This post is either by a pro fox hunter or someone who does not know the true history of foxes in England. The post reads:
"© William Dargue 2019-2020 A History of Langar for Young People. Re-use permitted under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 - in other words you can use my original material as long as you say where you got it from and you do not make any money from it"
Fair enough so I shall make notes where necessary to correct the record. Trying to present a fully false look at fox hunting to brainwash a new generation seems more apt and I think my title is far more truthful. That this type of thing is still being published in the 21st century is ridiculous.
Fox Hunting
Ever since New Stone Age when people started keeping hens, farmers and foxes have been enemies.
In the wild, a fox will hunt and kill a single animal of prey and take it back to its den to eat or to keep.
But on a farm, in a hen house, where there are many birds, a fox will kill all it can, although it can only take one hen back to its den. The fox may try to bury some of its kill. This seems cruel and pointless. But if you are a hunter, you never know when you will catch your next meal, so you have to kill what you can when you can.
So it's no wonder that farmers and foxes are enemies.
NOTE 1. Oh dear. Neolithic or paeleolithic peoples hunted everything and anything for food, clothing, etc. The early farmers grew wheat and barley, which they ground into flour. Some farmers grew beans and peas. Others grew a plant called flax, which they made into linen for clothes. Neolithic farmers kept lots of animals. They herded wild goats and oxen and although the Romans were not the first to introduce chickens to the island (they were brought here in the Iron Age, hundreds of years before the Romans arrived) it was due to Roman influence that they became popular and first came to be viewed as 'food'. This would be the Bronze Age NOT Stone Age. So that easily checkable fact is ignored.
Most foxes if they get a chicken will grab and run off with it. The idea that it kills every chicken it can then goes back and forth collecting the others to bury is ludicrous in the extreme -is the farmer in a comatose state? No chickens were being kept in the Stone Age and there were no chicken coops and therefore, guess what? Foxes could not have been the great enemy of poultry keepers.
Also, there are any number of Victorian photographs as well as accounts in fox hunting books of farmers keeping foxes as pets often alongside farm dogs. Also, as I will note further on, farmers helped maintain fox coverts.
The worst I have seen was in Germany on the farm where animals were locked away securely every night to prevent predation (because they were not lazy, bad farmers). The chicken coop walls were covered in blood and I asked the farmer what had happened -a fox? He pointed out that the coop had been barred shurt and told me that in 40 years he had never lost a chicken to anything other than a hawk. What I was looking at was the aftermath of rats attacking the chickens.
I ought to point out that the whole medieval farmers fighting chicken killing foxes is probably another pro hunt "fib". The evidence from archaeology is that foxes like other fur bearing animals were hunted in Anglo-Saxon times (if not before)....for the fur NOT for poultry defence.
From the earliest times farmers have always tried to stop foxes stealing their hens.
In the 16th century (Tudor times) a Norfolk farmer began to train his dogs to track and and find and kill foxes.
NOTE 2 Oh dear again. Foxes, like wolves, bears and anything else were hunted for sport and it is quite clear in all of the books by the "great sportsmen" that fox hunting was not considered much sport until other prey started to become short in number but the first hunts as such were by nobility in the 16th century. I would like the name of this farmer who had so much time to spare in a period where chickens were not the main income of a farmer but were so important that he gave up his chores to hunt. In fact it was, as far as we know from records studied so far, a group(s) of farmers in Norfolk and it is very possible that this was more sport using any stolen chicken as an excuse. The same thing takes place in some Welsh valleys every weekend where sheep, horses and cows are the main animals and any predation of fowl is down to bad farming practice.
Instead of killing foxes when they attacked the hen house, farmers started to go out to hunt foxes.
By the 18th century fox hunting was not just a way of protecting the farmers' hens, it became a 'sport'. Wealthy lords could afford to keep packs of dogs trained to hunt.
