Absolutely disgusting. Canadians are as bad as the Japs

[Morrolan]

aren't they hunting foxes rather than rabbits with dogs in the UK? that hunt is rather pointless and barbaric, IMO. i don't see the point of hunting for trophies to begin with.

Hunting with dogs is illegal in the UK; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/uk ... 1#pt1-l1g1

yes, you're absolutely right. my mistake. should've put "didn't they".

[Burbage]

Only if we're talking about the UK. I was responding to the argument re: hunting with dogs from the "Bunny lover". So how?

Humans do lots of pointless things. Sport is a fine example. Just because it's pointless doesn't meanit shouldn't be done. The normal death for an animal in the wild is to be torn apart by scavangers or predators. It is entirely possible that being shot or whatever, while "more humane" from a human point of view, is actually more distressing for the animal than being torn apart by a predator since it has no natural neurological response for it. There is no evidence one way or the other.

Frankly I consider anyone who finds the destruction of a wild animal to be enjoyable to be a complete and utter wanker. But whether it is humane or not is no argument.

[cromasaig]

Sorry Burb, returning a little late to this one.

Reassured to find we agree on fox hunting (which is more my area), but isn't engaging in ethical arguments over whether hunting for sport is better or worse than pest control exactly the sort of argument you were criticising in the first place? If you want to separate animal welfare from emotion, then ethics are going to be a pretty difficult area.

If we look logically at the impact of killing animals with dogs - unless we start from the point of view that killing animals is wrong per se - then cold logic leaves us two primary concerns: the suffering caused to an individual animal and the issue of endangerment of the species as a whole.

Animals aren't neurologically equipped to die in any particular way; evolution slinks out of the party at the point of fatality. So if death is inevitable, what causes it fastest and with least neurological damage and therefore the smallest amount of suffering? Actually, shooting does the job just fine - although the overall suffering will be significantly increased if you need to factor in capture and containment, particularly for a wild animal. But a rifle in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing is just fine by me. I can't see any reason that that is worse for an individual animal than being eaten by a predator or dying of illness/starvation.

Mind you, perhaps dying on the job is a viable option for your average bunny, so I might need to revise that.

Again, logically, dogs aren't a good choice. From a suffering point of view it's horrendous. A (normally long and highly stressful) chase, followed by a lengthy kill. Don't believe that 'one bite to the neck' crap. By choice, cats kill by biting the neck. Dogs go for the underbelly. Takes a while.

Ah, nothing cures insomnia like a discussion on the effectiveness of killing methods...

[Morrolan]

over here we've come across two distinct types of hunters: those that hunt rabbits, goats, foxes and other feral animals using guns, using headshots to kill (even the rabbits, there're some amazing sharpshooting hunters out here.) and those that use dogs to hunt feral pigs (as far as i know the only animal that can be hunted with dogs here). the dogs are big, ferocious killers (feral pigs are huge monsters, not to be compared with your average European wild boar), dangerous to everyone and the kill is nasty. these hunters are characterised by a significant lack of empathy towards animals, whereas those that track and shoot will go out of their way to reduce the suffering as much as possible.

i much prefer the first group.

[Burbage]

Animals aren't neurologically equipped to die in any particular way; evolution slinks out of the party at the point of fatality.

This is wrong in fact. Nature has a thing called shock. It happens to humans too, and it is very dangerous when it happens. Shock doesn't consider the possibility of recovery, it begins the process of dying and removes whatever conscious awareness there is of the process.

Shock kicks in when the senses detect that the animal is going to be killed. It then shuts down many neural processes and essentially begins the process of making the body brain dead. It is a one way street. But if the right signals do not occur to trigger it this natural method of dealing with fatal injury is unlikely to start. So the victim is more likely to be aware of and feel pain from being shot than from being attacked by a predator.

More people recover from gunshot wounds that are near fatal than recover from motor accidents that are near fatal. The difference is shock. Being shot hurts more too, because the body has no natural response to it.

Just because something looks horrendous to a human doesn't mean that the animal undergoing the experience is suffering. That is anthropomorphism. Suffering is a conscious activity, and shock is a natural anaesthetic for the conscious brain.

[cromasaig]

I'm afraid I have to agree with M on this. An appropriate gun in the hands of a skilled person is by far the most humane way to kill. That's why slaughterhouses are required by law to use captive bolt pistols or electrical stunning equipment on most mammals. (Sometimes CO2 for pigs)

For animals or humans, shock is the body's response to a level of trauma greater than the brain can deal with. Hunting is a slow business, so the suffering starts well before the killing process.

