ferreting and rabbiting {CAUTION - PHOTOS}

[confused]

SUPER PICTURES !!!!! i love a good dog and a wee ferret in my pocket, the best recipe for a wee walk on a morning.

[ADG]

our son is 10 has a psp a DS light and an XBOX 360 at 10yrs old I had a ferret 12 nets and a dog called George the times have changed

[red]

our son is 10 has a psp a DS light and an XBOX 360 at 10yrs old I had a ferret 12 nets and a dog called George the times have changed

he probably see more gruesome things on the games machines too...

are ferrets compatible with keeping other animals.. like cats etc? i know you dont put them in a box together.. but if the ferret and the cat meet?

[Jandra]

Well, if they get in a fight I'd bet on the ferret to win.

But our ferrets and cats were used to avoiding each other. One cat would occasionally allow a ferret to snuggle up and they'd sleep together on a chair. Black cat & albino ferret: impossible to make a good photo of that combo.

Most of the time the cats would just jump on something high to avoid the ferrets. Ferrets can't really jump high, though they can clamber up if they can get a grip.

Jandra

[dmwcarol]

[quote="ADG"]not far away then is the field over grown or short?We can get together soon and have a bit of sport.[/quote]

It's overgrown, we've pretty much ignored it until now :)

[ADG]

no worries we'll wait for a frost then, and make some plans

[konamonkey]

Hello!

I'm very new to foraging and still have a LOT to learn about harvesting veg and fruits etc. I was brought up to respect nature in all its forms but I suspect my parents being veggies were somewhat biased against what they described as blood sports. With that in mind, help me to understand the difference between blood sport and gathering rabbits en mass please.
I am NOT in any way being judgemental. Please understand that! This is not a flame or attempted trolling I really do want to develop the sort of mind that can distinguish between harvest and pointless mistreatment of our wildlife.

Thanks in advance!

[red]

I understand you are only trying to get a further understanding, discussion is a really good way of forming opinions, I think.

I don't do any hunting myself, but this is how I see it:

rabbits can totally decimate a vegetable crop. They breed like.. well.. rabbits! and their population can become out of control in next to no time, so regardless of whether the hunter enjoys his activity or not, something has to be done, or there wont be enough food to go around.

i personally feel that hunting with dogs or ferrets one of the kinder ways to do this - alternatives have been gasing, poisoning, deliberately introducing diseases.

Rabbits are not actually indigenous to this country, they were introduced (by the romans I think), and many of their natural predators have been removed - mostly by mankind.

It looks dramatic, seeing so many rabbits at once, but it would be just the same as taking a few at a time over a longer period.

not only do the rabbit numbers have to be controlled to protect crops, but they can be eaten and their pelts used.

[MKG]

Hi Konamonkey.

I think you answered your own question - " ... distinguish between harvest and pointless mistreatment of our wildlife". With the single proviso that any species suffering in terms of numbers is strictly off-limits, then animals should be regarded as fair game - and by game, I mean food as opposed to mere sport. Even then, I'd stick in a caveat for fishing, a pastime which (because of the investment in restocking and water-management) actually benefits the species involved. Rabbits were brought to this country (by the Normans, Red, not the Romans) for one reason - to feed the army who found our sheep a little on the tough side. They were regarded as a food crop because they breed very quickly and very proficiently and, as Red says, if they were not controlled than everyone in this country would very soon be forced into erecting rabbit-proof fences to protect their crops. The energy expended in the production of all that fencing would soon have the militant greens up in arms.

I was intensely annoyed just the other day (as I suspect you would have been) to watch a cookery programme in which one of the contestants was happily presenting snipe - a bird which is having great difficulties at the moment - and the judges were just as happily eating it. Such people are plain and simple idiots and should be lined up against a wall and shot (metaphorically, of course). However, there really is no comparison between the ethical positions of snipe shooting and rabbit hunting.

We are omnivores. Anyone may decide to restrict part of that natural eating habit for personal reasons, but no-one has the right to impose that restriction upon anyone else. However, there's nothing wrong with imposing a condition that all animals destined for human consumption are treated humanely. Hunting (for rabbits, I hasten to add) with dogs which were bred for that very purpose is, no matter what the emotionalists say, a very humane way of going about things - and the number of rabbits taken in a good session is a drop in the ocean compared with the restorative powers of the rabbit's prodigious breeding capability.

Mike

[MuddyWitch]

Whilst I think Red & MKG have covered very well the distinction between hunting for food & exploitation of wildlife, ther is the other reason to kill some creatures:

I've been a hunt sabature (only using means that cause no-one/thing harm) since the age of nine because I genuinely belive that Oscar Wilde got it about right when he described fox-hunting as 'the unspeakeable in persuit of the uneatable'. That said I do think foxes are vermin and need to be controlled.

In the 1960's fox numbers fell dramatically so foxes were imported from France, and bred up, just for hunting. This, in my opinion, is clearly wrong!

When a Hunt was planned, foxes were harried out of their earths and all the entrances stopped up, forcing the fox to run for miles, often well out of it's own terriotory. The hounds were chosen becaues they were slower than the fox 'to give good sport' so the fox was only caught after it became exhausted. This must cause the fox to suffer severe distress.

If, as many pro-hunters claim' they only want to control fox numbers', then a far more efficient system would be one person with a good lurcher; quick & clean death for fox, eliminating of vermin for land owner. I would have no objection to this.

