[Iain]

My second thread on the ''Hunting forum''. Strange.

Anyway, you might or might not know there is a lot of controversy about hunting with dogs in this country. When I say that, I don't mean taking dogs out to beat or retrieve, I mean pack hounds to run an animal down and kill it themselves, no guns required. It is a subject I am ambivalent about, thinking that rather too much media and parliamentary time have been devoted to a subject of no great importance.

Anyway, this thread ain't a chance for you guys to take digs at Britain ;) . Instead it is to ask this:

Hunting with hounds has been justified by some as being cleaner than shooting the foxes. In my opinion foxes need their numbers keeping down, I have spent quite a bit of time on farms and have seen what they do. The pro-Hunt lobby say that very often a shot fox drags itself off to die unpleasantly somewhere.

However, hunting with hounds is likely to become illegal and I think people will choose to shoot rather than trap or poison (they can be even less precise)

What are you guys experiences with shooting foxes? Easy to get a cleanish kill? What do you use for the purpose?

[redneck]

Only fox I ever killed was sick. Had a horrible case of mange, and quite possibly rabies. It was out in my pasture and I just walked out to it with a .22. It cut across the fence and sat down facing away from me next to a few pine trees, pretty much oblivious to me. I hit it in the back of the head from about 35 yards with a .22LR. It dropped immediately and hardely twitched. When I got up to it, its muscles were all still tensed up but it wasn't breathing or moving. I shot it again, and that finished it pretty quickly.
I don't think they're especially hard to kill. Not any more so than other animals like them. The real issue is most of them are very wary and won't let you get too close, and they generally don't stand still to long.
Mostly a challenge of marksmanship for a humane kill. And given the size, if you were to use a centerfire .22 or bigger I don't think they would go anywhere even with a body shot.

Basically the same ethics come into play for fox as everything else. You only shoot if you plan to kill and are confident in your ability to do so.

[Duncan Idaho]

What redneck said.

[Mk VII]

.222 is generally reckoned to be good medicine for foxes here (and for dogs attacking the sheep)

[Newt]

Foxes aren't overpopulating the area around here, but we have plenty of coyotes. I'd have to agree with redneck on this one. Coyotes around here are comperable to a fox in size and I've seen 'em taken down with a .22lr, although anything bigger couldn't hurt matters as far as a clean kill goes.

Newt

[Art Eatman]

I've always enjoyed the slur, "The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.", regardless of any truth about foxhunters...

I guess what's puzzled me is the broad scale of emotion on the part of those who are in no way involved. "Don't these folks have anything better to worry about?" I mean, how many groups of people ride to the hounds, and how often, and just how many foxes are killed? To me, it just doesn't compute.

I'm generally down on traps and poisons if only one sort of predator is one's target, as these are too much addressed "to whom it may concern".

Foxes being fairly small, not a whole heck of a lot of cartridge is needed for a clean kill. Going beyond the smaller centerfire .22s merely extends the range.

Art

[Iain]

Art - I don't know much about the first part of your post. I know that hunting with hounds is generally considered cruel, in reality a fox is chased for several miles and then killed by dogs. I have no strong feelings about it, but would rather see very professional people shooting them where they are a problem. It would probably be more effective as a means of keeping their numbers down.

I agree with you about the traps, our badger numbers are not that great in a lot of areas and they would probably fall victim to the traps set for foxes.

What to do about the pack hounds though? In the light of my big cat thread I hope no-one just opens the door and lets them out, be more worried about a pack of hounds than a puma.

You will have to excuse my ignorance - can anyone post me links explaining the difference between a centrefire and a rimfire, and even greater ignorance - the laws governing their use in the UK?

Thanks in advance.

[Keith]

Foxes are a problem. They're really too big for rimfire .22's (though it can be done), yet most of the high velocity centerfire rounds destroy the pelt. A fox skin is so fragile that exit wounds usually rip a huge hole in the skin.

Fox hunting is huge around these parts since there's not much else to do in the winter and we're just overrun with the little buggers. I quit hunting them myself just because they're too dog-like and it bothers me to kill them. Many of my friends do and most of them do it for the pelts which are tanned and sold to tourists in the summer. Around here, they come in all colors, from black to silver to rusty brown and "cross". You almost never see one with the standard red fox coloration.

