# Repeal or No Repeal of The Acting Act 2004



## Judgemental (17 May 2015)

I predicted the exact number of seats that the SNP would have in Westminster in another thread on this Forum.

I now confidently predict that the SNP will stand aside from a vote and therefore Repeal will happen and very shortly too.

The big question to be resolved; will the Repeal Legislation include a new offence of interfering with a Registered Hunt. Hopefully with a hefty fine and custodial sentence. 

Herewith a piece from today's Daily Mail,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tories demand a Commons vote on scrapping hunting ban to be staged within weeks
Senior backbenchers want repeal of hunting ban in Queen's Speech
Vote could be lost if SNP breaks vow to miss debate on hunting in England

By Jason Groves for the Daily Mail 

Published: 15:05, 17 May 2015  | Updated: 16:01, 17 May 2015  

Tories are demanding a Commons vote to scrap the controversial hunting ban within weeks &#8211; despite fears the move could be blocked by the SNP.

David Cameron pledged that MPs would be given a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Conservatives won the election.

Senior Tories want the move to be included in this month&#8217;s Queen&#8217;s Speech, despite concerns in Downing Street that it would send out the wrong message.

Pro-hunting campaigners warn the result of the vote would be &#8216;tight&#8217; &#8211; and could be lost if the SNP break their pre-election vow to sit out any debate on hunting in England.

Former environment secretary Owen Paterson, who pushed for a relaxation of the ban while in office, said: &#8216;The hunting ban is bad legislation, bad for animal welfare and bad for the liberty of people in the countryside. 

'A repeal of this law is a clear manifesto commitment and I am confident we will see it in the Queen&#8217;s Speech on May 27.&#8217;

Tory MP Simon Hart said there was a groundswell of opinion in rural areas that Labour&#8217;s 10-year-old hunting ban was a mistake.

Mr Hart, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: &#8216;We need to get on with this and I am sure the Government will want to resolve the matter quickly and efficiently. 

'The commitment to a vote on repeal has been in the manifesto since 2005 and we now have the opportunity to deliver that and get rid of a law that has been a running sore in the countryside for over 10 years.


&#8216;The vast majority of my colleagues understand that this whole debate was never really about hunting or animal welfare, but about Labour MPs having a go at what they thought was an easy Conservative target. 

'The recent election result has shown once and for all that Labour&#8217;s obsession with fighting a class war has rendered them unelectable, so it is only right that we remove laws based on this prejudice from the statute book.&#8217;

Downing Street sources played down the prospects of action on hunting being included in the Queen&#8217;s Speech, which will focus instead on major priorities like legislating for a tax lock to prevent rises in VAT, income tax and National Insurance. 

But the Government&#8217;s agenda is not limited to the Queen&#8217;s Speech and sources have not ruled out an early vote.

One Tory source said: &#8216;There is no point in delaying this &#8211; I would expect it sooner rather than later.&#8217;

Pro-hunting campaigners believe that close to 300 Tory MPs will vote in favour of repealing the Hunting Act.

Ministers are also considering bringing in new animal welfare protections if hunting is scrapped to make it easier for wavering Tory MPs to back repeal.

The fate of the ban would then depend on the SNP, which has repeatedly said it will not vote on an issue that is wholly devolved.

As recently as February this year, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon side: &#8216;The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters which purely affect England &#8211; such as fox-hunting south of the border, for example &#8211; and we stand by that.&#8217;

But some observers believe SNP MPs &#8211; who are overwhelmingly against hunting &#8211; may find the idea of halting the Tories on a totemic issue irresistible.

Mr Cameron promised a free vote on hunting in his 2010 manifesto, and it was included in the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems. But the vote was never held because of fears it would be lost.

The Prime Minister said in March that he believed in the &#8216;freedom to hunt&#8217;, adding: &#8216;The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.&#8217;


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (17 May 2015)

Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP. 

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time". 

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament


----------



## Judgemental (17 May 2015)

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP. 

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time". 

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament 

Click to expand...

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite, I just love your nom de plume - LOL. Have no fear repeal will happen and you had better take a pull as you "slop along a Devon lane" when the D and S scream across the horizon. 

Be bold and positive.

Oh how wonderful the whole pack in full cry. Life will be worth living again


----------



## Countryman (17 May 2015)

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP. 

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time". 

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament 

Click to expand...

I will take you up on that bet! 

Repeal will be fantastic, but I do think it will need two other pieces of legislation;

1 - some sort of animal cruelty law such as that proposed by Lord Donoughue, that will take hunting with hounds off the political landscapeand reassure people, making it less controversial. After all, there is no point in repeal if every 5 years it gets banned again, then 5 years ater repealed etc.

2- As JM suggested - some sort of offence of interfering with a registered hunt, perhaps in a similar way to the aggravated trespass law but not require somebody to be trespassing for it to occur. It should also include a harassment section - following people around filming them is harassment and ought to be dealt with as such.
Crucially though it should come with the power to confiscate all equipment and vehicles used knowingly or unknowingly  to facilitate the offence, powers which the police have used very effectively against poachers and which would really help hunts.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (17 May 2015)

Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma! 

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.


----------



## Judgemental (18 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma! 

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.
		
Click to expand...

This is a very important issue and was clearly set out by The Prime Minister verbally on a least four occasions, during the Election Campaign, notwithstanding discussing the matter on the Andrew Marr show.

Coupled to the crystal clear statement in The Conservative Manifesto that The Hunting Act 2004 would be repealed.

Therefore, plainly millions of people voted for repeal and with immediate effect.

One assumes you do not have vast herds of deer eating your grass and crops? Along with spreading Lymes Disease to your horses?


----------



## Cinnamontoast (18 May 2015)

I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?


----------



## Judgemental (18 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?
		
Click to expand...

No because it is a bad law and bad laws have to be expunged quickly.

The old adage of "Be you ever so high you are not above the law". Therefore if the law is bad then, it is the most important thing to correct, so that a bad law is not above the people.


----------



## Lizzie66 (18 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?
		
Click to expand...

You are correct there are more important things to consider and I doubt that very many people voted for or against Conservatives solely based on hunting with hounds. However, this was on the Conservative manifesto and they will be keen to try and see delivery on as many items as possible on their manifesto and it is probably a fairly easy one to deliver if SNP abstain as they said they would. They will also be keen to try and maintain the support of the hunting community as they have been volunteering in their droves to support MPs in marginal seats.


----------



## {51248} (18 May 2015)

I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.


----------



## rosepa (18 May 2015)

pakkasham, is that not what hunting really is though - a sport which results in animals being killed? :/


----------



## Cinnamontoast (18 May 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			You are correct there are more important things to consider and I doubt that very many people voted for or against Conservatives solely based on hunting with hounds. However, this was on the Conservative manifesto and they will be keen to try and see delivery on as many items as possible on their manifesto and it is probably a fairly easy one to deliver if SNP abstain as they said they would. They will also be keen to try and maintain the support of the hunting community as they have been volunteering in their droves to support MPs in marginal seats.
		
Click to expand...

I have seen a crazy no,her of posts elsewhere saying this very thing, that they would vote away from the Conservatives purely because of the Hunting Act being potentially repealed. I was and remain dumbstruck!


----------



## Judgemental (18 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			I have seen a crazy no,her of posts elsewhere saying this very thing, that they would vote away from the Conservatives purely because of the Hunting Act being potentially repealed. I was and remain dumbstruck!
		
Click to expand...

Fear not, repeal with happen. That's why I called this thread The Acting Act 2004. Because in my opinion, it is a farce.

Now why is it going to be repealed, For the following reasons, especially as it's a Free Vote.

1. All the new boys and girls in Parliament on the Conservative benches will want to please the Prime Minister, mindful of their careers.

2. All the old boys and girls will be similarly disposed. None of them will want to have a black mark on their career path for the sake of a fox or two. Furthermore if the vote were tight those who 'sank the boat' would not be very popular. For example if they wanted to set down their own particular legislation etc. Whips are best smiled at whilst one goes into the Yes Lobby on a Free Vote. That is an understatement. Call it Public School Management Tactics. I include the Blue Foxes in that scenario.

3. As for the SNP. I wonder if discretion is the better part of valour and Mrs Sturgeon can see which side her bread is buttered and she can get more out of Mr Cameron for a few foxes and deer hunted than muddying the waters. Perhaps she has already she done a deal, as it is squarely an English and Welsh matter. I certainly would, because it will not effect the SNP support in Scotland in the slightest. Whereas the SNP will applaud her for having Mr Cameron on a string for free (she sells the English and Welsh foxes and deer - which she did not have to buy) and gets all sorts of monetary concessions that are part of the SNP's manifesto.


----------



## marmalade76 (18 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma! 

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.
		
Click to expand...


Totally agree, and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, OP.


----------



## Judgemental (19 May 2015)

marmalade76 said:



			Totally agree, and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, OP.
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry marmalade I won't, because the consequences of not supporting a repeal vote will be rather like, 'Kicking a Hound at the Meet', 'Heading the fox in the hunt of the season' or 'upsetting the biggest landowner as an individual, so that the hunt is banned, if one is ever out within a five mile radius of the estate or farm'.


----------



## Amymay (19 May 2015)

My views have changed over the years, and I for one vehemently hope there is no repeal.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

rosepa said:



			pakkasham, is that not what hunting really is though - a sport which results in animals being killed? :/
		
Click to expand...

That's exactly what hunting is, IMHO.


----------



## Fellewell (19 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.
		
Click to expand...

When your pet pooch presents you with a small, or even large furry trophy, he's not being 'sporting' at all. He'd still track and kill it whether you were there or not. It's just nature, red in tooth and claw.

As for repeal, my main concern is that people who don't know the difference between Walt Disney and real life won't change their misguided behaviour.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 May 2015)

I doubt that the hunting act will be repealed. I don't think that the average person in the street would like it to return to how it was.

IMHO, many people think that the issue has already been adequately dealt with. They see that hunting, with all its spectacle, continues albeit in a more regulated and humane form. Hunting has been seen to be 'modernised', if you like.

It will be interesting to see how the newbie Tory MPs react if a storm of anti repeal sentiment kicks up in their constituencies.

The SNP issue is very interesting. Will they use the right to abstain on the hunting vote as a bargaining tool to be stashed away for later? Hmmm, maybe so.


----------



## Lizzie66 (19 May 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			I doubt that the hunting act will be repealed. I don't think that the average person in the street would like it to return to how it was.

IMHO, many people think that the issue has already been adequately dealt with. They see that hunting, with all its spectacle, continues albeit in a more regulated and humane form. Hunting has been seen to be 'modernised', if you like.

It will be interesting to see how the newbie Tory MPs react if a storm of anti repeal sentiment kicks up in their constituencies.

The SNP issue is very interesting. Will they use the right to abstain on the hunting vote as a bargaining tool to be stashed away for later? Hmmm, maybe so.
		
Click to expand...

I think it will but I think it will be linked back to the original plan which was the middle way whereby animal welfare is key and hunts are regulated. There will be nothing to stop hunts continuing to hunt trails if they so desire, but at least we then get back to maintain fox numbers in the most appropriate and most humane manner.


----------



## Tea Drinker (19 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.
		
Click to expand...

So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then? Or perhaps is it only acceptable to make it a sport if you eat the quarry at the end? 
And if you eat it, does it matter if the method chosen to kill the animal gave "sport" to those taking part? So the end justifies the means perhaps??!

And we shoot pigeons on our farm all summer long. Partly because they do damage to our crops (especially the peas) but also because it's wonderful sport. sometimes we eat them, sometimes we don't. How would you legislate for that kind of killing that falls into many camps? Bit like fox-hunting really which is part vermin service but in doing so, has a wonderful by-product of giving wonderful days over countryside to the mounted followers.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			When your pet pooch presents you with a small, or even large furry trophy, he's not being 'sporting' at all. He'd still track and kill it whether you were there or not. It's just nature, red in tooth and claw.

As for repeal, my main concern is that people who don't know the difference between Walt Disney and real life won't change their misguided behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then? 

Only if they were made into sports.
Though these offend me less than fox hunting, because there is less of a chase.


Or perhaps is it only acceptable to make it a sport if you eat the quarry at the end? 

I think the activity as a whole is more acceptable if done for reasons of pest control or obtaining food, but to make killing into a sport, or make a sport out of killing, is completely immoral.

And if you eat it, does it matter if the method chosen to kill the animal gave "sport" to those taking part? 
Yes, the sport aspect is immoral.

And we shoot pigeons on our farm all summer long. Partly because they do damage to our crops (especially the peas)

that's OK

but also because it's wonderful sport. 

but this is immoral. You're saying you like killing animals for fun.

How would you legislate for that kind of killing that falls into many camps? Bit like fox-hunting really which is part vermin service 

Vermin (if that's what they are) control is fine, but how many people are needed to actually do that ? 

but in doing so, has a wonderful by-product of giving wonderful days over countryside to the mounted followers.     

this is the immoral bit.


----------



## Lizzie66 (19 May 2015)

Pakkasham your argument is extremely confused. 

Angling is a sport a by product might be food on the table for tea but as like as not they are returned to whence they came. People do it because they enjoy it.

On the same basis fox-hunting is a method of vermin control. People who follow it do so for a number of reasons, some to help with the vermin control, some because they like to watch the hounds work, some for a nice ride across countryside that would otherwise be closed to them and some because they enjoy the social aspect. The fox is sometimes caught and killed and as frequently escapes free from harm. The "chase" aspect ensures that the best  are more likely to escape, whereas the weaker are more likely to be caught and killed. This is as nature intended and is what leads to a well balanced and healthy population. No-one actually has a thirst for blood or "enjoys" the kill aspect. There is a satisfaction in knowing the hounds did their job.

I am sure that I won't change your mind and just as sure that you won't change mine. However its amazing how many senior folks from LACS have migrated from an anti hunting viewpoint to a pro hunting one, I don't think you will find any masters who have gone the other way.


----------



## Countryman (19 May 2015)

Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment from any part of a process where, at some point, an animal has been killed. This includes the eating of meat, and indeed also grain and cereals, where pest control has been carried out. I hope you do not *enjoy* driving your car, as it is killing many moths as you travel. Such is your right. However, your views are held by a very small minority. Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

Lizzie, sorry if I've confused you.  My belief is that making the killing of an animal (however necessary and humane it may be) into a sport is immoral.


"On the same basis fox-hunting is a method of vermin control."

Which may or may not be actually necessary; there have been arguments on both sides about this.  However, this is not a part of my argument.

"People who follow it do so for a number of reasons, some because they like to watch the hounds work, some for a nice ride across countryside that would otherwise be closed to them and some because they enjoy the social aspect."

This is exactly what turns it into a sport.

"The fox is sometimes caught and killed and as frequently escapes free from harm. The "chase" aspect ensures that the best are more likely to escape, whereas the weaker are more likely to be caught and killed. This is as nature intended and is what leads to a well balanced and healthy population. No-one actually has a thirst for blood or "enjoys" the kill aspect."

Nevertheless,  the point of the hunt is to try and kill the fox.  No hunt operates by chasing a fox for a while and then deliberately letting it get away.  The intention is to kill.  The intention of the participants is to enjoy the events that lead up to the kill.  The participants could not enjoy the events if the kill was not the intention.

"However its amazing how many senior folks from LACS have migrated from an anti hunting viewpoint to a pro hunting one, I don't think you will find any masters who have gone the other way.      "

TBH, I don't really care.  My purpose here is to state my own opinions, not to justify other peoples.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 May 2015)

Pakkasham.

I think your position is very well explained, and I am in agreement with it and would also add that in my view killing animals for sport is medieval and archaic.

While some may think that it is okay because hunting is fun, and may come up with arguments as to why it should return, one thing that cannot be changed is that animals are killed for sport...whatever the reason or apparent justifications.

That cannot be right.


----------



## Judgemental (19 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.
		
Click to expand...

Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

"Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment ...."

That's not what I said, so don't put words into my mouth and then complain about it.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

"
 Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others.   " 

In a very broad sense, isn't all legislation based on the concept of enforcing morality ?


----------



## Lizzie66 (19 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then? 

Only if they were made into sports.
Though these offend me less than fox hunting, because there is less of a chase.
		
Click to expand...

This is where your argument is confused. 

On your argument if the huntsman went out on his own with hounds and despatched the fox in the pre-ban method but no-one was with him this is OK as there is no sport it is one man doing his job. 

However at the second point you say you find the chase offensive, so is it fox-hunting or fox-hunting as a sport that is the problem ?

The sport aspect is people going watching the hounds do their job. You might find this morally wrong and offensive others don't.

Many go on safari to Africa and watch lions chase and kill their prey, is this offensive ? 

Why should your sense of morality override mine ? 

If the Burns report had concluded that fox-hunting with hounds was cruel then I would have had to rethink my viewpoint but it didn't. It actually found that it was the better method (second only to a clean shot with high powered rifle).

I find it immoral to pick a method of pest control that is detrimental to species welfare due to an emotive and prejudiced viewpoint of MPs that were openly stating that the ban would be one in the eye for "toffs".


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.
		
Click to expand...

Low flying (legally defined as being closer than 500ft to any person, animal, vehicle, or structure) is illegal.  If you can read the registration of a low-flying aircraft then you should report the incident to the CAA.

As regards my 'wing and a prayer' argument, I note that you disparage them but do not provide counter-arguments.


----------



## {51248} (19 May 2015)

As probably my last post today, may I add that I do not believe it immoral to enjoy the sport of discussing hunting.


----------



## Fellewell (19 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's the humans who step in and take over, thereby hastening a humane conclusion to this form of culling. The old picture of the fox 'killed by hounds' was a carcass thrown to hounds having been flushed and shot by a terrierman.

That's a lovely aeroplane. I expect it took part in dogfights over Europe. Should we argue the morality of that? There is no black and white (let me invoke Godwin's Law)

Adolf Hitler banned fox-hunting in Nazi Germany. Like so many AR people he didn't really care for animals he just hated people.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 May 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.
		