MW

[hyperion]

Whilst I think Red & MKG have covered very well the distinction between hunting for food & exploitation of wildlife, ther is the other reason to kill some creatures:

I've been a hunt sabature (only using means that cause no-one/thing harm) since the age of nine because I genuinely belive that Oscar Wilde got it about right when he described fox-hunting as 'the unspeakeable in persuit of the uneatable'. That said I do think foxes are vermin and need to be controlled.

In the 1960's fox numbers fell dramatically so foxes were imported from France, and bred up, just for hunting. This, in my opinion, is clearly wrong!

When a Hunt was planned, foxes were harried out of their earths and all the entrances stopped up, forcing the fox to run for miles, often well out of it's own terriotory. The hounds were chosen becaues they were slower than the fox 'to give good sport' so the fox was only caught after it became exhausted. This must cause the fox to suffer severe distress.

If, as many pro-hunters claim' they only want to control fox numbers', then a far more efficient system would be one person with a good lurcher; quick & clean death for fox, eliminating of vermin for land owner. I would have no objection to this.

MW

a good lurcher is the best most humane way of taking foxes although in places like the fells a pack of hounds is the best way of controlling foxes in the places its not possible to run a lurcher and difficult to get at with a rifle!

done properly a pack of hounds is a very efficent method of control, but just like any thing else done badly its cruel!

cheers
hyperion

[konamonkey]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply! That was quite informative. I think it might be a while (If ever) before I shoot/hunt my own wild food but I appreciate the courage of others that are prepared to kill what they choose to eat.
I might try tossing my next burger across the floor and lamping it with the ketchup bottle to appease my guilt :D

[red]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply! That was quite informative. I think it might be a while (If ever) before I shoot/hunt my own wild food but I appreciate the courage of others that are prepared to kill what they choose to eat.
I might try tossing my next burger across the floor and lamping it with the ketchup bottle to appease my guilt :D

[MuddyWitch]

Hyperion, I bow to your greater knowledge, re fells. I've never lived near any, so hadn't really thought about them.

Konamonkey, the wonderful thing about ISH is that whilst we may all hold differing views, we respect each other's right to those views. It one of the best things about this forum.

MW

[MKG]

I'm not trying to get into a right/wrong argument over fox hunting (he says with a wry grin), but I wonder why anyone would NEED to hunt foxes on the fells. Foxes are predators and are therefore naturally limited in population numbers by the food supply. The only thing we could possibly want to defend there are new-born lambs - and at lambing time, there should be enough people around getting the ewes in to prevent most fox predation. Too often, I feel, foxes may be blamed for our own husbandry shortcomings. While I'm at it, I could also mention that there is, as yet, zero evidence to support the assertion that badgers are the root cause of TB infections in cows (if anything, it's probably the other way round). But they're hunted too, purportedly in the interests of farmers who can't be bothered to do the very basic research which would vindicate the victims.

There's nothing wrong with hunting if you eat your catch, but that's hardly the aim with a fox or badger. There is something radically wrong with killing for fun. Besides which, I despise the Hooray Henries who argue that they are providing a needed country service by ridding the area of nasty, vicious predators - for goodness sake, they hardly ever catch anything but they offend an awful lot of people while failing. I'll just call them Silly Billies, because what I actually call them wouldn't make for polite conversation on a forum such as this.

I'm not hijacking your thread, Konamonkey - because I suspect that this is exactly your concern. How does anyone justify killing by hunting when there are examples such as this around? Foxes and badgers - to which you could add the recently re-introduced sea eagle and beaver, the red kite in Yorkshire, and even the harlequin ladybird - are all attacked and, in most of those cases, attacked illegally. But I think the answer is quite simple, really - am I doing this to feed myself and my family, or am I doing this either out of ignorance or because, deep down, I simply enjoy it and I couldn't care less about the animals or anyone else's feelings? Alright, that was a loaded question, but the differences between those attitudes are marked.

Given that humans eat meat, there is no justifiable logical argument which allows anyone to say that the culling (for food) of a successful species is in any way different to keeping animals (for food) under controlled circumstances. There are, however, moral arguments to be taken into account - or not. The simplistic "killing is wrong" argument, no matter where you stand, is a non-starter because you have to be able to answer the simplistic retort - Why? The argument of mistreatment of animals stands a better chance, but falls down when legislation is passed guaranteeing that no mistreatment of animals occurs (but, naturally, it will - that's being human again). Of course, you have to accept for that one that killing an animal humanely is not counted as mistreatment - if you can't do that, you must become a vegan. There's really only one other argument left - "I don't like it" or "life is sacred" or "we are part of Gaia and Gaia doesn't like it" or "we have, as a species, no right to do this to another species" - they're all the same argument. And I have to add the counterbalancing "of course we have the right to do it otherwise we'd starve, and who on earth decided it was different?"

Somewhere in there is the ground on which every one of us stands - different ground for different people. You may be able to tell where I stand, because my slip shows occasionally. But I don't hunt. Even the wood pigeons in my garden are jealously protected because I love the things - even though they cost me a few food plants. Whilst they're in the garden, they're safe. Once outside, though, I could not possibly blame my neighbour for taking one down with his air rifle (he's a pretty good shot) for the pot. He does that with the rabbits, too, which are running rife in the village this year, and I sometimes wish my poodle was a lurcher.

And now I'm burbling because I've got too far into this and drunk too much blackberry wine in the process. I'll probably look at this tomorrow and think "What on earth was I going on about?" Hey ho.

Mike