RIP chickens

[Euan Uzami]

I've heard it's not illegal as long as you use a bow and arrow, as it's more 'noble' and requires skill.  might be wrong

[Clandy]

Killing the fox would be pointless, it would only be replaced by another.
It never ceases to amaze me lions can be kept in zoos without escaping, but people can't build fox-proof chicken runs.

[GruB]

That might only hold if you could show that your actions definitely prevented a specific greater cruelty; shooting an individual fox would never do that. And given that there are more humane ways  than using an air rifle, it'd likely not hold even then.

I am not advocating indiscriminate shooting of foxes.  I was referring to the specific example of foxes in the garden of C&J's premises near to or at the chicken run.  Going on what is already known I believe the law gives a legitimate purpose.

The www suggests that some people have tried wolf urine.  However others suggest that human urine will be just as effective.  So girls get your shims out and do the 'marking my territory' thing in the garden.

[rogerzilla]

I've heard it's not illegal as long as you use a bow and arrow, as it's more 'noble' and requires skill.  might be wrong

And you're shooting Welshmen rather than foxes.

[andygates]

The characteristic smell of London (to an outsider) is one of warm domestic rubbish

And diesel.  Don't forget the diesel. 

[border-rider]

I am not advocating indiscriminate shooting of foxes.  I was referring to the specific example of foxes in the garden of C&J's premises near to or at the chicken run.  Going on what is already known I believe the law gives a legitimate purpose

If you shoot the fox before it's killed a chicken you can't be sure it would have.

If you do it afterwards you haven't the excuse of preventing greater cruelty

You'd also have to be able to show that any shot fox would not anyway be replaced by another, and that the threat to the chickens had been eradicated.

You'd also have to show that the cruelty dished out to the fox was less than that the chickens suffered, not only at the paws of the fox but also considering that many chickens anyway get their necks wrung for the pot.

[nicknack]

I suspect the law wouldn't be quite that picky about the death of a fox.

[border-rider]

Possibly, but that wouldn't make it legal

[Wowbagger]

Aim near the fox but don't aim at it. Foxes will then associate the vicinity your chickens with nasty cracky missiles landing all round them. Depending on the air rifle (I'd say an accurate .22 shot would kill a fox, but a .177 would go nowhere near) you could indeed bring one down. They are not stupid. They learn very quickly.

A friend of mine who lives in rural Wales has kept a variety of livestock. He observed, when he had ducks with ducklings and the mother duck took her offspring out for a walk, the last duckling in the line being picked off by carrion crows. He bought a shot gun for the purpose of shooting crows. He then observed that the crows could distinguish between a man carrying a gun or something that looked like a gun from a man not carrying a gun. He would walk out of the house without a gun under his arm and the crows roosting in the tall trees around wouldn't turn a feather. Walk out with a gun under his arm and they'd be off. Crows aren't stupid either.

I'd have no qualms, as long as there was no risk to adjoining property or people, from lying in wait for Mr. Fox, through an open upstairs window, in order to give him one up the shirt if I had chickens which were at risk from the said beastie.

[pcolbeck]

Unfortunately air rifle ammo is subsonic sp you don't get a crack unless it hits something noisy.

[Wowbagger]

Unfortunately air rifle ammo is subsonic sp you don't get a crack unless it hits something noisy.

Oh I know - a few old tin cans left lying around would make the fox jump about a bit. They don't like it up 'em.

[Clandy]

Given the stories I've seen of pet cats returning home injured after some dickless wonder shot them with an air gun, I would imagine an air gun would have little effect on a fox unless it was point blanked in the ear.

[Charlotte]

I'd say an accurate .22 shot would kill a fox, but a .177 would go nowhere near

Sadly, you're wrong.  At least for non-FAC energy levels, anyway.  .177 or .22 both carry the same kind of momentum; it's how the guns are tuned.

An air rifle limited to 12 ft-lbs (as both ours are) is good for puncturing squirrel and bunny skulls at 30m or so.  You can kill a wood pigeon with one if you get a headshot, too.  But hit any of these creatures in the body and you'd probably not kill them.  In the case of a woody, a crop full of grain would mean although you'd wound it, you'd almost certainly not kill it.  Out at 30m, you've lost most of your muzzle energy and you'll just lodge a pellet in its digestive system.  It would flap off somewhere and die a lingering death.

I'd have no qualms, as long as there was no risk to adjoining property or people, from lying in wait for Mr. Fox, through an open upstairs window, in order to give him one up the shirt if I had chickens which were at risk from the said beastie.

I might.  But only with a paintball gun.  Hurty, but decidedly non-lethal.

Unfortunately air rifle ammo is subsonic sp you don't get a crack unless it hits something noisy.

Actually (and I think I'm in danger of being awarded the Regulator trophy for annoying pedantry here) you get a very satisfying crack from a pre-charged pneumatic air rifle.

Which is why ours have silencers 

[pcolbeck]

You shouldn't get hardly anything from a PCP. A silenced one should be very quite. As a shooter you here a crack but 30 yards away (ie where the quarry is) it should be very quite. If it' still load then the rifle is probably dieseling and the pellet is going supersonic which btw would take the pellet energy above 12lb.
Springers are nosier as the spring makes a bit of a thump when its released.

[border-rider]

In the case of a woody, a crop full of grain would mean although you'd wound it, you'd almost certainly not kill it. 

Our neighbour  few years ago took an air rifle to the local pigeons.  Mrs MV had to phone her to tell her to stop after the fifth injured bird had hit our windows and left a bloody trail down the side of the house.

It's not big, macho or clever; it's brutal and ghastly.


Just don't fucking do it. 

[clarion]

It's pointless anyway, and I know C is aware of that, which is part of the frustration.

The only answer is moar protection for the feathery ones.  There is nothing else you can do.  It is probably very good for the release of negative feelings to have a pot-shot at a predator (or put on a red coat and chase it with dogs), but it will not affect the prevalence of foxes on West London.  There is food; there will be foxes.

[Clandy]

It is probably very good for the release of negative feelings to have a pot-shot at a predator (or put on a red coat and chase it with dogs), but it will not affect the prevalence of foxes on West London.  There is food; there will be foxes.

Personally I think shouting is a better way to satisfy negative feelings rather than killing something. The only reason I see for killing under the non-excuse of 'hunting a predator', or for 'sport', is to satisfy some psychological defect.

[Charlotte]

Our neighbour  few years ago took an air rifle to the local pigeons.  Mrs MV had to phone her to tell her to stop after the fifth injured bird had hit our windows and left a bloody trail down the side of the house.

It's not big, macho or clever; it's brutal and ghastly.


Just don't fucking do it. 

In fairness to the many thousands of responsible members of the UK airgun hunting community, you can humanely kill woodpigeons with a non-FAC rifle.

The thing is, it's by no means easy and the only way you can be sure to immediately kill your quarry is with a head shot.  The head is a softer target than the rest of the bird, but it means being confident of putting your pellet in a target area the size of a 2p coin at no more than 35m.

For this you need a good vantage point, a steady hand, a very accurate weapon and the willingness not to take the shot if there's any doubt as to whether or not you're going to make a clean kill.  A lot of people who think they can bag a few woodys seem not to understand this, leading to the the sort of carnage that Mrs MV witnessed.

Which is, as you say, ghastly.

[Wowbagger]

An air rifle limited to 12 ft-lbs (as both ours are) is good for puncturing squirrel and bunny skulls at 30m or so.  You can kill a wood pigeon with one if you get a headshot, too.  But hit any of these creatures in the body and you'd probably not kill them.  In the case of a woody, a crop full of grain would mean although you'd wound it, you'd almost certainly not kill it.  Out at 30m, you've lost most of your muzzle energy and you'll just lodge a pellet in its digestive system.  It would flap off somewhere and die a lingering death.

My experience with a .22 is very limited (I shot lots of stuff with a .177 when I was a Very Naughty Boy) but I did shoot a rabbit from at least 30 yards and the pellet went straight through its thoracic cavity. OK, it didn't kill it outright but it wasn't more than a few seconds until I was on it with the cudgel. It would have died within minutes anyway. I feel confident that a similar shot on a fox would give you the chance to practice your skills with the 4 * 2.

The problem with this lethal probability is that it does indeed depend upon the skill of the marksman, and whether the target moves at the last second.

[Rapples]

The problem with this lethal probability is that it does indeed depend upon the skill of the marksman, and whether the target moves at the last second.

Indeed, and of course with a rimfire 22 shot at a moving fox, or shotgun even, the same applies.  Shooting carries a moderate risk of wounding rather than an outright kill.

I know they are only vermin, but I quite like seeing them about the place.  They also form a useful part of the natural foodchain helping to control other species by culling the old and weak.

Surely wouldn't it be far better if we could just think of a way that left a fox either dead or perfectly healthy without this risk, especially in rural areas where foxes can be a real nuisance to peoples livelihoods.   Even better if that system was especially likely to cull the older and weaker animals rather than indiscrimate shooting.

Oh well, I don't suppose that will ever happen, I'll have to put my thinking cap on

[Clandy]

I know they are only vermin,

Actually, according to DEFRA, they're not.

[Julian]

I am not advocating indiscriminate shooting of foxes.  I was referring to the specific example of foxes in the garden of C&J's premises near to or at the chicken run.  Going on what is already known I believe the law gives a legitimate purpose

If you shoot the fox before it's killed a chicken you can't be sure it would have.

If you do it afterwards you haven't the excuse of preventing greater cruelty

You'd also have to be able to show that any shot fox would not anyway be replaced by another, and that the threat to the chickens had been eradicated.

You'd also have to show that the cruelty dished out to the fox was less than that the chickens suffered, not only at the paws of the fox but also considering that many chickens anyway get their necks wrung for the pot.

Yes.  This is not an argument I fancy having with a West London magistrate (it might be easier with a rural one.)

If I shoot a fox which is hanging around a fox-proof run which I think is fox-proof, I'm not protecting the chickens.  If I shoot the fox as a revenge attack for killing my chickens, I don't bring them back from the dead, and I'm not protecting the chickens.  If I had seen the fox in the act of picking the locks on the chicken house, I would have run out shouting rather than faffed about loading my air rifle. 

I suppose I could say the fox had come at me with a knife. 

[Rapples]

I know they are only vermin,

Actually, according to DEFRA, they're not.

That may be true, but I prefer to use a dictionary as my guide

[Wowbagger]

Which dictionary would that be, Rapples? The Little Huntsperson's First Lexicon, published by that well-known authority the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management?

Personally, I use the speeches of Aneurin Bevan as my guide.

[Rapples]

Which dictionary would that be, Rapples? The Little Huntsperson's First Lexicon, published by that well-known authority the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management?

No for a definitive answer I'll use the OED 2 volume edition.  Usually though I'll quickly google using this for example:

vermin - definition of vermin by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

or this

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vermin

Personally, I use the speeches of Aneurin Bevan as my guide.

That has long been my suspicion, and explains a lot