BBC Home

Explore the BBC


19th September 2014
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.

You are here > Science & Nature message boards > Deleted > Foxhunting Comeback

Discussion:

Foxhunting Comeback

Messages  281 - 294 of 294

 
First | < Previous 11  12  13  14  15  Next > | Last
 

Message 281 - posted by TheRealDerelict (U13667485) , Nov 6, 2009


TheRealDerelict - I think it's 'unfortunate' that you think it 'unfortunate' that folks with a direct involvement in an issue such as this 'pile in' to the discussion. Do you want an informed debate, or not? Let other people with a general interest in the issue, read all the posts and, God forbid, make up their own minds based on what they've read. Hey, it might even encourage some to go away and do more of their own research.

Quoted from this message



I suppose it's because (rightly or wrongly) I see the BBC Autumnwatch messageboard as being a place for anecdote - where people can give *their* accounts of what they see in the countryside. For example I take an active interest in "acorns" threads on here. Your stuff on Mull is really interesting because it's your stuff. Tell us about your hunt monitoring experiences rather than quote-mining some recycled PR which presumably anything on "social" hunting that comes out of the Countryside Alliance (or its opponents) is. I'm sure there are specialised forums for that sort of thing. The classic example of this was the bod from the Richard Dawkins webforum who dumped a 72-reference justification of evolution on the standard evolution thread, only to see the Moderators bin it.

See www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...





they will find the pro-hunt argument far weaker and less worthy of their support.

Quoted from this message




I do find it interesting that when the "social" hunts ostensibly ceased to kill foxes (formerly their professed raison d'etre) that they became more popular in terms of attracting more members. I'm sure they'll take something from that - if only that it's a funny old world. smiley

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 282 - posted by gyrkin (U14031800) , Nov 6, 2009

SteB,

At the end of the day we are all just spouting personal opinion all of which is informed from some experience or knowledge we have gained and our own interpretation of it. Uniformed, no. Opinionated, yes but aren't we all, without it we couldn't have a discussion.

The fact that you are referencing scientific research doesn't necessarily mean that you are taking a full and rounded view of available scientific research and when you use it to state that fox control is pointless your use of scientific evidence becomes suspect, and if suspect then is this because their is an agenda behind it? (hence the probably too quick speed that i assumed that you were an out and out anti)

Your interpretation of the scientific evidence is suspect from two points of view, one being scientific evidence that suggests the opposite conclusions to your own, have you really done a full study of all the scientific evidence out there, or are you just cherry picking the research that suits a pre-conceived idea? I also find it suspect due my own personal experience where the occurance of foxes i have seen with my own eyes has been reduced massively by a dedicated programme of control by shooting at night. Not a one off experience, but repeated experiences. And the same will have been experienced by gamekeepers and their assistants across the country year in year out. Believe it or not, i am not a 'kill everything' person and i do not like taking the life of an animal without feeling that what i was doing had a legitimate purpose. If fox control had no real effect i wouldn't do it, but it does and the fact that you think otherwise i find bemusing.

As for the science, one place to look would be the GWCT who generate a huge amount of peer reviewed and published scientific research. A full list of their papers is at:

www.gwct.org.uk/rese...

As a summary perhaps the below quote from their web site might suffice?

"While some ecologists up to the late 1970s believed predation losses to be of little or no consequence to prey populations our experimental studies have demonstrated this is not the case for at least ground-nesting gamebirds.

We think predator control as part of game management is justified if it leads to good conservation of wildlife habitats in the countryside and does not threaten the conservation status of our native predators."

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 283 - posted by theSteB (U13982963) , Nov 6, 2009

Hi gyrkin

I don't have hidden agendas in that what I say is pretty much what I mean. I believe in being open about why I believe something.

Also I think my understanding of the science is a lot more rounded than you give me credit for. Firstly, and most importantly my insight into the ineffectiveness of a lot of predator control is not primarily gained from these references about Fox control - it is gained from have formally studied ecology and a lifelong experience of directly observing the natural world.

I am also very aware of the GWCT because in the 1970s when I left school and wanted to be a gamekeeper the then Game Conservancy was the only place that offered a formal qualification in keepering.

