox numbers food becomes more and more scarce and starvation, killings due to territorial fights become more and more common. Desease also spreads faster due to different animal populations shareing the same small space of an eco-system. So the fox or deer or whatever other animal type will suffer a lot more then simply shooting humanely the odd few to balance the population.

Sadly its too late for animal populations to control themselves in some environments we're not all to blame but sadly measures have to be taken into action . A skilled gunsman will kill an animal without it feeling any pain at all and the death is istant however HUNTING DOWN AND TEARING APART AN ANIMAL is completly out of order.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to RekaCryistall [2010-11-07 10:29:56 +0000 UTC]

Not a problem the word must be put out. They are truely beautiful animals and do not deserve such creulty (no animal deos).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ghostwolfen In reply to axdreamximagination [2010-11-01 22:06:04 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for your view and for commenting respectively (even though I had a hard time trying to understand it but I kind of get you now).

However think of it this way its still a bit creul even if you are just tiring the animal out. I mean how would you like it if a bunch of people ran after you for no apparant reason (also without knowing an intention I mean heck how is the fox supposed to know if its friend or foe?). Also fox-hounds are bred and trained to hunt foxes if they do get a grasp on a fox, there is no chance for that animal to escape (about 3 in 10 a hound will drop a fox just by command only). So your still taking a big risk on the animals life just from practiceing it.

I don't personally know your hunters but ill just comment on the fact that some hunters will, without you knowing get away with the odd "accidental kill". Remember all of the factors I have stated and take each one into account carefully. What I would do is not give them any permisson as its still a creul sport (even if your only hunting the animal down) and you'll get the odd hunter who like to kill foxes without you knowing. Either you do that or you moniter each hunt carefully and you take action if the hounds get a fox.

thanks for wording your view .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

axdreamximagination In reply to ghostwolfen [2010-11-01 22:19:19 +0000 UTC]

It's a thing of memory and tradition for me, at the end of her life my grandmother was one of the leads in the hunt. Even though I never knew her personally my father talks of her fondly and so I'm a bit biased. If you took away the fox, the hounds it would just be a very large hacking group. We've had problems with the the hunt but it's more of they didn't obey the rules. I've never participated in the hunt I just simply ride my horse. I'll keep my eyes peeled for anything

I understand where you're coming from though

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ghostwolfen In reply to axdreamximagination [2010-11-03 15:45:17 +0000 UTC]

mhmm as much as I respect your view also heres what I think. I just think that sometimes we as humans evolve and so do out traditions. Many things were a big tradition for my family back in the late victorian era (bear baiting) however our family decided to let it die along with our dead ancestors even though its something that was important to us as a large family back then you have to let things go, move on and create new traditions. Not forget the old but either move on or evolve into it. So if your family tradition was to evolve you would cut the fox out completely and set a scent track or something for the hounds to follow. That way no animal is harmed or killed by mistake and you still get the hunt in action. (just no killing on the end of it which you don't have anyway correct?)

But you know thats just where I'm coming from you might take it on on-borad you might not, but I just live and let live after saying my peace .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1