Fox Hunting

[cacian]

is fox hunting justified?
hunting is a disagreeable activity because the animal is shot with a gun.
fox is part of the wilderness and yet views seem to divide between yes it is acceptable and not it is not.
where do you stand?

[PeterL]

If one raises chickens, then fox hunting is completely justified. But I don't think that fox tastes good; although in an emergency I would be willing to try it. I'd rather have the chickens.

[mal4mac]

If one raises chickens, and the fox gets them, then one should build a better coop.

Killing wildlife to protect domestic species is what caused the total elimination of large predators in the UK, and is leading to similar situations across the world. Soon there may be no tigers in India, or lions in Africa, the way things are going.

George Monbiot has a new book out suggesting we should reintroduce wolves & wild cats to the UK - maybe they would keep the foxes under control...

[Lokasenna]

Fox hunting, as in the sport, I think is a bit iffy, though I've no problem with fox culling in places where the population is getting large enough to be troublesome. One of my parents' neighbours leaves food out for the damn things, so there's loads here and the garden always has piles of fox droppings that appear overnight - I would welcome a slight reduction in their numbers.

Also, just on mal's point about building better coops, that's not always viable. Foxes are extremely enterprising and can find the most devious ways of getting into apparently impregnable places. A friend of ours keeps chickens, and has lost his entire flock several times to foxes - each time he builds a new and more substantial coop, and each time they eventually manage to get in. His coop now looks like Wormwood Scrubs, and still the foxes get in - last time they burrowed under a wall that was two feet deep into the ground.

[cacian]

If one raises chickens, then fox hunting is completely justified. But I don't think that fox tastes good; although in an emergency I would be willing to try it. I'd rather have the chickens.
the chicken and the fox that would make for a cute story. I will throw in a cat too for effect. survival of the fittest.
are you saying that initially a fox ate a chicken?

[cacian]

If one raises chickens, and the fox gets them, then one should build a better coop.

Killing wildlife to protect domestic species is what caused the total elimination of large predators in the UK, and is leading to similar situations across the world. Soon there may be no tigers in India, or lions in Africa, the way things are going.

George Monbiot has a new book out suggesting we should reintroduce wolves & wild cats to the UK - maybe they would keep the foxes under control...

I thin that would throwing oil into the fire pan.
reintroducing things to the wild unsettle the nature of things.
I do not think it is a good idea.

I think reintroducing the foxes back into what they use to be and what they fed on before hunting began should do the trick,
studying a fox and the habitat they were at is ideal.
I am guessing hunting in general for all sorts of birds and others is what destabilised the fox's eating habbit.
I think hunters are careless. they have guns and go shooting for meat which then deprive the fox from finding the food it is used to.
by the time a hunter has finished unloading his bullets reaching up to the skies and down there is nothing left for the fox to eat.
ultimately the fox turns around and starts looking somewhere else. would you blame it for that?
or is it man that is the culprit in all of this?
human nature is selfish and does not think that he or she is actually being careless and is damaging his or her environment.
and so make it even worse thinking hunting them is the solution.
I think hunting down is the one to take.

[mal4mac]

Fox hunting, as in the sport, I think is a bit iffy, though I've no problem with fox culling in places where the population is getting large enough to be troublesome. One of my parents' neighbours leaves food out for the damn things, so there's loads here and the garden always has piles of fox droppings that appear overnight - I would welcome a slight reduction in their numbers.


I would welcome a reduction in the number of domestic cats visiting my garden for exactly the same reason, but rather than hunting them down I've found repellents work quite well. Maybe there are fox equivalents?

http://fox-a-gon.co.uk/?page_id=79

"There is no reason to suppose the population is increasing and, in fact, in the south east, current numbers are estimated as being around 10% lower than in 1998."

Your friend needs to do more research, or at least spend a minute on a Google search: "Christopher dug an 8 inch deep trench around the entire coop and then covered the run, the run roof and under the coop with chicken wire, burying it in the ground to stop the diggers..."

[mal4mac]

I thin that would throwing oil into the fire pan.
reintroducing things to the wild unsettle the nature of things.
I do not think it is a good idea.


But taking wolves out of the UK destabilised things! It led to an explosion in deer (and sheep!) numbers, which (along with excess forestry) led to the hills being shorn of trees and plants, which led to the lack of water retention exacerbating the massive flooding we've seen recently, amongst other unstable things. So it's sheep on marginal agricultural land that we need to get rid of. They can only exist through massive subsidy anyway. Then we can get back to having wolves and trees in our wild hill regions.



I think reintroducing the foxes back into what they use to be and what they fed on before hunting began should do the trick,
studying a fox and the habitat they were at is ideal.
I am guessing hunting in general for all sorts of birds and others is what destabilised the fox's eating habbit.
I think hunters are careless. they have guns and go shooting for meat which then deprive the fox from finding the food it is used to.
by the time a hunter has finished unloading his bullets reaching up to the skies and down there is nothing left for the fox to eat.
ultimately the fox turns around and start looking somewhere else. would you blame it for that?
or is it man that is the culprit in all of this?
human nature is selfish and does not that he or she is actually being careless and is damaging his or her environment.
and so make it even worse thinking hunting them is the solution.
I think hunting down is the one to take.