[Burbage]

It's good to know that human public opinion can determine whether or not an animal suffers.

Obviously an instant death is preferable in most cases. In hunting, instant deaths are not very common.

[Tack]

Unfortunately, poisoning animals is tortuous and barely raises a protest.
I'd much rather have countryside management with the needs of hunting (and fox hunting) at the forefront than not. Makes for a much better environment for wildlife. Whether people enjoy the process of killing or not, is not a good reason to make the distinction between banning things or not. It makes not a jot of difference to the animal concerned either.

[cromasaig]

I agree; whether or not the people doing the killing or not is irrelevant as far as animal welfare goes. Personally, I don't like the idea of killing for sport, but motive is irrelevant to suffering.

But fox hunting has never seriously been used to control fox numbers. Prior to the ban fox hunts killed c12,000 foxes per year in the UK. Cars kill an estimated 300,000 foxes a year.

Where fox hunting does play a beneficial role in the countryside is in the planting of copses, which is a huge benefit to wildlife. They're often planted in hunting areas to help sustain the fox population. Oh,those murderous foxes eh? How will we possibly save those poor farmers from them..?

[Tack]

My point is that foxes are tolerated in areas that support foxhunting and killed intensively most places else, most commonly by poisoning.

[cromasaig]

I'm not sure I agree with you about the level of tolerance towards foxes among pro-hunters, but you're right about poisoning being a horrible way to kill.

What I don't understand (and I need to do some digging on it) is why they don't use strong contraceptive-filled bait in urban areas, rather than poison. My recollection is that it's a technique that can control populations effectively. No welfare problems, fewer foxes.

[Burbage]

I agree; whether or not the people doing the killing or not is irrelevant as far as animal welfare goes.

This doesn't make sense.

The thing is that whether an animal suffers or not is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Because a human has the opinion that an animal is suffering does not change the fact of that animal's condition. If the animal is not suffering a human thinking that it is suffering does not make it suffer.

If an animal is wounded with a gunshot then it is far more likely to suffer than an animal that is caught by dogs, because shock will kick in in the latter case. Whether an animal suffers during the chase is also a moot question. Humans think that the animal is running for its life, but the fact is that the feeling of fear, a very human emotion, requires the ability to visualise the future, an ability which is only associated with humans. Therefore thinking that the chase causes suffering is also anthropomorphism.

Death is natural. All animals which are born will die. Only very few of those animals will die of old age, most will be eaten by a predator or a scavenger before they die. The neurological process of shock has evolved in large animals (ie the ones that are more than a mouthful) to make these processes painless to the animal. After all, pain is only an electrical current. It can be switched off.

[Tack]

The tolerance I mean is the one which allows the fox to exist so there are enough to be hunted and enough left over to breed for future seasons.

[cromasaig]

It's not difficult to examine whether most animals experience pain and/or fear, at least not with mammals. A post-mortem can tell by the condition of the brain and the blood. It's a long and involved breakdown, but I can give you veterinary links if that helps.

It works fine with mammals, but not with cold-blooded animals like shellfish or fish (which is why the debate on sport fishing is always on much shakier ground). The only way to tell with a neurologically simple creature is by examining avoidance behaviour. (Unless I'm out of date) If you repeatedly hook one fish using a particular type of bait, then offer it the same bait when you know it's hungry, will it more likely to avoid the bait? That's the only method that I think they've managed to find with fish, and it's a bit crude.

[Burbage]

It's not difficult to examine whether most animals experience pain and/or fear, at least not with mammals. A post-mortem can tell by the condition of the brain and the blood. It's a long and involved breakdown, but I can give you veterinary links if that helps.

It works fine with mammals, but not with cold-blooded animals like shellfish or fish (which is why the debate on sport fishing is always on much shakier ground). The only way to tell with a neurologically simple creature is by examining avoidance behaviour. (Unless I'm out of date) If you repeatedly hook one fish using a particular type of bait, then offer it the same bait when you know it's hungry, will it more likely to avoid the bait? That's the only method that I think they've managed to find with fish, and it's a bit crude.

The assumption you make is that the brain of these animals interprets pain signals in the same way as a human brain. Pain is no more or less than an electrical signal from a receptor to the brain. In fact it is no different to the signals coming from the eye which are interpreted into vision. Humans assume animals suffer because they believe that they would suffer in the same circumstances. That is anthropomorphism.

Avoidance behaviour is easily exaplainable in terms of survival rather than pain.