NOTE 3 see Note 2 also. Fox hunting had become a 'sport' by the 17th century at latest with strong indicators that it began in the 16th century. The 'sportsmen' who knew their estates and farms refuted claims of foxes carrying off lambs -the foxes were not large enough and a reward to present evidence that a lamb was killed and carried off by a fox was still unclaimed by the late 19th century. Pheasants, ducks, geese and other birds as well as lambs that were claimed to be victims of foxes were looked into and it was reported that either game keepers or farm hands were doing the stealing and simply claiming "a fox dunnit".
Another point missed out here; every hunt master/estate owner made sure that foxes were fully protected by their tenants and game keepers -if someone dug up and stole a fox (other hunts were not beyond doing so) or a covert made for foxes was not maintained then the game keeper could say goodbye to his job or expect a public chastising. Foxes could take ducks, chickens or pheasants so that they were healthy come hunt season. There was a fund to (grudgingly) compensate anypone who could prove a fox took their chicken or other bird.
Something else not noted is that hunters were consistently complaining about taxes they had to pay "just to take part in our sport". Hounds were starved -"the breaking up" at the end of a hunt was where the fox, after being mutilated by having its tail or a paw cut off and "treed" (holding it up to a tree branch or just high up to get the hounds into a frenzy) was thrown to the hounds with the scream (repeatedly) of "Tear it up! Tear it up!" and "within a few minutes all but the head had been consumed of the fox". This is why the main trophy of hunts are "masks" (fox heads) and brushes (tails). More than one hound is noted to have "felt the crop to show it its place" when a hunter tried to retrieve the head from a hungry hound.
"Wasted horses" refers to hunters (horses) pushed to such extremes that they collapsed and died -sometimes several in long hunts. Hounds were also known to be "in no fit physical state to return the three miles home". The financial annoyance these losses caused were more important than the animals which could be replaced. There are several noted hunts where a rider declares that he is "not wasting" his horse in any further pursuit.
Oh, cubbing season was when guests -rather than those smelly commoners- were given a date and time to observe hounds getting their "first taste of their work". This involved digging out fox cubs and letting the hounds run them around and kill them. No other reason and then everyone had a jolly good chat about the fun.
The evening before a fox hunt the lord and his rich friends got together for a feast. The next day they rode out on their horses following the hunting dogs.
A hunt was also an event that the local farmers and country people would join in. For them it was not a 'sport', it was a way of killing the animals that were killing their chickens and lambs.
Foxhunting became more and more popular in the 19th century. The railways meant that people from the towns and cities could come and take part or watch.
And fox hunting remained popular well into the 20th century.
NOTE 4 oh deary me. Where to start? The feasting may have been for guests with a fox hunt taking place next day. Some went fox hunting 3-5 days a week. The main dinner took place after the hunt which was usually a "chaps only" event and at these all sorts of jolly things took place. If the fox was still whole it might be roasted and certainly a 'fun' story of a fox head being eaten is told in one 'sports' book of the time. At one or two dinners the fox head was placed into the punch bowl and stirred around using the fox tail (seriously, there is an abundance of material for a psychologist to study here).
People who were tenants had no option but to yell "Tally-hoo!" if they saw the fox being hunted. Were they not to 'support' the Master in this way...bye-bye home. Tenant farmers again had to attend to cheer the hunters on and if "everyone" supported the hunt one has to ask why landowners forbade hunting on their land and even farmers objected -eventually using wire to stop riders entering their fields?
It was not unknown for hounds and horses to run through gardens and cats, chickens, ducks, rabbits and other livestock were attacked and killed as well as a lot of damage caused -there is one instance (one of many) where a fox being chased ran into a cottage -the hounds followed and as the tenant stood on her dining table the hounds ripped up the fox on her floor, smashed crockery and caused other damage. Oh how the great 'sportsman' chuckled (knowing a few shillings would shut the woman up).
Eventually more and more people took legal action against hunts who were dumbfounded by the sheer cheek of these yoikes and even claims for damages caused got a polite "go to hell". By the early 20th century the various hunts, but not all who still declared this a "true sport", were using the excuse in courts (and only courts) that they were hunting vermin -yes, "pest control" started being used as an excuse.