I agree with this completely! But part of the what foxes were used to was living with, or at least alongside (!), wolves. (Humans as well for that matter...)

[PeterL]

If one raises chickens, and the fox gets them, then one should build a better coop.

Killing wildlife to protect domestic species is what caused the total elimination of large predators in the UK, and is leading to similar situations across the world. Soon there may be no tigers in India, or lions in Africa, the way things are going.

Things change.


George Monbiot has a new book out suggesting we should reintroduce wolves & wild cats to the UK - maybe they would keep the foxes under control...

I think that it will be much better after the Really Great Pandemic in which about 85% of humans will die. Population will be back to the level of 1800 (roughly), and there would be space for wolves, deer, foxes, etc.

[PeterL]

the chicken and the fox that would make for a cute story. I will throw in a cat too for effect. survival of the fittest.
are you saying that initially a fox ate a chicken?

Foxes are well known for breaking into chicken coops and eating as many chickens as they can. It is not a cute story, if you raise chickens. If it weren't for predators, then chickens would be free range. As I noted above, things will be different after the aReally Great Pandemic; there will be plenty of room for foxes and for foxhunts.

[qimissung]

Killing wildlife to protect domestic species is what caused the total elimination of large predators in the UK, and is leading to similar situations across the world. But taking wolves out of the UK destabilised things!

The same thing happened in the U.S. with wolves. The ranchers hated them-still do, as far as I can tell. They were eliminated for a while and have recently been introduced. It seem like every time we interfere with nature, nature soon shows us how wrong we have been-but we never learn.

I can understand a farmer eliminating a fox that's getting into the chickens, but not the fox-hunting which, although it has a long tradition, seems cruel.

Here's a very good article about wolves as predators in an ecosystem:


http://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-predators-legend-of-the-wolf-1.14841

Here is an article on protecting chickens from foxes:


http://poultrykeeper.com/pests-and-predators/foxes-chickens

and one about foxes in urban areas:


http://www.bbcwildlife.org.uk/node/3031

[Iain Sparrow]

Killing wildlife to protect domestic species is what caused the total elimination of large predators in the UK, and is leading to similar situations across the world. But taking wolves out of the UK destabilised things!

The same thing happened in the U.S. with wolves. The ranchers hated them-still do, as far as I can tell. They were eliminated for a while and have recently been introduced. It seem like every time we interfere with nature, nature soon shows us how wrong we have been-but we never learn.

I can understand a farmer eliminating a fox that's getting into the chickens, but not the fox-hunting which, although it has a long tradition, seems cruel.


I'm against fox hunting, and I don't think farmers should be killing foxes just to protect livestock.
We're humans and we create hierarchies. I think a fox is more important than a chicken, and whenever possible the fox should be left alone, to do what foxes naturally do.

This is a pic of the Christmas Card I sent off to friends and family last Christmas... I'm rather fond of the fox.:)
http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x426/Sparrowyn/Portfolio/foxxmas_zps202369ec.jpg

[Paulclem]

In the UK most bloodsports have been banned. These include bear and badger baiting, dogfighting, cockfighting, hare coursing etc etc and we're well rid of them, though there is some underground activity around them.

Fox hunting is also a bloodsport, the difference being it is an exclusive one pursued by rich country people. Their laughable claims that it is not cruel and that it kept fox numbers down have been discredited, but they have support in country areas which formed into a pressure group a few years ago.

It's the usual story of privilege being unable to accept that what they do is unacceptable for a modern society and polarising the issue quite out of proportion in terms of national importance.

Incidentally, around our allotments, we have a few foxes which appear regularly. It's great to see them. I also see urban foxes around the city. It's very nice to see.

[The Atheist]

hunting is a disagreeable activity because the animal is shot with a gun.

Strangely enough, that's the least disagreeable way to kill when hunting.

The problem with fox hunting - in England at least - is that no guns are used. Dogs bail the fox up whereupon the huntsman cuts its throat.

[Snowqueen]

I'm against hunting too. Though we don't have foxes around here, but lots of reptiles. We live near Indus river, and yellow monitor lizards are very common in this area. They sometimes sneak into our house and eat all the eggs of our ducks, but we never did anything to harm these reptiles. I took some pictures of this young yellow monitor lizard last year.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/SheherBano5/IMG_3761.jpg (http://s682.photobucket.com/user/SheherBano5/media/IMG_3761.jpg.html)


http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/SheherBano5/yellowmonitorlizard.jpg (http://s682.photobucket.com/user/SheherBano5/media/yellowmonitorlizard.jpg.html)

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/SheherBano5/IMG_2769.jpg (http://s682.photobucket.com/user/SheherBano5/media/IMG_2769.jpg.html)

[prendrelemick]

In the UK most bloodsports have been banned. These include bear and badger baiting, dogfighting, cockfighting, hare coursing etc etc and we're well rid of them, though there is some underground activity around them.

Fox hunting is also a bloodsport, the difference being it is an exclusive one pursued by rich country people. Their laughable claims that it is not cruel and that it kept fox numbers down have been discredited, but they have support in country areas which formed into a pressure group a few years ago.

It's the usual story of privilege being unable to accept that what they do is unacceptable for a modern society and polarising the issue quite out of proportion in terms of national importance.