Everyone seems to have settled on the .22 Hornet as the perfect fox round. It carries well enough to reach out a ways, yet the velocity is not high enough to blow up the skins.

This new .17 rimfire might be a good choice as well. Reportedly, the slug is fragile enough to blow uip inside the critter and doesn't exit. Though, I haven't seen it used firsthand...

Keith

[Keith]

I have no strong feelings about it, but would rather see very professional people shooting them where they are a problem.

St. John,

That is so... unspeakably British! Instead of allowing farmers or village kids to take their rifles out on weekends to shoot a few foxes for recreation, you'd rather have some "professional people" (paid for by you) go out and do it.

That sort of reasoning is so alien to me that it is difficult to even comprehend where it comes from!

Keith

[Iain]

Now I never said those ''professional people'' had to be ''professional'' in the employment sense. I meant in the ''rather good at it'' sense. Could be anyone, including farmers, their wives etc as long as they do it cleanly and well.

Sorry for my odd vocabulary, that is the definitely ''British'' thing about me.

[Keith]

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

There is a long tradition in this country of taxpayer subsidized trappers and poisoners killing off predators for the cattle industry. That went away some years ago, but every once in awhile it raises its ugly head again in some fashion.
In many areas of the east coast we've seen deer populations boom to the point of starvation - in places closed to hunting... And for some reason, many urban people go bananas at the suggestion that hunters be allowed to thin the herd. Yet, they'll happily pay for "professional shooters" to go out and begin whacking them...
That kind of thinking is alien to me, though not necessarily British in concept!
I think it goes hand in hand with the liberal concept of "control" (of citizens rather than wildlife). They have no problem with an armed man shooting deer around the edge of town as long as somebody has hung a badge on him. Yet, a neighbor doing the same thing will bring banshee cries of horror!

Keith

[Iain]

I don't agree with subsidising anything where it comes to business, so if I decide to go out and buy a gun on the basis of your recommendations and take courses and learn on rabbits then earn some money by shooting foxes for local landowners who pay me then it's ok to my mind. Some people are too squeamish to do it themselves, plus a good rifle is a substantial cost to offset against maybe using a few times a year when a fox proves a problem. I do agree with you though.

Rightly or wrongly the ''badge'' gives people a certain degree of confidence that there is a way to come back on this person should things go wrong. Near where I used to live a bull got out of a truck and started rampaging down a main road, the only people who had the expertise were the police, it was a main road remember. In a field, as far as I am concerned any Tom, Dick or Harry can shoot foxes as long as they do it well. The story on the other thread (from Art I think) was what prompted this. I want them to be controlled but also respected.

Back to actually shooting them - I figured (in my ignorance) that you wouldn't care about the state of the pelt, but more that a high velocity would be desired so that the slug hits exactly where you aimed it.

Can you explain (via links if easier) the difference between centerfire and rimfire? You said a .22 rimfire was too small but that a .22 center would tear a hole. You also said that .17 rimfire would possibly be suitable as it ''blows up inside'', this make it any more humane? These are really basic questions I know, when I see .22 I also see it suffixed with ''HMR'', ''LR'' and ''WMR''. Any links to explain this?

You see how anti-gun we are - I know not even the basics.

[Keith]

Rimfire .22's have the priming compound in the rim of case. These are very low velocity (and inexpensive) rounds for general target shooting and also for rabbits, etc. They shoot cheap lead slugs with blunt tips, sometimes in "hollowpoint" configuration. Velocities range from 800 fps to 1500 (?) for some of the "magnum" rounds.
A box of 50 costs about $2.

Centerfire .22's have the primer in the center, are far more expensive and shoot at much higher velocities. The US military round in the M16 is such a round. Velocities range from 3000 fps up to 4000 fps for some of the hottest cartridges.
The cost on these start at about $7 for a box of 20 and ranges up to $20 (for a box of 20) for some types.