The only people who claimed that fox hunting was "popular" were the hunts and 'sportsmen' involved and this ignored the truth completely. Do not be fooled; this was not some vicious predator (the size of a cat) being valiantly hunted down. From the treatment of hunters (horses), hounds, foxes as well as tenants this was a cruel pastime from start to finish and was not supported "by the entire country". If you objected, as one writer did in a letter, then their "manhood" was brought into question and the dirtiest word in the hunters vocabulary was "humanitarian" (its there in their books)
Fox Coverts
By the end of the 17th century there was no woodland left in the Vale of Belvoir. All the land was farmland.
But in the 19th century, landlords began to plant new woods. This was not for the value of the trees - it was to provide cover for foxes.
Now this is strange!
Lords and wealthy landowners wanted there to be foxes! so they could hunt them. The woodland coverts were planted to encourage foxes so there would be foxes to hunt.
John Musters of Wiverton Hall near Langar was the Master of the South Nottinghamshire Fox Hounds. He planted woodland coverts and dug artificial earths (fox dens) in them, so that he would have foxes to hunt.
John Musters wrote a poem about his love of fox hunting:
The South Notts Hunt 1833
On the ancient Foss road I arrived rather late –
Bold Reynard I spied creeping under a gate;
He had stolen away from Cropwell Hoe Hill, Whilst the hounds in the cover were challenging still.
A pause for one moment. Away with suspense!
Hark! The horn blows aloud – they are over the fence.
See the pack are all streaming breast-high down the hill,
And the scent is so good they are certain to kill. (Extract)
Note: Reynard is the old nickname for a fox.
NOTE 5 Here we see the lack of knowledge highlighted. WHY would they create artificial fox dens?
By the mid 1700s -made clear by a number of 'sportsmen' - the three main UK fox types were facing extinction like the wolf, boar, bear and wildcat. This meant that the cruel 'sport' could not be continued...you might think. However, even up to the 1800s the 'sportsmen' noted this fact and it did not matter. The biggest concern is that there would be nothing left to hunt and take joy in killing (the field mouse had a lucky escape there). The solution was easy.
Every year at markets such as Leadenhall and probably over seaport towns, thousands of foxes were imported from Sweden, Russia, Germany, France and further afield. All of the 'sport' books note this as do newspapers of the time. These foxes were purchased by hunts and transported to estates where they were placed in artificial coverts and left to "learn their country" so that they could give a longer run by evading dogs through fences and hedges.
The 19th to early 20th century also found a large number of jackal and wolf sightings/incidents. Travelling menageries were often blamed but we now know that these were releases by hunts in England and there are even reports of "stabling" of jackals by a hunt and wolves placed in convenient "natural coverts". Quite literally the hunts tried to look for something "better than a fox" that could outrun, evade and when cornered "put up a good account of itself" (in other words fight the 'precious' hounds.
This, and much more, is all in written and documented history (but pro hunt supporters don't want people knowing this).
But . . .
but but but
Not everyone was happy about fox hunting.
In the 1850s there were people who went out to try to stop fox hunts because they thought it was cruel to the foxes.
The playwright, Oscar Wilde wrote that 'the English country gentleman galloping after a fox' was 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.'
He was complaining about rich lords as much as about the cruelty of fox hunting.
NOTE 6 "There were people" seems to ignore the fact that there organisations but these were "only Humanitarian" after all and "people" makes it sound like a few eccentrics. And "They thought it was cruel" seems to imply that these humanitarians had no idea and were wrong. As for the line: "He was complaining about rich lords as much as about the cruelty of fox hunting" is a pure pro hunt classic line. TV 'celebrity' Alexander Armstrong used this very same line when his love of killing things in the countryside was brought into question. He stated outrightly that people were basically attacking others who were better off and using the hunting as an excuse. That, is what is called today, "dropping a bomb" into a conversation -it reveals all. Mind you, the line that he loved the 'fun' did not help (rather like current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who stated that for him there was a "sexual element" to fox hunting for him more or less spoke for many past and present huntsmen).
