I know the UK use to do this and they paid the price.
Is this still an accepted “practice” for USA hunts?
The MFAA says it’s a no no.
Nope.
I don’t hunt so please excuse my ignorance. What does “digging up foxes that have gone to ground” mean?
[QUOTE=Mukluk;3571709]
I don’t hunt so please excuse my ignorance. What does “digging up foxes that have gone to ground” mean?[/QUOTE]
Continuing pursuit after the fox has reached a place where it is conceivably safe like it’s own fox hole. It’s a practice done in the UK where the objective is to catch or kill the animal whereas here in the US, it is viewed as inhumane and unsportsmanlike under most circumstances, so it is not condoned by the code.
definite no-no
“Still”??!! It never WAS an accepted practice! Where did you get that idea?!! I’ve never heard of it being done here.
[QUOTE=wateryglen;3571831]
“Still”??!! It never WAS an accepted practice! Where did you get that idea?!! I’ve never heard of it being done here.[/QUOTE]
Fox hunting originated with the need to be rid of foxes, which were pests on farms. They would dig up gardens, kill chickens and cause trouble. Digging up foxes was more than acceptable then. When it became a leisure sport, it may have been seen as ‘unsportsmanlike’ to some hunts, but others likely saw it as acceptable for a longer period of time.
I don’t believe it was ever officially acceptable in the US because from the onset of fox hunting in the US, it was a leisure sport. Foxes, hounds and horses were imported specifically for this purpose, so killing the fox once it found shelter of some sort would be counter productive to the continuation of the sport.
Thanks-I had not, in the past, heard of it happening over here–But I was not sure whether it was acceptable but just not done. I am glad that it is not at all acceptable under the code.
I agree my “still” was misplaced-my apologizes!
Thanks for clarifying. So in US fox hunts, how often does the fox die or get injured, and how often does it get away? What do the members of most hunts prefer the outcome to be with regard to the fox? Not meaning to stir up trouble, I’m just curious.
might be a hornet’s nest…
I used to be a professional whip, for two different hunts, in two different states and while it was very exciting to view a fox, one of the packs I hunted with, (fine Penn-Marydells) it was more important that the hounds kept their noses “to the ground” and stayed on the scent, and we weeded out hounds that would sight chase a fox.
I am going to state my opinion (and mine is not the same as everyones’) that in the US, most hunts go out a bit later in the morning, and the fox has already been hunting and had gone to his home by the time the hounds find his scent. Therefore, it is usually the scent that is followed, more than an actual running fox. This is not to say that fox are not caught by hounds in the US, but in a typical season, going out two days a week from November to the end of March, one or two kills would be an average…sometimes less. Our own feelings (mine and the huntsmen I worked with) were that it was often a older, or injured, or otherwise less than healthy fox that was out and about in broad daylight, after 7 AM.
One of the things we used to say was “We don’t shoot the football at the end of the football game, we want to play wih it again.” For me, that was how I felt about fox…I enjoyed the finding, and a chase to ground, and seeing and hearing the hounds in their work…and was happy for the fox to escape to his home, so as to play another day.
In England/Ireland their fox populations are not affected by rabies and mange. Hence they have a huge population of foxes. The farmers attitude is that if you’re gonna come thundering onto his land and chewing up the fields with the horses, he’d better get results. So the hunts will dig up and shoot the fox (or get him to bolt to continue the chase).
In the states our fox populations are under stress from rabies/mange/etc. We don’t want to curtail the population. So we chase, and the hounds occasionally kill old or sick foxes. I consider this the best way to go, because healthy foxes always get away, and old/sick foxes are spared from a lingering, painful, long drawn out “natural” death.
When people complain about to me about foxhunting, I ask, “do you care about individual foxes, or do you care about the species?” If you care about the species, then foxhunting benefits the fox population by weeding out the sick, disease carrying foxes, improving the gene pool by eliminating inferior foxes, and making them wary of people, thus keeping them away from farms, roads, trashcans, etc. Which leads to a heathy fox population.
If you want to save every single Foxy-woxy, you cause overpopulation, leading to local starvation, disease, pest foxes, injuries to humans, etc.
Eliminate mounted foxhunting, foxes end up getting shot as pests, and shot foxes usually suffer a painful drawn out death, since most shots are not accurate enough to kill quickly, but rather allow the fox to drag itself into the underbrush and die a protracted death.
No such thing as a wounded fox getting away from a hound pack. The fox is either caught and killed quickly, or gets away without a scratch. I try to explain this to people who support the British hunt ban (much more humane death from hounds than guns), but it makes no difference. In Britain it’s all about class warfare, not what’s best for the foxes.
Saddest thing I saw was when me and the Bad Girls were visiting the London Eye one evening, there was a fox hanging out right there in the hedges next to the snack bar. Scrouging for hand outs. Looked sickly and pathetic, like the fox version of a wino.
BRH
Major Mark has given you some good info.
The ban in the UK has nothing to do with whether foxhunting is cruel. It isn’t. Not even digging up the foxes to shoot or bolt. The ban was pretty much a function of labor politics, smoke and mirrors, and some societal undertones that go way back (including, according to one theory, working class ‘payback’ for the tories having outlawed the popular working class sport of dog fighting in the early 20th century).
That said, as has been noted, it has never been a common practice in the U.S. However, if a landowner wants a problem fox or coyote eliminated, the local hunt is in the best position to help that landowner and deal with the critter properly and humanely.
Mukluk, to answer your question: The process of hunting in the UK typically included closing off all available earths/holes so that a fox, when found by hounds, could not quickly go to ground. Once the hunted fox eventually found a place to go to ground, terriers would be sent in, their racket would guide the terriermen to where underground the fox was, and the fox would be dug out, typically with the pack of hounds pulled well back so that once the fox was running again, the hounds could be laid back on the line. Yes, the purpose is to kill the fox, because of a) landowner desires/livestock concerns and b) overpopulation. In more recent years rather than continuing the chase, the fox was shot by the huntsman at the earth.
In the US, we’ve never had the overpopulation problem, and so except for isolated instances death of the quarry has never been the goal (except of course the hounds do not know that). Fox pops into a groundhog hole, pack marks and is praised, and then on to find the next one. I’ve been hunting in 1971, have been on three hunts where there were kills, one of those doesn’t actually count as the hounds came across a comatose and near death red fox (dying of exposure due to mange) and simply administered the coup de grace.
LexInVa, your characterization of fox digging being considered inhumane/ unsporting is not accurate, actually. It isn’t cruel, just not a necessary or desirable practice in this country. The MFHA certainly includes in its code of ethics those practices which ARE inhumane, such as hunting bagged foxes (meaning, releasing a fox that has been captured elsewhere for the hounds to hunt, this is unacceptable because the fox does not know the country or the hiding places).
In general, it is fair to say that we in the US do not hunt to kill. But that should certainly not be taken as holding the opinion that killing game is cruel, because it isn’t.
Hunting, whether hunting fox with hounds or stalking deer with rifles, is not about the kill. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority in our society doesn’t hunt or even venture out into nature much, and so trying to explain this fundamental concept- one that will have every hunter reading that sentence nodding their head- is extremely difficult.
And I’ll go as far as to opine that all of the ‘oh, we don’t kill foxes’ lines of argument make by US foxhunters trying to be politically correct will only hasten the demise of the sport in this country.
[QUOTE=Mukluk;3572893]
Thanks for clarifying. So in US fox hunts, how often does the fox die or get injured, and how often does it get away? What do the members of most hunts prefer the outcome to be with regard to the fox? Not meaning to stir up trouble, I’m just curious.[/QUOTE]
That’s not a question that can ever be answered. There is no statistical data available or likely any in existence that could be compiled to answer your questions. Some hunts might keep track of kills though I wouldn’t think that the majority of them do or would care to since it’s a potentially damaging piece of information. I would like to think that nobody would want to see a fox killed in a hunt but it isn’t something I or anyone else can say is true.
In the US, the average life expectancy of a red fox in the wild is 2.5 years. My own anecdotal observation- most deaths are road kills or disease or (thinking of a particular period where fox pelts were bring $90 apiece) trapping. And yet I and I’m sure others can tell you of particular foxes that have been hunted 2 or 3 times every season for 4, 5, 6 seasons. Reasons: The country used by hunts is better managed for the benefit of wildlife, and foxes thus tend to have longer, healthier lives in hunted country.
Mind you, that’s true of all forms of hunting- the hunters of the animals do far more than anyone else for the benefit and welfare of those animals and by extension other fauna that share the same habitat.
There is mange in foxes the UK - http://www.mange.org.uk/
(The UK which, incidentally, consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It’s awfully tiresome to hear people refer to the UK as “England” though perhaps you meant to exclude those parts for a reason?)
17 yrs of hunting and one kill observed
dec 13 1999 and none B4 or since.
not very often but it can happen any time.
Thanks for all the replies. I feel much more enlightened now.
[QUOTE=LexInVA;3573461]
That’s not a question that can ever be answered. There is no statistical data available or likely any in existence that could be compiled to answer your questions. Some hunts might keep track of kills though I wouldn’t think that the majority of them do or would care to since it’s a potentially damaging piece of information. I would like to think that nobody would want to see a fox killed in a hunt but it isn’t something I or anyone else can say is true.[/QUOTE]
I think you could get a very good feeling for how US landowners look after their foxes by reading Rita Mae Brown.Very accurate (she is an avid foxhunter) and entertaining) with a wonderful glossary in the back.
Just make sure you pick up her foxhunting series, be it used or new. (she had some other series) Just make sure you don’t read outloud to your critters or they’ll be talking back to you!!!
Well, I’ve foxhunted, etc., etc., and I know this will set off a tirade, but I find it hard to agree that it’s OK to run an old or ill fox to exhaustion, then dig it out of its den and let it be killed. If foxhunting doesn’t want to get banned, it better put up a clearer argument than that. I guarantee that most non-country people will not buy the justification of “overpopulation; better to kill it than a lingering death;” as they will think that there are far swifter ways to dispatch a disease-spreading animal. I’m one of them… and I’m a country person, a forever horse person, and am mad about Mother Nature.
I already hear the huffing and puffing, but honestly, in the name of overpopulation – aren’t we calling the kettle black?
[QUOTE=Beverley;3573146]
Hunting, whether hunting fox with hounds or stalking deer with rifles, is not about the kill. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority in our society doesn’t hunt or even venture out into nature much, and so trying to explain this fundamental concept- one that will have every hunter reading that sentence nodding their head- is extremely difficult.[/QUOTE]
Catching the game may not be the primary reason to go fox hunting, but I do not see the correlation to a lot of other game that is hunted. I have heard fishers say that the day out on the water is just as worthwhile, but I have never heard a deer hunter, pheasant hunter or boar hunters say the same thing.
I have also known people that hunted as a major food source. Pretty much, my experience with hunting, for everything except fox hunting, is that it is primarily about the kill. The art of the kill, but the kill none-the-less.
This has been, in my experience, one of the reasons fox hunting was always considered a leisure sport of the weathly or upper class. Who else has time, money, and extra food reserves to hunt something without needing to kill the quarry? Killing for the farmers was either for food or to protect their food (livestock and agriculture), they did not have the leisure time to chase something through the woods without ending the chase in killing the quarry.
