Fox Trapping Austalia

[J Darcy 5,871]

To my way of thinking, killing what ever you have hunted, trapped or caught is just part and parcel of hunting. Nothing to glorify, just a necessity that has to be done as quickly and humanly as possible. I am sure I am not alone in saying that photos of dead animals do absolutely nothing for me. It does not tell me how they caught the animal what techniques were use, so I gain nothing from it.

 

Have a look back on threads telling how they caught some thing and the techniques used. It barley has a couple of posts, (mole trapping apart) Then have a look at post with pictures of dead rabbits in and then see how many good job or well done posts there are. But what have they learned, I'll tell you ziltch. How many photos of dead rabbits does a person need to see?

 

To be honest, most on here could not catch a cold in a sanatorium, much less tell you how they done it.

 

TC

TC, I have had a look through the Longnetting section on here, a section where you frequent often. It's a great read for someone like me, but I couldn't help to notice the amount of photos of catches you 'like'.....

.And there's not a single mention of 'photos of dead stuff are bad' by you on there. Maybe you should be more vocal on there as to what is right and what is wrong?After all, how many rabbits does a person need to see? lol

I'm not having a go, I'm just saying What's good for the goose....

 

I've had a bit of a think, and, yes, I do enjoy seeing catches, traps that lads have set, catches they've made. I'm not ashamed of it, and why should I be made to feel that I should be? A picture paints a thousand words, and, yes, I do like looking at different traps and scenarios. And if that means I couldn't catch a cold, then so be it. And anyway, what would it matter if I couldn't catch a cold? Who cares? (just for the record, I've caught plenty of colds! lol)

This section is the best thing on THL IMO, everything's nice and friendly and sensible. Keep it legal,keep it safe and keep the stories coming lads.... :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

p.s, If anyone doesn't like whats posted on here, especially people who never actually post on this section, then don't look!

Edited May 2, 2015 by J Darcy

[Tiercel 6,986]

Fair comment Mr Darcy, but not quite the whole story, if you have another look, the photo's that I "like" are accompanied by a report and it is the report that I am "liking" not the photo's. Does that clear it up for you?

 

Have another look and try and find photo's I have put up of dead rabbits, if you look hard enough you will find one EOD shot in a report I done for a mate after he treated me to a day out on his ground. It was not the only photo but one of many telling the story of the days ferreting.

 

Edited to add:

 

Apologies I have just remembered there is another photo somewhere on here must have been close to 5 years ago I posted it.

 

TC

Edited May 2, 2015 by tiercel

[skycat 6,172]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

[J Darcy 5,871]

Fair comment Mr Darcy, but not quite the whole story, if you have another look, the photo's that I "like" are accompanied by a report and it is the report that I am "liking" not the photo's. Does that clear it up for you?

 

Have another look and try and find photo's I have put up of dead rabbits, if you look hard enough you will find one EOD shot in a report I done for a mate after he treated me to a day out on his ground. It was not the only photo but one of many telling the story of the days ferreting.

 

TC

I was not refering to what you have posted TC,I do read your posts regularlly, but i did find it unusual how you have not mentioned your aversion to dead animal photos on the longnetting section.

 

And, how far do we take it?

Shall we ban all posting of dog photos unless accompanied by an extensive write-up?

Photos of fish?

Vegetables?

Birds nests?

Random wildlife shots?

Ban everything that isn't 'educational'?

 

How far should we take it? Or should we just do this on the trapping section?

 

Like I say, this is not a pop at you, or anyone, just playing devils advocate.

[J Darcy 5,871]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

[adam s 32]

Trapping in Australia is actually a necessary tool used for the control of fox, wild dogs and feral cats as numbers are out of control and if the alternatives baiting and shooting worked there wouldn't be the numbers that there are? But some people don't seem to comprehend that. Thought so called fellow "hunters" would agree but apparently they are scared of giving anti's ammunition. As far as i'm concerned i am not as stated before traps have to meet certain requirements and tough laws are put in place to ensure the animals welfare. So as i said I'm not worried because everything i'm doing is legal.

 

With that said cheers to the fellas that enjoyed seeing what we do in my country, well and to the rest of ya's you can stick the forum up your f***ing arse.

[Tiercel 6,986]

The post you done the other day, of the trapped rabbits, surprisingly I did not find those gratuitous, as in my mind they told a story and were an integral part of the story. Yet the photos of the foxes I did find did nothing but anger me. Even when animals are trapped for pest control they need to be treated with respect and those photos did not convey that the trapper had any respect for the animals.

 

TC

[skycat 6,172]

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

 

 

Mmm, I'm thinking about this one so bear with me please. We all take photos of our dogs chasing, and we don't consider the stress the wild animal is under when we do that, we are simply recording our dogs' prowess, capabilities, and are proud of them for doing well. For me, and this will no doubt seem a tiny picky point and hardly worth debating, it is the deliberate observation and recording of an animal trapped and in distress that seems more calculatedly cruel: a deliberate pause to admire one's trapping in the face of an animal terrified. Personally I would have killed the animal as soon as I found it, no matter what sort of animal, than taken a photo before killing it.

 

Am I putting human emotions on to an animal? No, fear is fear. And the sooner something is put out of its distress and fear the better, no matter how it is caught.

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

 

 

Mmm, I'm thinking about this one so bear with me please. We all take photos of our dogs chasing, and we don't consider the stress the wild animal is under when we do that, we are simply recording our dogs' prowess, capabilities, and are proud of them for doing well. For me, and this will no doubt seem a tiny picky point and hardly worth debating, it is the deliberate observation and recording of an animal trapped and in distress that seems more calculatedly cruel: a deliberate pause to admire one's trapping in the face of an animal terrified. Personally I would have killed the animal as soon as I found it, no matter what sort of animal, than taken a photo before killing it.

 

Am I putting human emotions on to an animal? No, fear is fear. And the sooner something is put out of its distress and fear the better, no matter how it is caught.

 

OK, would you ever take a photo of a netted rabbit , live, in someones hand. Or a rabbit, live, in a long net. Or a live fox at the end of the dig?

I don't know about in Oz, but in the USA where there's many, many thousands of foxes trapped with legholds, they must be approached to be despatched. Does that extra 3 seconds it takes to take a photo matter? Really?

Or is it the image that disturbs you rather than the actual action?

Would you rather shoot a hare in its seat with a gun than slip a lurcher. (pre ban)..? Surely that is the less stressful way?

Ferret a rabbit to guns rather than dogs or nets as this, surely, must be less stressfull?

Or perhaps forget the ferret and just lamp and shoot them with a gun at night, for a less stressful way..?

 

 

Just curious that's all.....

[skycat 6,172]

 

 

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

 

 

Mmm, I'm thinking about this one so bear with me please. We all take photos of our dogs chasing, and we don't consider the stress the wild animal is under when we do that, we are simply recording our dogs' prowess, capabilities, and are proud of them for doing well. For me, and this will no doubt seem a tiny picky point and hardly worth debating, it is the deliberate observation and recording of an animal trapped and in distress that seems more calculatedly cruel: a deliberate pause to admire one's trapping in the face of an animal terrified. Personally I would have killed the animal as soon as I found it, no matter what sort of animal, than taken a photo before killing it.

 

Am I putting human emotions on to an animal? No, fear is fear. And the sooner something is put out of its distress and fear the better, no matter how it is caught.

 

OK, would you ever take a photo of a netted rabbit , live, in someones hand. Or a rabbit, live, in a long net. Or a live fox at the end of the dig?

I don't know about in Oz, but in the USA where there's many, many thousands of foxes trapped with legholds, they must be approached to be despatched. Does that extra 3 seconds it takes to take a photo matter? Really?

Or is it the image that disturbs you rather than the actual action?

Would you rather shoot a hare in its seat with a gun than slip a lurcher. (pre ban)..? Surely that is the less stressful way?

Ferret a rabbit to guns rather than dogs or nets as this, surely, must be less stressfull?

Or perhaps forget the ferret and just lamp and shoot them with a gun at night, for a less stressful way..?

 

 

Just curious that's all.....

 

 

You are probably right there: to see the fear in their eyes is not good. So yes, I probably am being anthropomorphic. And no, I have never said to anyone holding a netted rabbit: "Hang on a moment, just want to take a photo before you neck it". I surely must have taken photos of rabbits held in nets, but never deliberately held off the dispatch for a photo.

 

As for the amount of stress involved in killing animals, the thrill of watching one's dog do its job outweighs, at the moment in time, the sympathy for the game, though I must admit to having felt sad for a particularly good hare when it was finally caught, though even more happy for the dog that had worked so hard and with such skill ... there is ever a dichotomy in the heart of the human hunter who is no longer hunting purely for survival.

 

As for shooting: I can admire the skill of someone who is really good, be it plinking at rats or taking a long range shot at larger game, but I could never give up my dogs. I live through them, share their drive to find and catch, so yes, I'm also a hypocrite in some ways as the stress they inflict on their quarry comes second to my own enjoyment of the hunt.

 

Having said that: do you think that prey animals, those which are the target of all predators, both two and four-legged, live from moment to moment in a natural state of manageable stress? Is the fox different, being a predator itself?

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

 

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

 

 

Mmm, I'm thinking about this one so bear with me please. We all take photos of our dogs chasing, and we don't consider the stress the wild animal is under when we do that, we are simply recording our dogs' prowess, capabilities, and are proud of them for doing well. For me, and this will no doubt seem a tiny picky point and hardly worth debating, it is the deliberate observation and recording of an animal trapped and in distress that seems more calculatedly cruel: a deliberate pause to admire one's trapping in the face of an animal terrified. Personally I would have killed the animal as soon as I found it, no matter what sort of animal, than taken a photo before killing it.

 

Am I putting human emotions on to an animal? No, fear is fear. And the sooner something is put out of its distress and fear the better, no matter how it is caught.

 

OK, would you ever take a photo of a netted rabbit , live, in someones hand. Or a rabbit, live, in a long net. Or a live fox at the end of the dig?

I don't know about in Oz, but in the USA where there's many, many thousands of foxes trapped with legholds, they must be approached to be despatched. Does that extra 3 seconds it takes to take a photo matter? Really?

Or is it the image that disturbs you rather than the actual action?

Would you rather shoot a hare in its seat with a gun than slip a lurcher. (pre ban)..? Surely that is the less stressful way?

Ferret a rabbit to guns rather than dogs or nets as this, surely, must be less stressfull?

Or perhaps forget the ferret and just lamp and shoot them with a gun at night, for a less stressful way..?

 

 

Just curious that's all.....

 

 

You are probably right there: to see the fear in their eyes is not good. So yes, I probably am being anthropomorphic. And no, I have never said to anyone holding a netted rabbit: "Hang on a moment, just want to take a photo before you neck it". I surely must have taken photos of rabbits held in nets, but never deliberately held off the dispatch for a photo.

 

As for the amount of stress involved in killing animals, the thrill of watching one's dog do its job outweighs, at the moment in time, the sympathy for the game, though I must admit to having felt sad for a particularly good hare when it was finally caught, though even more happy for the dog that had worked so hard and with such skill ... there is ever a dichotomy in the heart of the human hunter who is no longer hunting purely for survival.

 

As for shooting: I can admire the skill of someone who is really good, be it plinking at rats or taking a long range shot at larger game, but I could never give up my dogs. I live through them, share their drive to find and catch, so yes, I'm also a hypocrite in some ways as the stress they inflict on their quarry comes second to my own enjoyment of the hunt.

 

Having said that: do you think that prey animals, those which are the target of all predators, both two and four-legged, live from moment to moment in a natural state of manageable stress? Is the fox different, being a predator itself?

 

Great answer...that is EXACTLY my answer to that same question....

 

p.s, don't forget the fox has evolved to also be a prey animal as larger predators preyed upon it. It is only the last couple of hundred years where this is not the case. The fox never evolved to be an apex predator.

[Phil Lloyd 10,736]

Lots of varying viewpoints,...plenty of personal opinions being stated,.. this is good...

Edited May 3, 2015 by Phil Lloyd

[Guest Navek]

Personaly,..I think we need to act like adults over such matters..

I fecking hate censorship,...I dislike not being able to do,.. what I want to do in life,...

 

The concept of a hunting forum, is surely to discuss what we do,..how we do it,..and if you fancy,.what we catch..

Nothing wrong with that,..and if lads want to post pictures of their catches,..then why not...

 

However,..the hunting scene has changed,..drastically,...

Nowadays,..to aid the continuance of our survival as hunters,.we need to watch our backs,.be cautious, be aware..

 

It is so easy to become lulled, into a sense of false security and convince ourselves that everyone thinks along the same lines as ourselves,..cos, by feck, they sure as hell don't...SO,...our real freedom of expression does not have to include showing everything that occurs...We have a choice whether to do our own thing and keep certain aspects 'in the family' OR to ram images down the throats of other, less supportive folk.

For instance....I am a rabbiter,...I catch nothing else,..(don't actually catch many rabbits )...but,..occasionally,..a rabbit elects to stay put, deep down in a warren and the ferret will refuse to 'come away' and give him best..(good ferret )....now, when this occurs, you will often pull out a rabbit that has sustained some damage, either to his back,..or more graphically, to his face, etc, etc.......

 

This is part and parcel of the rabbiting game,..it happens...

 

Obviously, no man in his right mind, is going to feel the need to put pictures up of such a sight, on the Internet/Books, etc..This is a perfectly acceptable part of a days hunting,...horrible,..awful and certainly not what we want, but as stated, it does happen,...that being said,..by keeping such a vision to ourselves,..are we copping out and allowing the Anti -hunting fraternity to rule our lives ? Should we show everything that occurs..is it obligatory ?

Personaly, I do not think this is the case...

 

As a lifelong hunter, I have done many things,..some not so good,....but as I have become more experienced I have learnt to behave in the manner of a true predator,...my aim is to catch my quarry,...I will go, all out to achieve that aim,..but as a responsible human being,..I know what is right and what is wrong... So lads, by all means show the world what we do, don't hide in dark corners,.never be ashamed,..we are in the right,.always have been, always will be,...but,..be compassionate,.be a hunting man.....

agree with you 100%.. We do need to be careful about what pictures we post.can remember many moons ago when every Tom dick and Harry said ." I'll post pictures of my lurchers on fox when ever I like " no one will tell me what pictures to post the antis can feck off " " no one will ever stop me hunting foxes " blah blah blah look what happen ..... England gets slapped with a fox hunting deer hunting hare coursing ban. And how much of them pictures posted were used as amo for getting it banned.. Truth is there's do gooders and tree huggers all over the world trying to ruin something for some one......but by joe don't help them do it by posting pictures that will be later used against us

[mushroom 12,387]

Soooo.....

 

 

Can gays marry??

[shropshire mole 190]

 

 

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely a photo of an already dead animal is different to one that is still alive and terrified whilst being photographed? That is my personal take on the subject: taking a photo of an animal stressed, in pain and scared is what goes against the grain. Better to kill the animal before taking a photo, if the person feels that a photo is necessary at all.

 

Which begs the question: why take all these photos of animals trapped, killed etc? Is it that the person feels the need to prove something, that it did actually happen? OK, cave men drew pictures on walls of caves depicting their hunts, so I guess this is just the modern equivalent.

Ok, Skycat, why take photos of any fieldsport where a dog is pursuing it's quarry, or a live rabbit in the net or being retrieved. Should we wait 'til they are dead first. IF we must take a piccy?

Do we publish photos in our books that go against the grain? Were we trying to prove something?

 

Or are we drawing a distinction between a fox and a rabbit?

 

 

Mmm, I'm thinking about this one so bear with me please. We all take photos of our dogs chasing, and we don't consider the stress the wild animal is under when we do that, we are simply recording our dogs' prowess, capabilities, and are proud of them for doing well. For me, and this will no doubt seem a tiny picky point and hardly worth debating, it is the deliberate observation and recording of an animal trapped and in distress that seems more calculatedly cruel: a deliberate pause to admire one's trapping in the face of an animal terrified. Personally I would have killed the animal as soon as I found it, no matter what sort of animal, than taken a photo before killing it.

 

Am I putting human emotions on to an animal? No, fear is fear. And the sooner something is put out of its distress and fear the better, no matter how it is caught.

 

OK, would you ever take a photo of a netted rabbit , live, in someones hand. Or a rabbit, live, in a long net. Or a live fox at the end of the dig?

I don't know about in Oz, but in the USA where there's many, many thousands of foxes trapped with legholds, they must be approached to be despatched. Does that extra 3 seconds it takes to take a photo matter? Really?

Or is it the image that disturbs you rather than the actual action?

Would you rather shoot a hare in its seat with a gun than slip a lurcher. (pre ban)..? Surely that is the less stressful way?

Ferret a rabbit to guns rather than dogs or nets as this, surely, must be less stressfull?

Or perhaps forget the ferret and just lamp and shoot them with a gun at night, for a less stressful way..?

 

 

Just curious that's all.....

 

This post has really rattled the cages of many. Regarding the extra 3 seconds of stress, probably not going to make much difference? but there again if you were in front of a firing squad and had to endure another 3 seconds of stress, might be a different story, but cant really compare a human to a wild animal.

Each to their own, I`m not in favour of such traps personally, but equally not saying they should be banned elsewhere