Banned
In 2004 Parliament passed the Hunting Act which banned fox hunting with dogs.
It is still legal to shoot foxes on your own land if they are trying to kill your livestock.
But the argument is not over!
Fox hunting groups started using dogs to follow trails - trail hunting. There is no fox.
A scented trail is laid across the countryside and the dogs follow it. It is like fox hunting - but with no fox.
NOTE 7 "It is still legal to shoot foxes on your own land if they are trying to kill your livestock" which is so outrightly ridiculous a statement it has to receive a response.
Firstly, even on Face Book, there are pro hunt people posting videos of their dogs tearing at and throwing a dead fox about. "Shot in a field yesterday" is a taunt used since there are clearly no bullet wounds - the joking responses make it clear the dogs killed the fox as "they are good shooters!". One particular fox was killed on the edge of a forest -where were the threatened livestock?
Cattle farmers are shooting foxes regularly. Where is the threat to cows, calves, bulls or horses from an animal the size of a domestic cat?
There are shooters who go out to shoot and kill for pleasure some times every day and they proudly pose for photos with the fox they shot and are lauded as "credit to the shooting hobby"....oops "hobby" and "pastime" are not shooting (or snaring which is still wide spread and in most cases for fox fur so not protecting livestock but cruelly killing for gain) so as to "protecting livestock" and I know of five cases in the last year where livestock have been (allegedly) accidentally killed by shooters.
Also, if it is all quite legal activity why are pro hunt supporters threatening, causing damage to property and even physically assaulting people who speak out as anti-hunt (not hunt sabouteurs but villagers who are against the 'sport'? The same people who carry on badger baiting and beat up and cut up the faces of people trying to stop their illegal activity against a protected species?
"Drag hunts" as anyone knows are used as excuses to hunt foxes 'unintentionally' and why are artificial fox coverts still being discovered and built and why are fox cubs still being stolen and thrown to fox hounds in 2021?
Since the Hunting Act was passed, fox hunts (without foxes) have become more popular. There are now 176 foxhound packs in England and Wales.
However, some anti-hunting campaigners complain that hunts only pretend to follow trails and that foxes are still killed by dogs.
NOTE 8 See my note above. Foxes are killed and it is deliberate and it has been filmed. Here we also have another pro hunt ;lie that fox hunting has become more popular and there are 176 foxhound pacxks in England and Wales. Well, in the early 1900s there were over 400+ hunt groups around England and these attracted a few hundred riders but hardly any foxes; it was the Face Book of the time with someone who knew a person who was going to a hunt told someone else and it was all sherry and address books. Fox hunting was unpopular and even some involved in it foresaw its demise so 176 hunts we ought to point out are even lessthan when this article was written because two very well known hunts have called it a day and some "packs" in Wales are basically any dog kept in a village (I have seen cross Labradors, jack russells, "pick n mix" terriers and even a Yorkie!) being taken out on a Sunday.
I ought to note that we have something to 'thank' the hunts for: mange. 'Sportsmen' in the 1800s note weak foxes with "the scab" which had been unknown prior to the importing of foxes. The English took foxes to Australia for 'sport' and introduced mange there -and possibly to the United States (though it was officially used to infect coyotes in one state to "control numbers" because shooting, snaring etc was just not enough). Yes, like the introduced Mixomatosis humans caused suffering beyond hunting.
One top 'sportsman' of the 19th century noted how even as a young lad he took great pleasure in watching dogs rip apart a fox and that it was "a joy I still maiontain as a man". This attitude -with 'sportsmen' admitting that it was a few minutes of cruelty "outweighed by the joy of the hunt" as well as the trophy grabbing -a "mask" or "brush (if a hunter was not "in at the kill" they quite clearly expressed their displeasure) and the obvious psycho-sexual aspect fills the books from the Golden Age of fox hunting.
No comments:
Post a Comment