Incidentally, around our allotments, we have a few foxes which appear regularly. It's great to see them. I also see urban foxes around the city. It's very nice to see.

The Hunts used to protect and encourage the fox - so that they could run them down and kill them with dogs and horses come the season of the year. Gamekeepers and Huntsmen used to come to blows over it. Now, in the countryside it's a rifle and night sight job.

I didn't think hunting with dogs was a good thing, but I didn't agree with the ban for three main reasons.

I knew people who hunted, and unlike the portrayal in the press, they were in the main rational and intelligent people, who had thought about the issues and come to the conclusion that hunting was morally ok. I also knew a couple of hunt saboteurs who would not consider any other point of view as relevant. I didn't hunt, but why should I wish to stop everyone else from hunting, what was it to do with me? Why should one group impose a narrow, ill informed, morality on another.

Being a country boy the cruelty argument holds very little sway. I Know that whatever cruelty man does, Mother Nature will out do. There is no old age in the wild. Starvation is the only natural end for a fox, either through injury or disease or a bad winter.

Finally, and most difficult explain, I resented the urban majority imposing its will on the rural minority over an issue about which it was not involved. Fox hunting polarized feelings of being misunderstood, we wanted to be left alone.




Strangely enough, that's the least disagreeable way to kill when hunting.

The problem with fox hunting - in England at least - is that no guns are used. Dogs bail the fox up whereupon the huntsman cuts its throat.

That's banned now.

[mal4mac]

... I didn't agree with the ban for three main reasons.

I knew people who hunted, and unlike the portrayal in the press, they were in the main rational and intelligent people, who had thought about the issues and come to the conclusion that hunting was morally ok.


Many of the Nazi elite were rational & intelligent people who came to the conclusion that gassing other races was morally OK, so I don't see that this is any kind of valid argument.



I also knew a couple of hunt saboteurs who would not consider any other point of view as relevant. I didn't hunt, but why should I wish to stop everyone else from hunting, what was it to do with me? Why should one group impose a narrow, ill informed, morality on another.


How can you be so certain that their morality is narrow and ill informed? You actually find broad and well informed characters on both sides of this issue.



Being a country boy the cruelty argument holds very little sway. I Know that whatever cruelty man does, Mother Nature will out do. There is no old age in the wild. Starvation is the only natural end for a fox, either through injury or disease or a bad winter.


I don't see that being a country boy gives you a superior position to argue from. We all know that nature is red in tooth and claw; even townies see the remains of birds after a cat has torn them apart. All "reasonably broad" townies are just as "up" on this issue as any country lad; we've all watched David Attenborough, and read Richard Dawkins, Jack London, Thomas Hardy, or similar. We've all been to the country and seen some nasty stuff.

I actually think broad minded & well read country lads tend to allow their narrow everyday experience to overcome their broader intelligence on this issue; thinking, "my nice, clever pals down the pub go hunting, it must be "alright", even if I don't like it..."

I think the cruelty argument does have some purchase. Unlike a wolf, humans are not driven by instinct to chase weaker creatures to a standstill and then tear them apart. They can use their reason to draw back from committing this bit of cruelty.



Finally, and most difficult explain, I resented the urban majority imposing its will on the rural minority over an issue about which it was not involved. Fox hunting polarized feelings of being misunderstood, we wanted to be left alone.


I'm reading "Chocolat" by Joanne Harris at the moment. The priests & fascists in that excellent novel would no doubt resent the "urban majority" stomping on them for persecuting the river gypsies. Me, I'd love the Paris police to swoop down and lock up 'em all up.

The defining characteristic of an urban intellectual is that they are involved in everything, because rationality & morality apply *everywhere*. How could I not be involved in the fox hunting issue? It seems an incredibly narrow view to think that, "fox hunting doesn't occur in towns so townies can have nothing to say on the matter." In fact this prevalent attitude amongst country gentry is very condescending, and certainly makes me angrier that I would otherwise have been. "Those country squires trying to deny my right to apply universal reason, and have an opinion on everything! Unforgivable! Guillotining's too good for them. :)"

[cacian]

Many of the Nazi elite were rational & intelligent people who came to the conclusion that gassing other races was morally OK, so I don't see that this is any kind of valid argument
what?
you have just contradicted yourself you don't come to a conclusion that it is morally acceptable to destroy and then in the same breath talk about rationality.
rational is someone who can add an number to another number and realise the outcome is sum bigger to what initially was.
gassing people is like starting with a number bigger then one and ending up with nothing.
a nazi obviously failed to add. adding is not something a nazi can do let and so rationality they could not possibly get even if it hit them hard on the head with it.

the definition of intelligence is the ability to gather information in other obtain more information
a nazi could not be intelligent either because they gathered in big numbers and they proceded to destroy. there is only one word for it
lunacy. mad is what a nazi is.

and from the basis of these two very basic analogies of what rationality and intelligence is a nazi is absolutely neither.
I would get more information out of a brick wall then out a nazi with no brain. please don't insult intelligent people.

[cacian]

The Hunts used to protect and encourage the fox -

that is one big contradiction of the century. to protect something is to let it roam. obviously a fox hunter has no understanding of anything here.


so that they could run them down and kill them with dogs and horses come the season of the year.

irrational. protect to kill. where is the sense in that?

