On 21/11/04 11:28 am, in article , "Dorian"
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:00:27 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 20/11/04 23:00, in article , "ex WGS
Hamm" wrote:

snip
You talk as though foxes were not shot before the ban. They were.So if they
are suffering from gangrene now because inexpert marksmen are shooting them,
nothing has changed.


Yes, it has. More are being killed now than were being killed before.

It's actually illegal to kill foxes out of spite. If you know any pro
hunt nuts taking it out on the wildlife then let us know and we'll
ensure they are dealt with by the authorities.


Apparently, the law is that you may not search for foxes but you may flush
them out. As the web site to which I gave you the link shows, nothing that
is being done is illegal. I don't live in Scotland and so I don't know any
of these people - like yourself I am at liberty to read and to learn.
So it appears that what is now happening is that older foxes which have gone
to ground are remaining alive, while younger foxes which have merely taken
cover, are being killed. Nobody is shooting foxes 'out of spite' because
nobody killed them for that reason in the first place. Killing foxes - or
rabbits, or magpies, or crows, or whatever - is part of countryside
management. And that is what the *farmers* are doing. Only now they are
being forced by the anti-hunt nuts to do it in such a way as to make it
probable that the foxes are dying in great pain and larger numbers. There's
a success story for you!
Of course, urban foxes are in danger of being poisoned if they mess up
peoples' gardens and I imagine the same applies to country foxes, too. All
will die in agony but you won't see it happen, will you. So it won't be
'real'. And other creatures, like the badger we had to shoot two years ago,
will pick up the poison and die in pain, as well. Excellent result. Well
done.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)