LR means "Long Rifle" - the standard .22 rimfire round. WMR is Winchester Magnum Rimfire which is essentially the same round as the LR, but with a longer case for more powder and thus higher velocities. THE .17 HMR is the Hornady Magnum Rimfire, which is essentially the .22 Magnum necked down to .17.
The .17 HMR round is aerodynamically shaped and is very fragile so that it disintegrates inside the target. It's more humane since in most cases the animal will die quicker, but it also is designed not to exit and destroy the pelt. Entrance wounds make small holes and exit wounds make big holes.

Keith

[kudu]

I have hunted foxes during the varmint hunting season. We hunt at night with predator calls in at cassette tape player. The calls mimic dyeing rabbits or fox pups in distress. Very effective at times. I always used a 12 ga shotgun loaded with No. 4 shot which is about .11 of an in in diameter+ or - Once shot one through a standing corn field at 45 yrds, could just see both eyes shining between stalks. Dead with two pellets in him. One in the skull and one in the heart and a lot of corn stalks mowed down. Always use red filtered spot lights for fox because they can't see color.

[Art Eatman]

Anybody know a website for cartridge displays?

St Johns, if you have any shooting club near you, the folks there could show you various types of cartridges, and they most likely know the appropriate laws.

Art

[redneck]

There are some reference charts at www.cci-ammunition.com , that can give you more information on the specifics of rimfire vs. centerfire, and the different suffixes for .22.
Keith covered it pretty well though.

As far as shooting fox with a .22rimfire. It all depends on range, and the ability to put the bullet where it needs to be. Inside of 50 yards, I would hesitate to use a .22LR. The trouble is you don't get within 50 yards too often.

In regards to pelts, it depends on why your shooting them. If its just for pest control, like around livestock, or like my case where the animal was sick. Your main goal is to kill it and do it humanely. It doesn't matter what shape the pelt is in afterwards, the reward is that there is one less fox.
There is a market for fur though, and those so inclined can hunt for the pelt (and for the other reasons mentioned at the same time) Then you have to be more selective. Generally a cartridge is used that generates a high velocity, with a frangible bullet. It enters the animal and breaks apart. Has a similar effect as a shotgun, only there is only one entry hole and hopefully no exit wound. The humane kill is still top priority, but you avoid overkill too.

[redneck]

Thought I'd add that if you look at the charts on the CCI website, there are crude pictures of the cartridges along with a listing of the velocities acheived at different distances and the 100 yard trajectory. The pictures aren't perfect, but they are all on the same scale so you can see the difference between .22S, .22L, .22LR, and .22WSM.
Notice the rim on the base of the rimfire cartridges. The primer is nested inside there. Its pressure sensitive, and explodes/ignites when the rim is crushed by the firing pin of the gun. The ensuing flash ignites the powder in the casing which expands into a gas and pushes the bullet down the barrel.
In a centerfire, there is a much bigger volume of powder. In order to get more reliable ignition. A bigger pocket of primer is nested in a little cap in the center of the base of the case. Same process for firing.

[Iain]

Thanks guys.

I may well have a look to see if there are any shooting clubs around here.

[stevelyn]

I had good success last year hunting foxes with a rimfire using .22 short HPs.

[Dr.Rob]

I have a friend who gave up fox hunting in favor of coyote hunting. That's right, with hounds and riding boots and red jackets. Why?

They RARELY catch the coyote, and if they do its a sick one. Fox hunting english style is more steeplechase than hunt. (BTW Ginger Baker of Cream was one of his hunting buddies while he was living here and raising polo ponies)


I think foxes are too pretty to shoot. I might change my mind if one was raiding my hen house. But they are such beautiful animals to me.

[cooch]

IMnsHO......

(1) Shotgunning foxes is no lilkely to cause un-neccessary suffering that shotgunning rabbits or birds. That, of course, is given that skill levels are the same and that rediculous practices (like using quail shot on foxes) aren't indulged in.

(2) A .22LR is perfectly adequate for foxes within the range at which you can place the projectile accurately. A solid will give 100% penetration of the chest 9 times out of ten, and will create a larger wound ( in comparison to body size) than will any of the .458 calibre solids used on - say - the large bovines. There is no valid reason to insist that situation in which a heart/lung-shot fox runs 50 yards before piling up is any less humane than one in which a deer or large game animal does the same thing.

Now to be blunt.
I believe that we hunters need to be a lot more careful in the way we misuse the "C" word. I mean "cruelty".
We allow the anti's to use this word to beat us over the head when the average non-hunter is abysmally ignorant of what is really involved. Take the following examples.

- Hunting with hounds is called "cruel" when foxes and hares in front of the pack are observed to engage is such unstressed behaviour as drinking, feeding, grooming and even mating.

- Duck hunting is labelled "cruel" even though the vast majority of birds die painfully of disease, malnutrion, predation or inclement weather. No realworld study has yet ( to my knowlege) proved that hunting raises the overall suffering level in a waterfowl population.

- Sport-fishing is called "cruel" dispite the fact that tagged trout in some catch-and-release fisheries have been taken up to 5 times in the one day.... obviously continuing to feed even though they are notoriously easily put off feeding if disturbed or distressed.

- Hunting with rifles is called "cruel" dispite the evidence from wounded people that major thoracic wounds are not initially painful in the majority of cases.

- And a funnier one. We get told that docking pup's tails is "cruel" yet the last litter I saw docked had all pups suckling within 20 seconds of the operation and playing within 60 seconds. So much for suffering and trauma. (Yes it was funny, watching bloody stumps waving in the air while the pups fought.....)

Please let's get it through our heads that not every action that causes pain is cruel. It is an unfortunate fact (probably lepers may disagree with you) that pain is an inevitable part of life. I will take reasonable steps to minimise suffering on the part of the animals I hunt, but I have lived in the real world long enough to know that there is no such thing as a zero-pain environment.
In getting over-sensitive on this issue we are doing nothing more than allowing our enemies to dictate the terms of the debate, and to do so untruthfully. Particularly in private conversation like this WE HAVE NO NEED TO ACCEPT THE LIE that anything that MAY involve pain is cruel.

I'll be hanged if I surrender the moral high-ground to those who have less concern for animal welfare than they have for their own overblown sensibilities and religious prejudices.:fire:
Nor do I see any reason to be overly patient with hunters who want to be "cute" in trying to appease those who desire nothing less that a total ban on any form of animal utilisation..... Just remember that these are the people who are driving this debate.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Peter

[Iain]

Wow.

Well to clarify, docking tails have no problems with (mine has his docked and it makes life easier), shooting birds - not caring about, fishing - they're fish for godsakes. The mammals though I am a little more wary of when it comes to ''cruelty'' or even ''inflicting pain''. As part of my desire to respect the animal I, like probably most here, would like to see anything I shot drop dead instantaneously. I recognise that this cannot always, if ever, happen.

- Hunting with hounds is called "cruel" when foxes and hares in front of the pack are observed to engage is such unstressed behaviour as drinking, feeding, grooming and even mating.

I have never heard that. Will take a look around about it. I had heard of a different example though - apparently if you chase a rhino in a car (and it doesn't attack the car) you can reasonably easily cause death by adrenalin shock. This stress factor not apply to animals in front of the pack?

[cooch]

This stress factor not apply to animals in front of the pack?

It would seem that it depends on how far in front they are.

Think about the differences in hound-hunting.
Sighthounds like grey-hounds or lurchers usually work on sheer speed so the chase is relatively short. (400 yards last time my whippet worked a fox, and this was way longer than her average run on rabbits.)
Scenting hounds such as fox-hounds typically work a trail with your fox keeping far enough ahead (and mostly ot of sight) to feel reasonably comfortable untill it either dens (which I'm told is the majority of cases) or runs seriously short of energy.

Without doubt the stress factor varies with the stage of the chase and the conditions, but the behaviour I mentioned has been observed in real-world hunts and my point remains that the assumption of suffering does not invariably correspond with reality.

Another example is the use of scent-trailing hounds on Sambar Deer (Cervus Unicolour) in our southern alps. Deer are generally quite capable of keeping well in front of the hounds in terms of outright speed, and are usually taken either through pre-positioning a hunter on an obvious escape route, or because the stag has decided "bu@@er this" and bails up in water or some other situation in which he feels in control. Absolutely natural behaviour for a prey species and not involving excessive stress,,,,,,, yet there is an assumption of suffering on the part of the ignorant masses.