Gamekeepers and Huntsmen used to come to blows over it. Now, in the countryside it's a rifle and night sight job.

did they? no surprise there then.


I didn't think hunting with dogs was a good thing, but I didn't agree with the ban for three main reasons.

I knew people who hunted, and unlike the portrayal in the press, they were in the main rational and intelligent people, who had thought about the issues and come to the conclusion that hunting was morally ok. I also knew a couple of hunt saboteurs who would not consider any other point of view as relevant. I didn't hunt, but why should I wish to stop everyone else from hunting, what was it to do with me? Why should one group impose a narrow, ill informed, morality on another.


let see thee is no morality here. it is not about ok or not ok. it is about a fox.
a fix belongs to nature it is not a matter of morality but a matter of logic.
like anything in life man destroys because he thinks he can rely on morality.
lets turn the tables around and I decide to hunt the hunter instead? would it bother some? maybe not. and that is exactly the point.
who cares. it is about hunting after all.



Being a country boy the cruelty argument holds very little sway. I Know that whatever cruelty man does, Mother Nature will out do.

that is not fair. that is waging war against it. fox hunting is taking away nature's supply.


There is no old age in the wild. Starvation is the only natural end for a fox, either through injury or disease or a bad winter.

I am sorry this quite offensive. starvation is man's made. if a fox starves is because the hunter in general took away the food available in the wild. the more shooting of birds and whatnot and the more starving a fox becomes.
again gun shooting. let's hunt with a gun let's take way the chain of food supply and the create another game. let shoot the animal instead because it has nothing left to eat.
now we are finished with the animals. we have nothing to eat ourselves because we have shot everything.
now let shoot each other instead. it is just a matter of time.
guess what?
a man deserves everything he gets and more.


Finally, and most difficult explain, I resented the urban majority imposing its will on the rural minority over an issue about which it was not involved. Fox hunting polarized feelings of being misunderstood, we wanted to be left alone.
glad someone acted.
rural belongs to everyone. it is not up to the rural ,man to decide alone. it is everybody's rural. let's put the facts right here.

sorry prendrelmick this is nothing against or your beliefs but things are to be said otherwise it is everyone out for themselves.
we are supposed to look up to our environment and not wage against it.
if we do not we are to pay the consequences of our actions and let face the history of men is not looking good.
starvation is just a way around the corner. it happened before it will happen again.
destroying nature stock just because we think we do not like is never justified and here it starts with a fox.
:)

[prendrelemick]

Many of the Nazi elite were rational & intelligent people who came to the conclusion that gassing other races was morally OK, so I don't see that this is any kind of valid argument.

Nice early bringing up of Nazis there. Weren't they also a group who imposed their version of morality on others?




How can you be so certain that their morality is narrow and ill informed? You actually find broad and well informed characters on both sides of this issue.

One of them (a young girl) used to spread bits of wood with nails in them where the horses were likely to go. She didn't like doing it but she had no choice you understand.



I don't see that being a country boy gives you a superior position to argue from. We all know that nature is red in tooth and claw; even townies see the remains of birds after a cat has torn them apart. All "reasonably broad" townies are just as "up" on this issue as any country lad; we've all watched David Attenborough, and read Richard Dawkins, Jack London, Thomas Hardy, or similar. We've all been to the country and seen some nasty stuff. .

I saw it as a rural issue - in that the rural community was more actually affected.


I actually think broad minded & well read country lads tend to allow their narrow everyday experience to overcome their broader intelligence on this issue; thinking, "my nice, clever pals down the pub go hunting, it must be "alright", even if I don't like it....

Good point, we are all subject to various influences - on both sides of the argument "Tony Blair says it's wrong so it must be."


I think the cruelty argument does have some purchase. Unlike a wolf, humans are not driven by instinct to chase weaker creatures to a standstill and then tear them apart. They can use their reason to draw back from committing this bit of cruelty. .

This is true,




I'm reading "Chocolat" by Joanne Harris at the moment. The priests & fascists in that excellent novel would no doubt resent the "urban majority" stomping on them for persecuting the river gypsies. Me, I'd love the Paris police to swoop down and lock up 'em all up..

Here comes a whole new argument that I resisted bringing up with your Nazi comment. The Nazis killed people. River gypsies, even fictitious ones, are people. Huntsmen hunt foxes, foxes are animals. I find the distinction obvious, and think comparing the two scenario's is a non argument.




The defining characteristic of an urban intellectual is that they are involved in everything, because rationality & morality apply *everywhere*. How could I not be involved in the fox hunting issue? It seems an incredibly narrow view to think that, "fox hunting doesn't occur in towns so townies can have nothing to say on the matter." In fact this prevalent attitude amongst country gentry is very condescending, and certainly makes me angrier that I would otherwise have been. "Those country squires trying to deny my right to apply universal reason, and have an opinion on everything! Unforgivable! Guillotining's too good for them. :)"

I would say banning stuff is a narrowing of views.

The other defining characteristic of urban intellectuals (or chattering classes) is that they want to shape the world to their own image. They are quite ruthless and unrelenting about this, and will strive to stop other people doing things they don't do.



