# Hunt Mergers



## marc (22 January 2013)

Has anyone had any experience where two packs have merged for any reason? What was the response of the subscribers and how long did it take for the merged hunt to be successful, if they ever were?


----------



## Maesfen (22 January 2013)

It's happened a lot and I imagine has worked well although for sure, some people will have had their noses pushed out of joint because of it.
I remember the Southdown merging with the Eridge; the Vine with the Craven (am I imagining it or have they now merged with the Hampshire too?); the East Sussex with the Romney Marsh; the Grove with the Rufford and latterly the Kimblewick which is an amalgamation of five different packs.  I'm sure there are loads more as well (perhaps others can add to that list, would make an interesting thread?!)


----------



## Countryman (22 January 2013)

Far too young to remember it, but I know the Bicester merged with the Whaddon Chase years ago. Also lots of Kent packs and hunts that hunt around London have merged mostly due to urbanisation. I do think mergers are a great shame, because the bigger the hunt country gets the less individual members know each other and the less a community it is- but regrettably they often seem to be necessary. Some have worked very well-eg the Bicester, and others not quite so well.


----------



## Captain Crasher (22 January 2013)

Surely, it depends whether its a merger, amalgamation (or re-amalgamation), or just a straight forward take-over of the weak, by the strong!Circumstances will, I'm sure, alter cases. Just as noses (even the ones that get put out of joint!), alter faces.


----------



## Sherston (22 January 2013)

The Old Surrey and the Burstow and the West Kent
Hursley and Hambleton
The Meynell and the South Staffs
The Blackmore and the Sparkford Vale

To name a just few more.

Not all hunts with two names are merged though, as with the Crawley and Horsham, thats always been that (as far as I am aware!).

In the happy days of the late 19th century the problem was the other way round with hunts dividing, Noth and South Atherstone, VWH Cricklade and VWH Cirencester, North Warwickshire from the Warwicksire. But as these hunts were just loaned country as oposed to having their own they just disappeared as they were subsumed back into the other pack. 

Hunt history - what a great topic!

Sherston


----------



## Hunters (22 January 2013)

The kimblewick was an amalgamation too far in many people's opinion. Hence the warning on the forum.


----------



## Hunters (23 January 2013)

The warning seems to have gone.

When two hunts merge there's a reason for it, it's the same with business.

There is usually the stronger hunt & it is down to them as to how well the merger will work.


----------



## marc (23 January 2013)

thanks for the replies


----------



## JenHunt (23 January 2013)

I've only seen a merger that didn't work, and tbh it was more complicated than just 2 hunts trying to merge - but I'm not going into that here.

I think that if both hunts work together, and get their subscribers, land owners, farmers and supporters fully involved then there's no reason it shouldn't work.


----------



## Hunters (23 January 2013)

Jenhunt - I suspect I know which hunt you are talking about


----------



## Herne (27 January 2013)

Mergers are an unavoidable necessity and will happen more and more frequently as development, new roads etc splits hunt countries into smaller and smaller chunks.

People who harp back to old glories rather than looking to the future and doing their very best to try to help make things work so that future generations can have some chance of getting some of the enjoyment that they themselves have had are being stupid, childish and ungrateful.

They do themselves, their hunts and hunting no favours and they should just get a grip.

And, no, I am not thinking of any hunt in particular here - because there are always such idiots trying to ruin things involved in every Hunt merger, whereever it may be.


----------



## JenHunt (27 January 2013)

Herne said:



			Mergers are an unavoidable necessity and will happen more and more frequently as development, new roads etc splits hunt countries into smaller and smaller chunks.

People who harp back to old glories rather than looking to the future and doing their very best to try to help make things work so that future generations can have some chance of getting some of the enjoyment that they themselves have had are being stupid, childish and ungrateful.

They do themselves, their hunts and hunting no favours and they should just get a grip.

And, no, I am not thinking of any hunt in particular here - because there are always such idiots trying to ruin things involved in every Hunt merger, whereever it may be.
		
Click to expand...

quite - and that's what I mean about getting everyone involved, and informed, and finding out their objections and trying to work through them to move to a positive future! 

surely, one larger, amalgamated hunt is better than 2 that fail.


----------



## marc (27 January 2013)

Interesting, How about if one hunt is highly successful whilst the other has gone bump and wont be hunting next season? If there is an option of dividing the defunct land between neighbouring hunts wouldnt that please a few more people?


----------



## Herne (27 January 2013)

Sadly, mergers seldom arise because 2 Hunts are going down.

More usually the scenario is that one hunt becomes unviable, so the only sensible way forward is to merge it with one or more viable hunts for the benefit of hunting as a whole.

The problem is that people within the unviable hunt become fixated with that hunt's glorious past and start accusing the other hunts of foul play.

Things become even more difficult when dealing with hunts that are country and follower poor but asset rich. There there are even more cries of foul play.

However, the inevitable truth is that the more and more development happens in this over-crowded, little island of ours, the fewer and fewer hunts will remain viable.

This is INEVITABLE. People need to get a grip and move with it.


----------



## Hunters (27 January 2013)

Yes & sometimes people work very hard to make all aspects of the amalgamation work, others sadly are more business minded asset strippers.


----------



## Stark Dismay (28 January 2013)

Lots of hunts are amalgamations of 2 or more packs. It's fairly safe to hazard a guess that if the hunt has 'and' in it's name it was probably 2 hunts that merged at some point. 