Anthropomorphism assumes that an animal (without our powers of anticipation or imagination) feels exactly as we would in the same situation.
If you'll pardon my waffling on, it ain't neccessarily so. I've known a sheep to lie supine and permit a crow to peck out its living eye (ouch???) and yet get up and bolt at the approach of a man. Animals are funny and frequently don't react as you'd expect.. another example is that male calves being castrated the old-fashioned way (pocket-knife) exhibit less obvious signs of distress than identical calves being earmarked (small segment clipped out of ear.) I don't know why, I just know that it happens.

Pardon if I seem callous at times, but I have grown up with standard animal husbandry practices and so I'm very familiar with some of the less pleasant sights and smells that living things produce.


Regards............... Peter

[Iain]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, people do ''anthropomorphise'' animals to a great extent, I guess as a nation of pet-owners we view animals more humanly than others do. Doesn't equate to more humanely though. I remember at school some kids being horrified by another kid telling them he killed sunday lunch in the chickenhouse. I had to remind them that slaughterhouses are certainly no more ''humane'' and that people have been killing their own sunday lunch for as long as humans have existed.

Learning a lot of stuff off you guys, thanks.

[cooch]

FYI...
Here's one article by an eyewitness and practicioner.

Might I suggest that anyone wanting to ask more questions about this matter try subscribing to the Cybershooters email list. It has its usual share of opinionated types and bores, but also gets some quality posts.
http://www.cybershooters.org
Cheers......... Peter

You state that "the chase itself has to be extremely
stressful".
You also say that you've never ridden to hounds and don't think
you'd learn anything by doing so.

If you've never experienced it for yourself, on what basis are
you drawing your conclusion that the chase has to be stressful? I
can only assume that in your opinion you _think_ it must be
stressful.

If you had been hunting you would have seen for yourself that
both foxes and hares will act completely nonchalantly even when
the hounds are as close as a minute behind. Among other things
they will stop to groom themselves, they will stop to drink,
hares are frequently seen to stop and begin feeding, and have even
been seen mating while hounds are hunting their line.

None of these things suggest an animal under extreme duress.
Let's not forget that for a wild animal to run away from danger
is the most natural thing in the world. It seems extremely
unlikely that a hare or a fox makes much distinction between different types
of danger.

Consider two fox control scenarios -

a) A group of farmers beating with dogs to flush foxes from
cover to waiting guns
b) A huntsman using foxhounds to flush foxes from cover to be
hunted

Does the fox in a) feel any less stress than the one in b) at
the moment at which it decides to make a run for it? I doubt it
very much.
Or what about the fox that you meet wandering along a hedgerow
when you're out for a walk with your dog? I maintain that in
each of those situations the fox just thinks 'Hell, time to get out of
here'. As soon as it has got what it perceives to be a safe distance from
its persuer it will stop running.

That is precisely what happens during the course of a hunt. The
hunted hare or fox runs till it thinks it's safe, then pulls up
and just gets on with its normal business.The hounds have either lost it or
they're still on its line. If the latter, as soon as they get too close
for comfort off goes the quarry again till once more it feels safe and
pulls up. (I say this with certainty as I have been hunting many times and seen
it with my own eyes.)

This stop/start affair keeps up for most of the hunt. I would
argue that at no point during this process is the quarry under any stress
at all. It is simply doing what every single wild bird or animal does
every day in order to survive - running from danger.

It is only in the very last stages of a hunt when the hounds
close in that there is any possibility of stress. But I would argue that
even at that point it is still completely natural. Watch just about any
natural history programme and you will see countless examples of
insects, birds or animals chasing and killing other insects, birds, or
animals.
You might find it disagreeable but the unescapeable reality is
that nature is indeed 'red in tooth and claw'.

The _real_ reason that hunting is under threat has nothing to
do with animal welfare. (The Govt's own enquiry, the Burns Report,
has found nothing to suggest that hunting is any more cruel than
any of the other legal methods of control.) It's because some people
are revolted by the fact that other people go hunting for
enjoyment, and also because it's still perceived to be the sole preserve of
the idle rich and it's a good way of indulging in a bit of toff bashing.

Andrew Chastney

[Johnny Guest]

Informative. I enjoyed your comments.

Johnny