And yes, I'm playing devils advocate

[mal4mac]

you have just contradicted yourself you don't come to a conclusion that it is morally acceptable to destroy and then in the same breath talk about rationality.

I think think they thought themselves to be rational. Can irrational people conquer France in a month, and most of Europe in a few months? Anyway, rational or irrational, or a mixture of both, I certainly think they were evil.

Many huntsmen hold down jobs that are usually thought to require at least some intelligence and rational thinking - banking, estate management,... So I think it's more appropriate to call fox-hunters cruel rather than irrational ("evil" would probably be a bit strong... as Mick points out Nazis are surely a nastier bunch than fox-hunters...)

Also, I think fox-hunters must realise that they are cruel, I mean chasing a fox across country and tearing it apart obviously causes more pain than shooting it (or just leaving it alone!) So how do they justify it? Does the thrill they get from the chase and the killing justify the cruelty? Maybe in their minds, but I doubt the fox would agree, and most people in the UK don't agree, hence the ban on fox hunting.

I dislike Mick dismissing all "urban intellectuals" as simply "chattering classes". Some may be, but most deep & passionate thinkers have been urban (think of Dickens, Bertrand Russell,...) Mick sets up an image of reactionary country squires being "true thinkers", while suggesting there is something false about urban intellectuals. This really isn't going to help the cause of the countryside alliance - urban intellectuals, chattering or not, far outnumber reactionary country squires (thank goodness!)

[OrphanPip]

Montreal happens to be home to the oldest operating fox hunting club outside of Europe, established by some cavalry officers in 1823. Oddly enough, its official business has been conducted entirely in French since 1983, though they still dress in the traditionally British red jacket.

[cacian]

Montreal happens to be home to the oldest operating fox hunting club outside of Europe, established by some cavalry officers in 1823. Oddly enough, its official business has been conducted entirely in French since 1983, though they still dress in the traditionally British red jacket.

wow have they not finished cleansing the whole population yet?
whet would they do with their uniforms and club once the fox is extinct?
turn on another specie? they have to go on permeating the myth that hunting is part of the history right?

[PeterL]

wow have they not finished cleansing the whole population yet?
whet would they do with their uniforms and club once the fox is extinct?
turn on another specie? they have to go on permeating the myth that hunting is part of the history right?

Most fox hunting in the U.S. and nearly all fox hunting in the UK is phony now. They do "drag hunts" where a bait scent is dragged along the ground for the hounds to follow. There is no fox at all.

The controversy around hunting led to the passing of the Hunting Act 2004 in November of that year, after a free vote in the House of Commons, which made "hunting wild mammals with a dog" (in the traditional style) unlawful in England and Wales from February 18, 2005.[24] However, exemptions stated in Schedule 1 of the 2004 Act permit some previously unusual forms of hunting wild mammals with dogs to continue, such as "hunting... for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal".[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting#United_Kingdom

Read the whole article; it appears to be accurate, and more up-to-date than what I had known.

[OrphanPip]

wow have they not finished cleansing the whole population yet?
whet would they do with their uniforms and club once the fox is extinct?
turn on another specie? they have to go on permeating the myth that hunting is part of the history right?

Foxes are rarely killed by these hunts. I'm quite certain far more of them are killed by trappers. Also, foxes are farmed for the fur industry in Canada, so they aren't at risk for extinction as far as I'm aware.

[Emil Miller]

Here's an interesting article pertaining to this subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/htg/10731545/Ban-on-fox-hunting-could-be-relaxed-after-all.html

[Volya]

I don't see the problem with fox hunting as long as it is done humanely, i.e by gun, not by a pack of dogs.

[cacian]

Foxes are rarely killed by these hunts. I'm quite certain far more of them are killed by trappers. Also, foxes are farmed for the fur industry in Canada, so they aren't at risk for extinction as far as I'm aware.

if they are farmed for their fur how do they get to the fur?

[cacian]

I don't see the problem with fox hunting as long as it is done humanely, i.e by gun, not by a pack of dogs.

hunting is never human it is one life against another.
not hunting is human.

[OrphanPip]

if they are farmed for their fur how do they get to the fur?

They are slaughtered then skinned.

[cacian]

They are slaughtered then skinned.

oh dear. I don't know what is worse hunting or farming.
and what a terrible waste.
the height of modern living/civlisation and we are still slaughtering animals to suits our fantasies.

[prendrelemick]

that is one big contradiction of the century. to protect something is to let it roam. obviously a fox hunter has no understanding of anything here.



irrational. protect to kill. where is the sense in that?


did they? no surprise there then.




let see thee is no morality here. it is not about ok or not ok. it is about a fox.
a fix belongs to nature it is not a matter of morality but a matter of logic.
like anything in life man destroys because he thinks he can rely on morality.
lets turn the tables around and I decide to hunt the hunter instead? would it bother some? maybe not. and that is exactly the point.
who cares. it is about hunting after all.




that is not fair. that is waging war against it. fox hunting is taking away nature's supply.