The important thing in making amalgamations work is that everyone involved has to work together and WANT to work together. It's no use just plonking 2 previously separate countries, subscribers and landowners together and hoping it all works out. Both sides have to feel what is being done is being done well and fairly. This seems to have been achieved in many cases - the pack I hunt with now has an 'and' in it's name, and it is never mentioned. All seems well there. A previous pack I hunted with had, and still has, terrible problems. Bullying behaviour by the perceived 'stronger' side of the 'weaker' side is a kind of sure fire way of making sure an amalgamation won't work.


----------



## marc (28 January 2013)

Great posts thanks for your opinions. The members of the  hunt that is closing dont appear to be kicking up a fuss at this stage and they have no fixed assets as such. The subscribers of the other hunt are less happy as the general opinion is that the country merging is of poor quality and can be difficult to access at busy travelling times.


----------



## Captain Crasher (5 February 2013)

marc said:



			Great posts thanks for your opinions. The members of the  hunt that is closing dont appear to be kicking up a fuss at this stage and they have no fixed assets as such. The subscribers of the other hunt are less happy as the general opinion is that the country merging is of poor quality and can be difficult to access at busy travelling times.
		
Click to expand...

If one Hunt is to be "swallowed up " by the other, and its traditions, days of meeting etc, are to be forgotten, it seems odd that its current subscribers have little to say on the matter.
 Perhaps a solution that would be more acceptable to the bigger Hunt's subscribers would be if the newly merged Hunt proposed to  hunt in the taken over country on a given day of the week.. That way the existing subscribers of the bigger Hunt are not seeing their hunting diminished, and the smaller Hunt are still having the opportunity to get out in their familiar area, on some of their traditional days.Obviously, all full subscribers to the merged Hunt could go to any Meets, wherever they were held.
 I think I am correct in giving as an example of this the Meynell & South Staffs mainly hunting in the old South Staffs country on a Thursday, which was one of  the South Staffs days, even though its forty years since they amalgamated.


----------



## Mark Gilbert (12 February 2013)

Hunts that merge generally do for the greater good, its always a shame to loose a hunt and with the current climate hitting everyone hunts are going to face lots of financial pressure. My concern is the loss of hound blood lines, as long as the packs are merged at the same time it can only be positive.

If you are worried about your hunt the best way to help is to hunt!


----------



## happyhunter123 (14 February 2013)

According to the latest copy of Hounds Magazine, the Albrighton and the Albrighton Woodland are to amalgamate next season.

The Crawley & Horsham and the Surrey Union are also in discussions over a possible amalgamation. I wonder if one day, there'll be one pack with a huge country covering the whole South East?


----------



## marc (14 February 2013)

Im involved with AH, the vote on tuesday resulted in 85% voting in favour of the amalgamation, the AWH get to vote on it next week. Most of us have now come to realise that this will work out for the best and our farmers land will get visited less often and ground cut up with a possible flesh round too.


----------



## Hunters (15 February 2013)

I hope it works well for all of you.


----------



## JenHunt (19 February 2013)

marc - how has the second part of the voting gone? (has it even happened yet?!) 

I really hope that you (both hunts) can make it work - as you say, there's some very persuasive reasons for the farmers, and landowners alike.... and for the followers, they get the excitment of hunting in unfamiliar territory, and making new friends, and let's face it, that's why the majority of followers go hunting!


----------



## jess_asterix (20 February 2013)

The Albrighton woodland voted 100% for the merge. 

So there is a lot of support from both sides which is great


----------



## Maesfen (20 February 2013)

Sounds good Jess; the WH are getting more country and the AH get more professional support.  Let's just hope that some egos don't get in the way and it becomes territorial.  
Good luck to their new staff and happy hunting.


----------



## Harry44 (20 February 2013)

Sounds good, will the new country go from Stafford down to Stourport way? I was on the border of the three hunts but looks like I'll be in the middle of the new Albrighton country, will have to come out with you guys next season


----------



## Countryman (20 February 2013)

Good to hear of a merger going so well.


----------



## jess_asterix (20 February 2013)

Yes country will run from the north of 'Albrighton' country (adbaston/gnosall etc) all the way to the south of woodland country (chaddesley) so will open up more meets during the shooting season especially and allow a potential 5 days a fortnight. 

I am in Worfield so also slap bang in the middle of the country, perfect really.


----------



## JenHunt (20 February 2013)

brilliant news, let's hope that the summer brings all sorts of good things, and that next season makes all the hard work worthwhile for all concerned!


----------



## Harry44 (20 February 2013)

Jess, I'm in Claverley not to far from you at all! I hunt with the Wheatland but will have to do a few days with the Albrighton/Woodland next season. I hope it all goes well.


----------



## JanetGeorge (22 February 2013)

jess_asterix said:



			The Albrighton woodland voted 100% for the merge. 

So there is a lot of support from both sides which is great 

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised!  Apart from the Enville Estate, the AWH was VERY restricted with country!  But they've got some good people and a lot of support - so the merger should be mutually beneficial!


----------



## Mark Gilbert (4 March 2013)

What mergers do, especially ones like AH/AWH is make sure those of us who love to hunt can continue to do so. I support all hunting whether it is a day out with the Albrighton or The Burne Bloodhounds. What we have to consider is the huge thanks we owe to land owners both those that hunt but those that don't, and it appears that these land owners fully support mergers rather than the demise of the hunts altogether. I just think the management of both hunts deserve credit to decide to put this to the vote.


----------

