digging up foxes that have gone to ground

[system]

I will add to what Beverly wrote by stating that the use of hounds for hunting, in the United States, is not only guided by the MFHA. The MFHA code of ethics is marvelous, and is a testament to mounted foxhunters that they abide by it very strictly.

The ethics of hunting, including the concept, definition, and ethical aspects of “Fair Chase” are deeply rooting in American sporting community.

In the US, we are fortunate to have had people like Aldo Leopold to help define, shape and create the ethics and sportsmanship of hunting in America. These ethics, created in America for American hunters, is reflected in the MFHA. While mounted foxhunting is similar to foxhunting in the UK, there are distinct differences which make the sport in the US unique. In the US, wildlife is a public resource. Historically, in other countries wildlife was the property of the landowner. Landowners were members of the upper classes.

This isn’t the case in the United States. Here, anyone can hunt, regardless of race, gender, or income level. Wildlife belongs to Americans, not just a wealthy few.

Much of the ignorance about hunting with a hound revolves around the perception of what constitutes Fair Chase. Understanding what Fair Chase is makes every bit of the MFHA ethics very clear.

Every ethical hunter abides by the concept of Fair Chase. In the case of using a scent hound, the odds are always on the quarry. Whether the quarry is a prey animal or predator doesn’t matter, the odds are always in favor of the quarry.

In the wild, quarry has many escape routes. To be considered Fair Chase, those escape routes must never be cut off; by human, by stopping earth, or by a hound. That would not be ethical.

I read many comments about “quarry being run to exhaustion”. Such people do not realize that this method of hunting has been studied by wildlife biologists in the US, and quarry are never subjected to the risk of myopathy. And that is because it is not the quarry that is working hard. It is the hounds, and the hunter has control over the welfare of his or her hounds.

These comments are made by people who don’t understand how hunting with hounds works; the science of it. Unfortunately, these studies are often 500-700 pages long. Few people (outside of the scientific community) read them.

Suffice to say that an entire set of ethics guides the hunter, and paramount is that the ethics of Fair Chase are observed.

If a person is opposed to hunting, then the science supporting this method of wildlife population control will fall upon deaf ears. But it does exist, though this body of knowledge cannot be condensed into a Wikipedia entry.

[Nlevie]

Thank you Beverly -

And Major Mark - it is so nice to read such well-written responses to these quations about hunting !

And I do hope the questions are well-intended, but also wonder how many are written by those just trying to stir a debate ?

[Nlevie]

Thank you Beverly -

And Major Mark - it is so nice to read such well-written responses to these questions about hunting !

And I do hope the questions are well-intended, but also wonder how many are written by those just trying to stir a debate ?

[omare]

I did not post to stir up debate–the issue came up and I did know the answer but thought as a general rule it was not done in the USA.

I appreciated being informed to look at the MFHA code which specifically addressed the issue here in the USA. That gave me my answer I was looking for.

[huntrpaint]

[QUOTE=Ajierene;3577202]
The people in this room with me that hunt disagree with you. They concur that while a day out in the woods (or on the marsh) is nice, it is does no equal ending the day in a kill. My former teacher also concurs. He had described a day out hunting while without kill, when he was a child, was a wasted day. But that is when he live in rural western Virginia where hunting was for food, not leisure. Hunting game is different than butchering livestock or euthanizing a pet. The hunt is part of the sport, but for many people there is a ‘win’. That win is the kill. A day without a ‘win’ is not as rewarding as a day with one. Hunting for food can be equated to butchering cattle for food. Necessity spurs the kill, though there is no ‘game’ in butchering livestock and there still is in hunting for food. Euthanizing a pet is completely different - there is no chase, no game, and no ‘win’. There is only a termination of a friendship.

In the US this is especially true since animals were imported for the specific purpose of fox hunting. Fox hunting originated in the US as a leisure sport, not a necessity to be rid of a pest. There is evidence that fox hunting originated as a leisure sport in the UK as well, though opinions differ.

A group of people raising a fox for future game does not necessarily mean they are more humane or better than anyone else. A dog fighter raises his dogs to be the best fighters and a winning dog fighter takes very good care of his prize hounds. The same can be said for the owner of a fighting rooster. Yet, these pursuits are considered inhumane. What will be the argument when a fox hunter and/or his hounds kill that fox that they raise? I am not saying I think fox hunting is inhumane, just illustrating that just because you raise something to go hunt it does not mean you are any moral superior to those that say fox hunting is inhumane.

Some interesting information here. I have another book, at home, though.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NWu6sLJn7-kC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=origin+of+fox+hunting+as+leisure&source=web&ots=XNbrtxRQxV&sig=7wQUxGfIbijvweSQGrMhiDBeIa8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA123,M1[/QUOTE]

I haven’t heard of anyone raising fox to hunt.
Also, we are hunting coyote in most of North America and they rarely get killed.

[tangledweb]

@huntrpaint;3583070

I haven’t heard of anyone raising fox to hunt.
Also, we are hunting coyote in most of North America and they rarely get killed.

No, fox and coyote are common enough that nobody would bother. Unethical fox pen owners trap wild ones rather than raising them deliberately. It is much more efficient that way.

[Cathbad]

Beverly-
For that argument, are you using the word ‘expect’ as in ‘presume’? If so, and not to draw this out tiresomely, but that would still sound indefinite to me…

Well… as for calling wildlife management the norm, the last time I looked, the norm doesn’t mean it’s appropriate. Remember slavery? That was the norm. And so is stoning of women and public displays of hangings in Afghanistan. You know, on one hand, you get annoyed at someone stating something ‘ignorant’ about your sport, but then in the next breath, you defend the status quo about wildlife management. Your answer is so emphatic it makes me think that some windows could stand to be thrown open to the fresh air, and the dust being blown off some books…

Now that I’m on the topic (and drawing this out too long) I have to say that I’m taken aback by your aggressive lead-off, which is something to the effect of “I guess you don’t hunt much.” Well, everyone is free to read my first post, and it’s right there how much I’ve hunted, which is ‘not much.’ Really, but what is the purpose of such an unnecessary statement, which, I really don’t think was meant to be inclusive or encouraging to be a part of the sport? Perhaps you found my post too strong, or something, but they were really simple questions – not challenges – asking for clarity. That was IT. I have my opinions of foxhunting, but it will be the tone of people who are pointlessly angry and annoyed at those who bring questions to the table, not the sport itself, that will turn me off and not have my support in your inevitable time of need. If you recall, I’ve already made it clear that I’m a horseperson and a lover of the countryside. I NEVER said I was against foxhunting-- I simply am stating that on the surface, foxhunting can potentially come across as not the fairest fight. Yet, with your “I’ll brook no argument” tone, I’ll be even less inclined to fox hunt in the future…

[Beverley]

Cathbad,

I used the word ‘expect’ in its normal context, based on my amateur knowledge of fox behavior based on spending 37 years hunting and studying wildlife. No one- not you, not me, not the most experienced wildlife biologist- can predict the specific behavior of an individual wild animal in a given situation and be 100% accurate. That’s part of the fun of observing wildlife.

Your use of comparisons to slavery, stoning of women, etc, are straight out of PETA literature. 'Nuff said.

Your first post in this thread is post #19, which opens with ‘Well, I’ve foxhunted, etc, etc…’ Why don’t you go back and read that post and observe that it says nothing at all about your amount of experience with the sport. To the contrary, the way you wrote that post, starting with the phrase cited above, came across as an assertion that you considered yourself to be qualified in speaking about the nuances of the sport.

You are reading all sorts of anger and tones into my posts that simply are not there. I always remind everyone that the ‘tone’ they presume in a post is not necessarily the ‘tone’ that was in the writer’s mind when typing. If you are simply looking to pick a fight and take offense where none was offered, that’s your problem, not mine.

In decades of explaining my favorite sport to others, no one has had an issue with the very same points I made to you about the ‘fairness’ of the sport. Including PETA members.

If you are going to base your decision on whether to foxhunt on the basis of a thread on the internet, I feel sorry for you. It’s the best sport on the planet, and I would urge you to form you own opinions by getting out there and watching the hounds, and the fox. No one who does so with an open mind has ever come away concluding it was ‘unfair,’ to use your term, or in any way inhumane.

[promlightshine]

to hunt or drag that is the question

In response, I was a member of a hunt that hunted live in an area of drag hunting. My take was that to many members of drag hunts a good hunt was to be that of a well laid scent, lots of running and jumping and of course a wonderful tea afterwards. I had the honor of riding with two drag hunts last year. I was impressed by the fact that we rarely stopped, it clearly was a chase but a chase of the hounds and an invisible scent laid out by someone who as part of their strategy would allow access to jumps and of course a view of the hounds (best seen in both in first flight).

After each hunt was completed there was a round of applause. It was rather theatrical . As I have stated before-different than the contrasting live hunt where one would wait for the element of surprise. Would we or wouldn’t we? Which would we see? Remembering that these animals are highly territorial, we knew the coyote in the area including colors and ways of going. Our huntsman swore they would go deeply into the swamp and then switch off. Black coyote in-grey one out.

Because of our “relationship” with these animals and the fact that we allowed them to exist as our presence kept them more secluded thus less likely to be shot, we would NOT have wanted them to be injured or killed. I love the football analogy.

Regardless of the type of hunt, you may find hounds diverted to live prey. In that instance you watch the chase, have your whips spread to cover more territory and prevent injury or harm to the hounds (such as running into the street) and you enjoy the chase until fox/coyote “go to ground”. In the end you may still clap and enjoy a lovely tea and in the end the goal is all will go on to live another day.

[xeroxchick]

I want to state very clearly, Ajierene, that no one raises foxes to hunt. Nor coyotes, nor bobcat. No one.