I am sorry this quite offensive. starvation is man's made. if a fox starves is because the hunter in general took away the food available in the wild. the more shooting of birds and whatnot and the more starving a fox becomes.
again gun shooting. let's hunt with a gun let's take way the chain of food supply and the create another game. let shoot the animal instead because it has nothing left to eat.
now we are finished with the animals. we have nothing to eat ourselves because we have shot everything.
now let shoot each other instead. it is just a matter of time.
guess what?
a man deserves everything he gets and more.


glad someone acted.
rural belongs to everyone. it is not up to the rural ,man to decide alone. it is everybody's rural. let's put the facts right here.

sorry prendrelmick this is nothing against or your beliefs but things are to be said otherwise it is everyone out for themselves.
we are supposed to look up to our environment and not wage against it.
if we do not we are to pay the consequences of our actions and let face the history of men is not looking good.
starvation is just a way around the corner. it happened before it will happen again.
destroying nature stock just because we think we do not like is never justified and here it starts with a fox.
:)

I would say that the fox is a creature that has adapted and benefited from human activity.

[cacian]

I would say that the fox is a creature that has adapted and benefited from human activity.

in what ways has it adapted? it was already adapted before human activity took over it.
it is now all over the place.

[prendrelemick]

I dislike Mick dismissing all "urban intellectuals" as simply "chattering classes". Some may be, but most deep & passionate thinkers have been urban (think of Dickens, Bertrand Russell,...) Mick sets up an image of reactionary country squires being "true thinkers", while suggesting there is something false about urban intellectuals. This really isn't going to help the cause of the countryside alliance - urban intellectuals, chattering or not, far outnumber reactionary country squires (thank goodness!)

I think we are both invoking stereotypes here.

[prendrelemick]

in what ways has it adapted? it was already adapted before human activity took over it.
it is now all over the place.

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.

[cacian]

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.

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[prendrelemick]

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.

I agree with all of that...



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.

...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.

[Paulclem]

The Hunts used to protect and encourage the fox - so that they could run them down and kill them with dogs and horses come the season of the year. Gamekeepers and Huntsmen used to come to blows over it. Now, in the countryside it's a rifle and night sight job.

I didn't think hunting with dogs was a good thing, but I didn't agree with the ban for three main reasons.

I knew people who hunted, and unlike the portrayal in the press, they were in the main rational and intelligent people, who had thought about the issues and come to the conclusion that hunting was morally ok. I also knew a couple of hunt saboteurs who would not consider any other point of view as relevant. I didn't hunt, but why should I wish to stop everyone else from hunting, what was it to do with me? Why should one group impose a narrow, ill informed, morality on another.

Being a country boy the cruelty argument holds very little sway. I Know that whatever cruelty man does, Mother Nature will out do. There is no old age in the wild. Starvation is the only natural end for a fox, either through injury or disease or a bad winter.

Finally, and most difficult explain, I resented the urban majority imposing its will on the rural minority over an issue about which it was not involved. Fox hunting polarized feelings of being misunderstood, we wanted to be left alone.


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!!)

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.

[Volya]

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.

Are you a vegetarian?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Are you a vegetarian?

I am not.

(I could write pages in response to this question)

[qimissung]

And why would you ask that? Do you think it would change the validity of her comment in any way?

[*Classic*Charm*]

And why would you ask that? Do you think it would change the validity of her comment in any way?

(I suspect I'm about to be called a hypocrite :wink5: That's usually what comes next)

[Volya]

You guessed correctly :p 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.

[Paulclem]

Classic did qualify it with "as possible."

I think it's very easy to call someone a hypocrite in a black and white wirld of easy morality. It is not easy though. I am a veggie but am I going to insist that my 83 year old mother in law eats only veggie food at our table?

There's a whole raft of compromises anyone has to make to rub along in the world. At least Classic is making a moral case within reasonable bounds. Many never even consider the question.

[Iain Sparrow]

You guessed correctly :p 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.

You are incorrect.
Evolution has designed us humans as omnivores, we perform best as omnivores. Most especially it's children who should not be put on a vegan diet, in fact I consider it to be a form of child abuse.

As for being hypocrites... we're all hypocrites to some degree.


As a teenager I worked one summer at a pig slaughterhouse.
You don't get any closer than that to how our food gets to the table.

[prendrelemick]

You guessed correctly :p 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.


I think that is a pretty fair summing up of the life of a wild animal.

As a farmer of livestock I strive my utmost to prevent these conditions for my animals. Not least because good animal welfare is in my financial interest. But also because I can.

[mal4mac]

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.

Do they? Where's your evidence for that? Here's a leaflet on the RSPB site that arguing that grouse hunting has led to the killing of birds of prey, resulting in a sharp decline in numbers and variety of these wonderful birds. This happens even though it's probably environmental damage by man that's caused a decline in grouse numbers! As with the recent push for a badger cull, it seems the first reaction is to "kill the wildlife", never "let's leave nature alone." It's all about short term profit & narrow minded self-interest. Farmer (I'm all right...) Jack thinks, "kill the eagles, replace heather by sheep, = more grouse, more wool,... then I can pay keep on paying little Billy's public school fees..."

The RSPB seem to be agreeing with Monbiot - it's grazing by sheep and deer which is the big problem. Solutions - reintroduce wolves, stop subsidising hill farmers on marginal lands, let nature get wild again!

[Paulclem]

Too extreme mal. Not only will it never happen, but it is a knee jerk reaction to what needs to be managed enlightened farming of the kind that Mick is reporting.

[mal4mac]

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.

As my previous posts shows, humans are in competition with eagles for grouse, and hunters seeking a quick profit have an easy short term solution - kill the eagles; which is what is happening in the UK. It's certainly not just cheetahs in Africa that are risk, there are problems everywhere. We'd wiped out wolves and big cats in the UK well before industrialisation. And in the USA what about bison and passenger pigeons? Many hunters don't care at all about the species they kill, they just want the thrill and $$$.

Here's what happened when some hunters found out about the last flock of passenger pigeons in the USA:

"They killed the entire flock in a day."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579477861178611076

You say hunters need to control deer numbers - have they killed all the wolves?

If ecologists conclude that the deer population in a certain area has grown so large that it is damaging the ecology, then shouldn't it be the ecologists who control the deer numbers (perhaps by employing professional marksmen if it's thought better than other measures - importing wolves, humane trapping...) Who could trust a random bunch of hunters - from experience we see that many of them will shoot anything, not just the "necessary number" of deer. They will even do illegal things (like the ones poisoning eagles in the UK today...)

The best solution is, perhaps, to transfer the killer apes back to Africa, without guns, where their numbers can be controlled by large carnivores. Careful watch must be maintained. If they grow in numbers, or learn to use tools, they just kill & destroy everything "for fun".

[mal4mac]

Too extreme mal. Not only will it never happen, but it is a knee jerk reaction to what needs to be managed enlightened farming of the kind that Mick is reporting.

It is quite extreme, but I don't think it's knee jerk, Monbiot thinks deeply about these matters. Enlightened farming might help, but there needs to be a lot more going on. Monbiot was making a very good case on the radio last week for not subsidising sheep farmers on marginal land, using right wing capitalist arguments(!) I mean why subsidise people to keep sheep on marginal land? If they can make a living there, fine, by why should my taxes support them? If they are driven off the land it means, more heather, more grouse, room for wolves, return of nature. Great!

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/27/a-manifesto-for-rewilding-the-world/

[prendrelemick]

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.

Aye its complicated - and often contradictory.
If you need to cull, why not let hunters pay to do it?
But then shooting estates create the imbalance in the first place for profit.
But the money raised helps to create conditions that are co-incidentally good for wildlife.
But not for all species - you shoot a carrion crow - you prevent it from eating 5 lapwing chicks,
but you've shot a crow, its chicks will die.
But the crows are out of balance through exploiting human activity.
But shoot too many crows and the lapwings may breed beyond their food resource and starve.

and so on and so on...

[OrphanPip]

As my previous posts shows, humans are in competition with eagles for grouse, and hunters seeking a quick profit have an easy short term solution - kill the eagles; which is what is happening in the UK. It's certainly not just cheetahs in Africa that are risk, there are problems everywhere. We'd wiped out wolves and big cats in the UK well before industrialisation. And in the USA what about bison and passenger pigeons? Many hunters don't care at all about the species they kill, they just want the thrill and $$$.

Here's what happened when some hunters found out about the last flock of passenger pigeons in the USA:

"They killed the entire flock in a day."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579477861178611076

There is a difference between commercial hunting and hobby hunting, as I said one needs an economic incentive (barring the sort of excessive hunting of certain exotic game) to be driven to wipe out a species. The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction because it was used as a cheap food source for the American slave trade. The bison's population suffered due to mass hunting as a food source before the development of stable agriculture in the west. The plains bison is no longer endangered and doing totally fine now that people don't rely on the bison to survive.



You say hunters need to control deer numbers - have they killed all the wolves?

If ecologists conclude that the deer population in a certain area has grown so large that it is damaging the ecology, then shouldn't it be the ecologists who control the deer numbers (perhaps by employing professional marksmen if it's thought better than other measures - importing wolves, humane trapping...) Who could trust a random bunch of hunters - from experience we see that many of them will shoot anything, not just the "necessary number" of deer. They will even do illegal things (like the ones poisoning eagles in the UK today...)

The government does employ people to cull deer in addition to allowing hunting as a way to support population control. Of course, hobby hunting is not the best conceivable way to cull wild deer, but it is probably better than leaving deer to starve to death. Deer also start to pose a significant risk to traffic when there are too many of them, hundreds of people die each year from collisions with deer in North America. Also, unlike the UK, game hunting does constitute a significant food source for some communities in North America. I have deer in the freezer, the environmental impact of hunting a deer is certainly a lot less than that of a cattle farm.

I don't think hunting is good, but it is permissible and causes minimal damage when properly managed.

[prendrelemick]

Do they? Where's your evidence for that? Here's a leaflet on the RSPB site that arguing that grouse hunting has led to the killing of birds of prey, resulting in a sharp decline in numbers and variety of these wonderful birds. This happens even though it's probably environmental damage by man that's caused a decline in grouse numbers! As with the recent push for a badger cull, it seems the first reaction is to "kill the wildlife", never "let's leave nature alone." It's all about short term profit & narrow minded self-interest. Farmer (I'm all right...) Jack thinks, "kill the eagles, replace heather by sheep, = more grouse, more wool,... then I can pay keep on paying little Billy's public school fees..."

The RSPB seem to be agreeing with Monbiot - it's grazing by sheep and deer which is the big problem. Solutions - reintroduce wolves, stop subsidising hill farmers on marginal lands, let nature get wild again!

I think extreme views on both sides are a big part of the problem.

[Volya]

You are incorrect.
Evolution has designed us humans as omnivores, we perform best as omnivores. Most especially it's children who should not be put on a vegan diet, in fact I consider it to be a form of child abuse.

As for being hypocrites... we're all hypocrites to some degree.


As a teenager I worked one summer at a pig slaughterhouse.
You don't get any closer than that to how our food gets to the table.

Just because we're designed to be an omnivore doesn't mean we have to. You can have a vegetarian/vegan (although I don't see the need to go vegan given eating eggs hardly hurts the animals...) diet and be just as healthy as an omnivore. I went vegetarian for about six months to see what it was like and my health was still great (I am not a veggie any more, I personally feel no guilt at all eating meat).

[cacian]

Just because we're designed to be an omnivore doesn't mean we have to. You can have a vegetarian/vegan (although I don't see the need to go vegan given eating eggs hardly hurts the animals...) diet and be just as healthy as an omnivore. I went vegetarian for about six months to see what it was like and my health was still great (I am not a veggie any more, I personally feel no guilt at all eating meat).

well just because a fox is there it does not mean we have it to chase it. one can learn to live and bear or find a way to unbear. a human is capable of that. a fox it has not got the means. :)

[*Classic*Charm*]

You guessed correctly :p 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.

Eating meat does not necessarily go against those tenants. I believe that an animal should have all of its physiological and behavioural needs met, and experience a pain-free death. It is very possible to achieve this, given the current nature of scientific study on animal behaviour. We know what animals need in terms of nutrition, and there is so much incredible research going on to help us better understand how to recognize fear, pain, and stress in animal species. It is far more complicated than we thought, and without this research, we run the risk of anthropomorphizing, or enforcing a lifestyle that appears to us to be more "natural" which in itself can result in poorer conditions. It is very possible to provide a good life within a farming context, and to ensure that animals are unconscious and therefore unaware of their own death. I won't make the claim that the necessary practices are being implemented on every farm, or even in a higher proportion than those who do not.

What people often fail to realize is that farming, especially animal products, is highly consumer driven. "Factory" farming as people like to term it, became common practice after the last world war, when populations were starving and the government put pressure on farmers to produce meat and milk in higher volumes and for lower prices. Today, people are becoming more concerned with the welfare of the animals being used for our benefit. The only way we can improve the conditions in which farm animals are being kept is to not only put pressure on farmers, but show a willingness to pay more for meat that is welfare-friendly. It costs money to be able to better care for animals and provide them with better facilities. The overhead costs of farming are astounding. But by welfare-friendly, I do not necessarily mean organic or free-range as those types of conditions also bring on new welfare challenges. I believe in research, and using that research to find a balance that maximizes quality of life for the animals we use, meats consumer demands, and provides a life for farmers. Research only gets funded when demand for the product is high. In Canada, there is a linear relationship between the amount of research funding provided for an industry, and the value of that industry.

Yes, there are problems with the way we raise and use farm animals. Yes, solutions are possible. It is because I care about the animals involved that I do not abandon the industry altogether. I know how they live and I know how they are killed. I have seen it. I know it step by step. I also understand the physiology and concern for human health behind the practices. I am trained to see when something has been done right or wrong. It's pretty damn hard not to care when you not only see, but understand what happens during a slaughter.

You are correct- consuming animal products is no longer essential to our survival. We can get protein from other sources. We can take supplemental synthetic Vitamin B12. I for one choose to meet my nutritional needs as much as possible without supplementation for several reasons. One reason is that in North America, there is no regulating body controlling the production of supplements. They are not regulated like drugs or food are, and there is therefore no guarantee that the product I purchase contains any proportion of what it claims, has safe ingredients, or is in any way bioavailable. When I eat meat, or drink milk, I know what I am eating, and I know how my body will use it.

Ironically, I think you would find that the majority of livestock vets and animal welfare scientists still consume meat. It is the relationship between the humans and the animals we use that drives the passion to find out as much about them as possible and to better their lives. Without farming for meat and animal-based food products, these domestic species would not exist, and we therefore have a greater appreciation for the industry that created the animals we love than most. So yes, I do care as much about the animals as I claim.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Aye its complicated - and often contradictory.

Totally right. I don't think the balance is easily maintained.


If you need to cull, why not let hunters pay to do it?

Because hunters are often untrained/ not good shots and do not kill humanely.


But then shooting estates create the imbalance in the first place for profit.

Agreed! The goal of course is not to create imbalance, but restore balance. If such a thing exists.


But the money raised helps to create conditions that are co-incidentally good for wildlife.

Let's hope so.


But not for all species - you shoot a carrion crow - you prevent it from eating 5 lapwing chicks,

So shooting carrion crows should only be allowed when the lapwing chick population is unreasonably high. That would be the goal.


but you've shot a crow, its chicks will die.

Most government-run culls would specify which ages and genders of a species are allowed to be culled. They usually restrict killing of young animals and nursing females.


But the crows are out of balance through exploiting human activity.

If we do it wrong. Which is easily done.


But shoot too many crows and the lapwings may breed beyond their food resource and starve.

Yep.


and so on and so on...