So what is the difference between your dog chasing and killing something quick.... and a hound that is bred to do the same job!!

Why is one cruel, but not the other??

I think the writing is on the wall there Jackbox, i.e. Quote "I don't need to make a day of it" Unquote!

Now I have a question please to all of you who think it's ok to shoot what you consider to be lowlife animals, which is:

Where would you draw a line with WHAT you shoot? Would you kill one of our birds of prey merely because it was catching it's dinner, BUT, it was also hunting something you wished to kill/shoot for pleasure? What else would you consider killing/shooting as well as the fox, the rabbit, hare etc. etc. whilst out lamping then???? Just interested!

I think the problem that a lot of people have with hunting with hounds is the protracted chase before the kill. I have no problem with lurchers and terriers killing rabbits, so long as it is quick, clean and humane. I wonder if other antis, agree that killing a fox with lurchers - ie a quick death, is preferable to that of a long chase and death by a pack?

I have just started to read "Fox Control" by Sean Frain. From a quick flick through it would seem he uses terriers and lurchers to control foxes. I am not sure how I stand on that at the moment, so will let you know when I have finished the book.

I think I have given my own line earlier in the thread....personally I would not or could not shoot /kill anything..

But I dont have a problem with a population being controlled "professionally" be it for conservation or protection of livestock.


I do not support killing for sport... but then that is the big question is`nt it concerning foxhunting..whether you believe it is purely sport or necessity...and that is where the line will always be divided.

My point is... there are some who are OK with their animals killing a rabbit or squirrel while out on walks, but have a problem with a controlled kill.

As surely the result is the same..one animal kills another.. and one animal is chased and caught , causing distress before it is killed.

I just don't see the difference.

[QUOTE=Helena54;1525097Where would you draw a line with WHAT you shoot? Would you kill one of our birds of prey merely because it was catching it's dinner, BUT, it was also hunting something you wished to kill/shoot for pleasure? What else would you consider killing/shooting as well as the fox, the rabbit, hare etc. etc. whilst out lamping then???? Just interested![/QUOTE]

Shooting birds of prey is HIGHLY illegal - although it still goes on

But how do you know a lurcher will give less of a chase than a hound.. or a cleaner kill.

A fox is not chased all day, the hounds will chase foxes all day...

Lurchers are bred for speed. Foxhounds are bred for stamina.

Yes but lurches are small / medium sized, and will weigh more or less the same as a fox, one lurcher will not be able to dispatch a fox in the time a hound is able to... is it better for one or two lurches to catch a fox quicker than one hound, but take twice as long to kill it.

Not quite true. Salukis and Afghans and some other sighthounds are bred for stamina, not speed. Most of these Hounds were not designed to kill large game such as Foxes. However using Bull Terriers has bred a dog that DOES have an incredible strike that will kill a Fox very quickly indeed.

Foxhounds go at a steady pace and can go for a long time, likewise the Saluki. Greyhounds/Whippets are sprinters and cannot go for long periods. Breeds like the Deerhound and Wolfhound are also stamina breeds.

IMO the welfare implications of 'length of chase' is not as cut and dried as it first appears.

If I am chased for half an hour (the average fox hunt lasts under 31 minutes) through the woods by a predator that I can hear, my fear would be greater than being chased for 30 seconds, but my imagination would contribute a great deal to that fear. During a longer chase the imagination would be continually ratcheting up.

Humans have language, stories, films, imagination and the power of existential thought. We can think, "what if he catches me?", "what must it be like to die?", "I hope it won't hurt".

Theories of animal learning indicate that an animal learns from previous experience (e.g.Operant Conditioning) as opposed to 'what if' scenarios. If the animal has never been hunted before, or has been hunted and escaped, it has no reason to believe that it won't get away this time.

Because we can't ask an animal how it feels - and heaven forbid that we fall into the trap of anthropomorphism - we can look at behavioural indicators and scientific evidence of brain chemistry.

Behavioural Indicators

I have personally seen a fox sit down in the middle of a ploughed field and groom itself while the pack is closing in. To all appearances it did not look concerned, otherwise why choose that moment to attend to its fleas?

A friend of mine has seen a fox in similar circumstances initiate its own hunt (of voles or mice).

The foxes in both of these instances didn't act as if they were terrified - as a human would be, they acted as if the sound of the hunt was an annoyance that they could choose to move away from at their own pace. I believe that it is only when the hounds are right there on the spot that the fox is/was let down in its assumption that it can get away.

The Burns enquiry concluded in the case of hares hunted by scent hounds that the hares often didn't even realise that they were being hunted.

It is natural for a wild animal to move away from the sound of disturbance. I don't think we should automatically read this as an animal being in fear of its life.

Brain Chemistry.

There have been some studies done on animals (not the fox as far as I'm aware), and man, to test the levels of adrenaline, endorphins and cortisol of hunted animal carcasses and soldiers during combat.

The Burns report mentions source material from reports by Bateson and Harris, Phelps, and by the Joint Universities Study on Deer Hunting. Bearing in mind that the evidence relates to deer, Burns concludes:

Although there are still substantial areas of disagreement, there is now a better understanding of the physiological changes which occur when a deer is hunted. Most scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting. The available evidence does not enable us to resolve the disagreement about the point at which, during the hunt, the welfare of the deer becomes seriously compromised. There is also a lack of firm information about what happens to deer which escape, although the available research suggests that they are likely to recover.

So, although scientist of all shades of opinion agreed that in the final stages of a hunt the animal's chemistry indicated that it was under stress, there was no unequivocal evidence that an animal which escaped prior to that stage showed "capture myopathy" or "emotional stress". Neither were these raised levels of cortisol seen in animals shot during hunting but before the final stages.

However adrenaline is released during the fight-or-flight response at the initial stages of a hunt, and endorphins produced shortly after. Endorphins are linked to the feeling of euphoria that the risk-seeking 'adrenaline junkies' are addicted to.

In man the levels of endorphins actually elevate rather than depress mood, as confirmed by the studies of soldiers during combat. Endorphins in man produce euphoria.

Obviously we can't ask animals how they feel to be hunted, but the brain chemistry indicates that their systems were flooded with endorphins, and it was only at the very end of the hunt that animals evidenced high levels of cortisol which fell outside the norm for sustained exercise (comparable levels to endurance horses and human athletes).

Some people may imagine that the animal would be "frightened out of its wits during a hunt". It may be convenient to attribute human emotions to an animal but the point that I'm making is that we don't know.

We can base theories on scientific tests of brain chemistry, but those that have been done suggest the exact opposite, at least until the final stages of a hunt.

Personal observation also suggests the opposite.