You are getting 2 things mixed up here. Firstly, there is the general question of how ad hoc Fox control effects the general rural Fox population which is the scientific research I referred to) and secondly there is the issue of predator effect on ground nesting birds.

The specific effectiveness of predator control on a shoot depends on a number of factors such as the area of land, surrounding habitat and whether this is subject to similar levels of predator control. You see when you kill x amount of predators it doesn't just create a predator vacuum. Other predators just move into the vactant territories of the ones that have just been killed. This creates a type of sink habitat effect refererred to in the Hen Harrier thread. Here predators are drawn into the vacant territories in suitable habitat only to be killed. Meaning that in many situations large amount of predators will be killed for very little effect.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 284 - posted by Foxman62 (U14165205) , Nov 6, 2009

That Dawkins bod message that got binned - good on the mods! Didn't go down too well did it..laugh

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 285 - posted by Humble-fan (U14204319) , Nov 6, 2009

The Conservatives look after their own, that's why they will jump to reverse the ban as it is usually the same group of people that hunt foxes who also vote Conservative.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 286 - posted by Camsta (U14161993) , Nov 6, 2009

Hmmm that's an awful lot of horse muck then!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 287 - posted by gyrkin (U14031800) , Nov 6, 2009

That other foxes move in is true, but this will only counter the cull if there is a large reservoir of foxes on adjacent land to the point that the level of the control measures in place aren't correspondingly able to keep up. It also assumes that control measures are on isolated islands of ground, which certainly around where i live isn't so as the majority of the farms that i know of carry out fox control. So the overall available reserviour of foxes looking to exploit vacant territories is not as high as it might well be otherwise.

There is also an opposite effect of a sink habitat where ground with no predator control can act as a sink habitat for ground nesting birds that have high populations on surrounding predator controlled ground but keep moving in to take up territories on ground where high predation is removing nesting birds.

This is indeed getting away from the point that I think we both agree on that ad hoc culling by hunts alone can not really legitimately be claimed to be a method of population control. All i have been trying to do is counter the oft made claim by many on this thread that there is no justification for killing foxes at all.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 288 - posted by theSteB (U13982963) , Nov 6, 2009

Hi gyrkin

I have just noticed one serious inconsistency in what you posted. What you appear to be trying to do is to overload me with a series of vague and nebulous claims that are difficult to refute. Hence your failure to address specific points I have raised. I am retiring from this thread now, because I have said all that needs to be said to justify and explain the position. The trouble is that some such as yourself just keep trying to side-step all the uncomfortable facts you'd far rather not deal with. But I will deal briefly with this claim and show how you are trying to use clever arguments to avoid the issue. You stated:

Your interpretation of the scientific evidence is suspect from two points of view, one being scientific evidence that suggests the opposite conclusions to your own, have you really done a full study of all the scientific evidence out there, or are you just cherry picking the research that suits a pre-conceived idea?

Quoted from this message




Given that I suggested that people just Google "vulpes vulpes population" or just add "control" to the word search string for more specificity, your arguments are absolutely ridiculous.

How can I be cherry picking the research to suit my arguments when I have simply referenced all the availble literature on the internet with regard the Fox populations and their control. How, can I be "cherry picking the research that suits a pre-conceived idea" - when I haven't picked any particular research and have left the choice up to yourself and whoever.

The example you chose was not even directly related to the issue of ad hoc Fox control on the general rural Fox population, which is what was being discussed here. So who is attempting to cherry pick evidence to suit your own arguments?

Have you actually read any of the papers that would have come up with the search I suggested to do, or don't their findings support your pre-conceived ideals?

Also don't try and misquote me. I have never said that "fox control is pointless" and you just made that up for effect. I have said that ad hoc Fox control usually has very little effect on the overall population and I have asked for intelligent predator control by those managing shoots. Both entirely different to your claims. If anyone is pursuing an agenda they are not stating it is yourself. The only thing I would specifically seek to ban are snares, so called humane traps, hunting with hounds and any other cruel methods of trapping or killing wildlife. So you know my agenda and I have never been secretive about it.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 289 - posted by TheRealDerelict (U13667485) , Nov 6, 2009


That other foxes move in is true, but this will only counter the cull if there is a large reservoir of foxes on adjacent land to the point that the level of the control measures in place aren't correspondingly able to keep up.