[cromasaig]

It's science, not anthropomorphism, to conclude that two biologically near-identical animals showing the same physiological effects have experienced something in a similar way. You seem to be suggesting that one needs an awareness of ones own mortality to experience pain and fear, and I'm not sure why or how that would be the case. At what point do ostensibly similar mammalian brains stop working in the same way as human? Great apes? Pigs? Dogs? Can a child experience it? A chimpanzee?

If you have a pet, next time it needs an operation, will you skip the anaesthetic on the basis that Fido doesn't expect to feel pain, so he'll be fine, really..?

And if avoidance behaviour is useful as a survival technique (it is), what is triggering it if not a recollection of previous trauma?

[Burbage]

It's not science, it's neurobiology.

There are humans who cannot feel pain because their brains do not interpret the signals from pain receptors in the same way that most people do. We also have the ability to control the amount of pain that we experience. There is a very great amount of auto-suggestion for pain in humans. "I know that childbirth is painful therefore I will feel pain."

What is pain? Pain is a result of the higher processing of the brain which interprets signals from pain receptors into something the animal can recognise and act upon. It therefore follows that the more complex the higher processing capacity of the brain the more capacity there is for complex interpretation rather than simple interpretation. So there is everty liklihood that humans "feel" pain in a very unique way.

[Burbage]

Pain and fear are two completely separate things.

Fear is the feeling of anxiety experienced when one can predict the onset of pain or death. Predicting the future is a skill in which humans are probably unique. Therefore fear is probably unique to humans.

Being instinctively hard-wired to avoid certain smells and shapes is not fear.

[Burbage]

What goes around, comes around:

Japanese man killed by bear

A bear mauled a 50-year-old man to death on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido on the weekend, police said.

Seiichi Horinuki, 50, was picking edible wild plants with one of his colleagues when he was attacked on Sunday afternoon, a police spokesman said.

Bears occasionally attack people gathering plants in rural Japan. This was the first fatal attack in Hokkaido this year, the spokesman said.

Following a request from the local authorities, hunters later shot and killed the brown bear believed to have attacked the man, local media reported.

The number of bears on Hokkaido is estimated to be between 1,800 to 3,600, and they are not threatened there with extinction.

Farmers and other locals sometimes hunt bears in the area where the man was attacked to prevent them from ruining crops and intruding on residential areas.

- AFP

[cromasaig]

I'm sorry Burb, I just don't understand your reasoning and conclusions. It seems to be a pretty big assumption that animals don't experience pain in a way that we would understand. For example, that doesn't seem to be the basis of veterinary training, or laws that seek to minimise suffering caused to animals undergoing slaughter or used for experimentation. Is poor Fido going to skip the anaesthetic after all?

And where does that leave us with the capacity of higher mammals like apes?

[Burbage]

Both animals and humans have pain receptors which increase rates of signals along the axon returning to the DRG. Both animals and humans will experience some knowledge of the pain and will make a response to it. They have to be anaesthetised for that reason. However, the interpretation of those signals between humans and lower vertebrates is extremely open to question.

But we are straying from the point. I'm saying that shock will remove the experience of pain from animals, in exactly the same way it removes the experience of pain from humans, in situations of critical injury as long as that injury is of a type that the animal's pain receptor system is able to detect. Shooting and critaically wounding an animal is likely to cause the animal great suffering because shoock will not kick in.

Shock is considered a very dangerous and very bad condition to enter into, but it did evolve for a purpose.

[cromasaig]

Agreed, being wounded by a shot is not humane, but the chance of a clean and therefore relatively humane kill is higher if you use an appropriate gun handled by a skilled marksman. Pot shots are not what I'm advocating!

Interestingly, when I was having this debate a long ti'm ame ago (how time flies...) the RSPCA did a search of admissions to its wildlife hospitals and at that time, no fox had ever been admitted with a gunshot wound. Now I'm not daft enough to believe that that means it's never happened, but it does suggest that it's a comparatively unusual occurrence as injuries go. I'm sure it's more frequent since the ban, but I'm still confident that the overall burden of suffering is lessened.

I'm also confident that either your preferred option or mine results in less suffering than many perfectly legal intensive farming methods.

[Burbage]

If you're a frog round here you can get whacked by a golf club, which is not only humane, but adds an entertaining sporting theme.

[cromasaig]

Yeah, but what happens on water obstacles? That'd screw your handicap.

[Tack]

Fox are routinely shot during driven game shoots (or any other kind for that matter). The shoot card (tally and other info) the guns are given often asks them to shoot if they see one. Now these are shotguns in the hands, far too often, of poor shots and the chances of a clean kill are really not good.

just one typical eg http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... ge_id=1770