Just a word or two please

[chesters1]

Can anyone be 100% certain that fish don't relish the fight, I bet it's a good posibility that some predators do?

 

Or if you are implying that fish are hurt or distressed then you must be admitting they have feelings, and thus feel pain?

 

And would course fish be better off without anglers? Possibly but possibly not, wouldn't the waterways be little more than unihabital slush pits were it not for anglers, again I dunno?

you imply feelings but your muddling between pre determined acts in animals and pure instinct in fish,the fight or flee action requires little pre thought ,in fish its flee in animals it depends on the circumstances .

 

which scenario is correct for stress,

 

1) fish senses its being attacked (by a hook pulling it) it flees ,it finds it cannot escape so struggles harder in the effort to escape this presumed predator ,in the end it gives up through tiredness or simply giving in ,its then stressed in both ways ,the sense its been grabbed by a predator and then when its lifted out of the water into a totaly unknown medium.

 

2) fish see hook ,decides it wants to play and purposely grabs hook and then tries to pull that playmate the angler into the water for a ducking.once it finds it cannot because the angler is stronger it decides to come into the net then once landed have a chat with the angler until its released to go home for tea.

 

you know which one is the right answer we depend on the fight or flee reaction in fish ,pulling in a totally docile fish to the net wouldnt be entertaining in the least.

pain doesen't have to come into it ,the fish knows somethings going on and reacts to a stimulus and flees.

 

some dogs certainly enjoy pain terriers seem to thrive on it otherwise one bite from a fox and they would be off home

 

"Foxes possibly do relish the chase, but i'd hazard a guess that they don't relish being torn to pieces by a pack of dogs?"

 

by that time in 99% of cases i expect the fox is beyond caring! they havent the intelligence to know what may happen if their caught (because any caught rarely learn seeing their dead) so its just a flee stimulus nothing more.once that stimulus is taken away (when they escape) they return to normal ,they may learn to keep a better lookout but little more.

the stimulus is built into everything including humans ,just touch stimulates anenemones to retract you cant tell me its pain its just a stimulus.without it nothing would exist bar grass!

 

to experience fear you have to have a conception of what it is or the outcome of getting caught and what could happen.perhaps foxes run because they think they are going to be gang raped by the baying pack following them? whilst not fearfull a bit of foreplay maybe preferable to mr fox so he bolts.

foxes will front up to a dog if cornered but not being stupid it realises it could be damaged so instinct makes flight top of the list.

far better to flee and end up puffed out than fight and perhaps get damaged ,few animals actually fight to the death as even the winner is a loser .most animals go through a simulated fight to the death scenario ,the loser retires maybe wounded but alive the winner gets less damage but wins the day.if it were a real fight to the death the winner may kill the loser but have significant damage itself which may interfere with its breeding or it may die slowly thus both lose!

Edited September 17, 2007 by chesters1

[lutra]

[Having spent the last 30 years hunting, shooting and all round fishing, I can honestly say coarse fishing by far has given me the most concern for cruelty. no wonder to me the coarse anglers on here feel so touchy.

 

 

You bet we feel 'touchy' with endorsements like that of our sport.

The thing that really gets me is the way coarse and match anglers try to distance themselves from hunting and shooting. When you look at it coarse and match fishing is all about the thrill of it and with no good reason. I could go on with other things about commercials and match fishing that i dont like but i dont think it will help any of us. Its just ironic that it was anglers throwing stones at another country sports that started all this off. Maybe you should remember we all live in glasshouses these days and try and stick together whether you like it or not.

[mr motorola]

Foxes possibly do relish the chase, but i'd hazard a guess that they don't relish being torn to pieces by a pack of dogs?

Could anyone care to enlighten me / us on why so many dogs are needed to hunt 1 Fox?

 

Is it really that difficult to track one single fox?

 

Me thinks not.

[lutra]

Could anyone care to enlighten me / us on why so many dogs are needed to hunt 1 Fox?

 

Is it really that difficult to track one single fox?

 

Me thinks not.

I would guess more dogs = more noses = big area can be covered quicker

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

I would guess more dogs = more noses = big area can be covered quicker

 

.....and a lot more pooping and scooping too!!!

[chesters1]

Could anyone care to enlighten me / us on why so many dogs are needed to hunt 1 Fox?

 

Is it really that difficult to track one single fox?

 

Me thinks not.

 

because mr fox knows every part of his territory and is cunning with it ,mr fox is in charge dogs cant predict where he's going or what to do next .if it were an unfair advantage in having so many hounds then why do a good % of foxes get away?

a couple of dogs would have no chance in wooded areas, in a straight run maybe a fast dog could catch it but are they'r fields big enough for it to do so more importantly would mr fox let them.

the amount of hounds just makes the foxes advantage less it doesent take it away ,its a sport if either won every time it wouldnt be.

sport needs to have rules if the rule was the fox must die on every outing then it would be far easier just to chuck the fox into the hounds pen! and cheaper too ,in the end the hounds would go and all foxes would be shot ,theres far more likely the fox would bie by a bullet than a pack of hounds so the fox "gains" and chance comes into it which is the sporting bit .the fox has a sporting chance of escape the hounds have a sporting chance of killing it = sport

each fox thats chased and gets away learns a little so his chances grow and the hounds are at a disadvantage so mr fox has a far better chance of escape .

as i have said elswere i have seen foxes bolt for safety on the tooting of a hunt ,they have learned where safety is from the huntsmen themselves not a map with danger zones in red.if they find they can go to X and the hounds dont follow then if they can no doupt they will if X is too far or in the direction the hounds are coming from he will try elsewhere if he survives he learns something the hounds learn nothing they are following their noses

Edited September 18, 2007 by chesters1

[Chris Goddard]

Is this what is more commonly known then as a "Hijacked Thread"??

[Sportsman]

Possibly, but i think that threads go in the direction that the posters want them to.

If subsequent posters want to change the thread back they can.

[poledark]

Could possibly be, or retitled to, "hunting with the hounds" or even "Chesters chase" You have a rich vein of imagination Dave

 

Den

[chesters1]

Is this what is more commonly known then as a "Hijacked Thread"??

no its got foxes in