Quoted from this message



I'm in agreement with the SteB on this one - nature abhors a vacuum and people who trap predators are frequently amazed that they can take out so many without making any noticable impact on their perceived problem. I was told about a project which tested predator influx by removing crows from their terrtiories (by the simple expedient of shooting them)and seeing how long it took before new ones moved in. I was told tha average time was 15 minutes.yikes If anyone can confirm this I'd love to know!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 290 - posted by mickycoop (U14158608) , Nov 6, 2009

Yep, the Game Conservancy Trust, who now try to "soften" their image by changing their name. These clowns lasted 2 years at the British Birdwatching Fair before they got the message that they weren't wanted.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 291 - posted by theSteB (U13982963) , Nov 6, 2009

Sorry gyrkin, but your comments were addressed to me and you state "All i have been trying to do is counter the oft made claim by many on this thread that there is no justification for killing foxes at all."

So you address your comments to the one person who has never said this! My point on this thread and others to shooters has always clearly been for people to carefully think about whether there is really a serious problem with Foxes before considering attempts to "control" them. Yet you attempt to claim "oft made claim by many on this thread that there is no justification for killing foxes at all" - as far as I am aware on one person has said this on this thread.

Anyway this is really it and you have just not made any other valid points to address as I have simply not said or been advocating what you claim. It really is a dishonest tactic of argument to try and misrepresent what someone says to try and win points. None of your criticisms of my points are valid. You have had to stoop to implying I have hidden agendas or that I am cherry picking my choice of scientific references without you offering anything to contradict what I said.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 292 - posted by mickycoop (U14158608) , Nov 6, 2009

Geddin' there! Back of the net.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 293 - posted by Nic Davies (U13674697) , Nov 6, 2009

Hi TRD, thanks for your post and apologies for the delay. This thread is like one of those times in the pub when a group of people are standing close and are having two or three completely different discussions.

I'd really rather not go into too many details about hunt monitoring and specifics about the comments one gleans from folks. All for jolly obvious reasons. I was also a mainstream campaigner so all of my references here are to work either that I've done or have been involved with. So overloaded did I become by all of this, that as I've stated before, it was one of the reasons I moved up to Scotland for a 'quieter' life. In fact, the only reason I even posted on this Messageboard (first time I've done this sort of thing) was to 'protest' to the BBC about an item yet to be aired.

Apart from the one quote from 1888 which I think was/is pertinent, I am not aware I have been quote-mining per se (I apologise if I have given this impression). Having said this, many folks looking in here for information may be grateful to have some of the legwork removed or at least some pointers to sources of other information. By the way, the Observer 'quote' was a published letter I wrote to them, not an article from the paper (just in case it's relevant).

However, I TOTALLY agree about the dump of info on the Dawkins thread - aye carumba!

As for the 'increased support' you mention, again hats off to the Countryside Alliance for wrapping their sport up in the mantle of the countryside (as one of their leading lights stated they would have to do).

'An assault on hunting is an assault on the countryside' has unfortunately resonated with folks who are forced to clutch at such straws in an effort to get their voices heard about issues that are actually of very little interest to the Countryside Alliance themselves.

Very clever. And very cynical.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 294 - posted by Crazysheep53 (U13656655) , Nov 6, 2009

Hi Nic,
I only get on here late, so many posts have been made!
The Eurocrats are not interested in what farmers have to say, in one breath they want to ban tailing and castrating lambs because it causes suffering - and in the next bring in compulsory electronic tagging which, surprise surprise, leads to...suffering! Is it just me? doh

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       
First | < Previous 11  12  13  14  15  Next > | Last
Getting Involved help: How to reply to messagesThis link opens in a new popup window
Complain help: Alert us about a messageThis link opens in a new popup window
Online Safety help: Are you being safe online?This link opens in a new popup window

Messages  281 - 294 of 294

 



About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy