no
yes
I can't decide
It has adapted to human activity moved into the city and become very numerous and successful. In the country it feeds on rabbits (introduced into this land by man) pheasant, grouse, lamb, roadkill etc. Man has also removed its competitors above it in the food chain. I doubt very much if it has ever had it so good.
To expand the argument slightly, no species of animal or bird that is regularly hunted for "sport" will ever become endangered - because they are looked after. Even the RSPA and the RSPB admit that managed hunting grounds are richer in wildlife than adjacent areas because the habitats needed for the game also suits the wildlife.
ay up
a fox is our responsibility if we fail to manage it we should fail everything else in the horizon. a fox is just an allegory of how bad we are at managing anything that is given for free. carelessness weighs a price. everything is accounted for I believe.
regular hunting will weigh the price too. the more of it and the less of our nature and wild life.
the fox is one sing of this happening.
hunting drives the fauna away from the habitat they are used to which means their chance of survival is slimmer then ever. birds and other hunted fauna learns to remember where the hunt progress and therefore learns to move away to hide.
this is not a good sign. in the long term hunters are destabilising nature habitat and thus causing more extinction then ever before.
animals are intuitive like us they know when the next hunt is going to be and so ensure they are no longer there. that is pushing them away.
that is not a good thing.
this is my opinion.
Last edited by cacian; 04-27-2014 at 02:52 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Humans would need to be hunting far more foxes than they are to threaten them realistically.
Conservationist and ecologist acknowledge the necessity of hunting in some cases to preserve an ecosystem that is already disrupted by human activity. Deer populations in much of North America require hunting to keep them under control, otherwise they start to destroy habitat and endanger other more vulnerable species.
Animals are threatened by the growth of cities, industry, commercial fishing, logging, and mining in many places, but hunting only serves a significant risk to a handful of African animals, like cheetahs and elephants. There needs to be some sort of economic incentive to drive people to hunt a species excessively (like elephant ivory, or the possible exception of "big game" that is hunted by rich sociopaths), otherwise most hunters are sensible enough not to threaten animal populations.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
I agree with all of that...
...and none of that.
Here is my experience.
I have a small farm and have recently started actively encouraging ground nesting birds by providing habitat areas for them. It has been very successful.
A few miles away a farmer I know has taken the same measures and has had no success. The difference is that my farm is next to a grouse moor that has full time gamekeepers on it and they control the predators of grouse - most significantly crows and magpies. This gives snipe, lapwing, curlew, oyster catcher, pipit, skylark, grey partridge, a better chance on my land.
Last edited by prendrelemick; 04-27-2014 at 04:18 PM.
ay up
The perception I have of pro-hunt people is of privileged people promoting their own sport at the expense of an animal. It may well be that my own working class chip on the shoulder attitude has made me susceptible to media portrayals of the pro fox hunting lobby. I can appreciate that there will be rational people who have considered the morality of hunting and support it. Unfortunately rational debate often leaves when the press get hold of something and they interview the extremists in order to fuel the story but not the debate.
I understand the cruelty point. It's not an aspect I had considered in this discussion, but I am aware of nature's cruelty. I don't know whether it is a support for fox hunting - culling the aged foxes. I also don't think that because nature is cruel that we can condone it in ourselves.
Consensus politics is never going to make us all happy, and it seems that this particular issue has a lot of aspects. What may be a personal prejudice - the class aspect - has seen other working class bloodsports - dog fighting etc be banned, but not fox hunting.
I think a large part is the general attitude towards animals which sees the urban majority not understanding the country reality. (I have heard people say things like I eat pork and beef but not the lambs - as if a perceived cuteness makes eating the other species more justified). The urban majority may well be hypocritical - protecting wild foxes but happily consuming other animals.
At the end of the day though management of wild species I can accept if it is based on a rational argument. I couldn't accept that fox hunting for sport is anything other than an indulgence that anyone really needs to do.
I haven't read all this thread so apologies if I'm repeating. (Busy busy!!)
Justification depends entirely on your individual concern. Mine is animal welfare, meaning that I believe that all animals should live a life as free as possible from pain, stress, fear, frustration, and hunger. It also means that for me, in most cases, animals are better off dead than in a state of poor welfare. It also means that their death should be humane, if possible. I am not an animal rights weirdo, who thinks that everything has the right to be free or that alive is always better than dead or that humans should not "use" animals. Just to clarify- there is a BIG difference between animal welfare and animal rights.
So, I believe that hunting for sport or pleasure is not justified because of the stress and fear experienced by the animals being hunted. It is also not justified because when the animals are killed, they are not killed humanely, and no, being shot is not a humane death. I don't believe in sport fishing for the same reasons. I also don't think it is fair for the hunting dogs who course but are then prevented from the kill, resulting in frustration.
I do believe in controlled, government-authorized, humane cullings for overpopulated species in order to keep ecological balance in check.
I'm weary with right-angles, abbreviated daylight,
Waiting for a winter to be done.
Why do I still see you in every mirrored window,
In all that I could never overcome?
Last edited by *Classic*Charm*; 04-28-2014 at 04:07 PM.
I'm weary with right-angles, abbreviated daylight,
Waiting for a winter to be done.
Why do I still see you in every mirrored window,
In all that I could never overcome?
And why would you ask that? Do you think it would change the validity of her comment in any way?
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its' own reason for existing." ~ Albert Einstein
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Bonzai "Some people say I done alright for a girl." Melanie Safka
You guessed correctly I do think it is hypocritical given you said 'I believe that all animals should live a life as free as possible from pain, stress, fear, frustration, and hunger' - Eating meat is not necessary and goes completely against that statement. You either accept this makes you a hypocrite, or you admit that you do not care as much about animals as you claim.