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?


----------



## Judgemental (19 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?
		
Click to expand...

I take the view that the cruelty is not to the quarry but to the hounds with the constraints of The Hunting Act 2004.

Hounds are bred to hunt a live quarry (save those for the clean boot) and several hundred years of carefully honed breeding has gone into the current packs.

That breeding cannot be changed and to ask hounds to hunt a smelly rag is absurd and cruel because it confuses their in bred/built sensibilities.

Too many hounds have been soured as a result.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 May 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.
		
Click to expand...

Judgemental - it was the above I was referring to


----------



## marmalade76 (19 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			What has that got to do with if hunting with hounds is repealed ?
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree, and also add that we get low flying Chinooks and those other big army planes and they've never bothered any of my horses at all.


----------



## Countryman (19 May 2015)

I understand that people may themselves find taking enjoyment in an aspect of a process which may have other aspects involving death as immoral. This is the case with hunting - death of a fox is irrelevant to the day's sport. However I wonder quite how many of these people know that while to live by their own moral code they must be vegan (eating meat is done purely for enjoyment-in this day and age, there are many substitutes and vitamin supplements, and by buying meat you pay for an animal to be killed) but that they also must avoid practically everything in modern life - as somewhere along the line, almost everything humans enjoy, from eating, hunting to gardening, results in some sort of death at one point or another in the process.


----------



## Fellewell (19 May 2015)

Countryman said:



			Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment from any part of a process where, at some point, an animal has been killed. This includes the eating of meat, and indeed also grain and cereals, where pest control has been carried out. I hope you do not *enjoy* driving your car, as it is killing many moths as you travel. Such is your right. However, your views are held by a very small minority. Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent points Countryman. Is he killing Cinnabar Moths do you know? Because if he's also pulling ragwort this is complete savagery (whatever happened to Esther Hegt? Those were epic threads). Interestingly another Dutch biologist conducted an experiment which concluded that 2 insects are killed on your number plate for every 6.2 miles travelled. Perhaps we should all ride bicycles, of course you'd swallow quite a few but they might have nutritional value so would not have died in vain.


----------



## Judgemental (19 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Judgemental - it was the above I was referring to
		
Click to expand...

I will confess to hitting the wrong posting as the sun was over my shoulder and diffused the screen.

However nothing spices up these debates like a bit of variety and I was aiming at pakkasham.

Clearly I would have been a failure in a dog fight, or should I say hound fight if I could not read the screen with the sun at the wrong angle and my missiles would be wide of the mark.

Don't think we have had a spitfire on the forum hitherto. Must make him feel at home.


----------



## {51248} (20 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			That's a lovely aeroplane. I expect it took part in dogfights over Europe. Should we argue the morality of that?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it saw active service in WW2 (google 'Grace Spitfire').  I'll be happy to discuss the morality of warfare if you want, but this is a hunting forum and the thread title is regarding the repeal of the hunting act, not investigation into the rules of war and war crimes.


----------



## {51248} (20 May 2015)

Countryman said:



			death of a fox is irrelevant to the day's sport..
		
Click to expand...

  I don't think so... the intent is to gain enjoyment in an activity in which a fox is deliberately chased and killed.


----------



## {51248} (20 May 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			This is where your argument is confused. 

QUOTE]

Maybe not so much confused and badly put.  Mea culpa.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fellewell (20 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			Yes, it saw active service in WW2 (google 'Grace Spitfire').  I'll be happy to discuss the morality of warfare if you want, but this is a hunting forum and the thread title is regarding the repeal of the hunting act, not investigation into the rules of war and war crimes.
		
Click to expand...

There is a comparison to be made; if one is vehemently against the killing of foxes then surely this objection should extend to all living beings across-the-board, ie; hounds,horses,foot followers and children on ponies. There you have the saboteurs Rules of Engagement, everything but the fox is fair game. Bit hypocritical isn't it?

I have no wish to discuss rules of war or whether people sifted through Dresden looking for injured foxes. The first casualty of war is truth, as we all know.

Back 'on message' for you; controlling numbers of foxes ensures health and sufficient habitat for all wildlife. If you think trapping, gassing or poisoning is more humane as control then I fear you've been misled.


----------



## fburton (20 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Back 'on message' for you; controlling numbers of foxes ensures health and sufficient habitat for all wildlife. If you think trapping, gassing or poisoning is more humane as control then I fear you've been misled.
		
Click to expand...

How much do fox populations go up if they are not 'controlled' by human hand? Isn't it the case that hunting makes very little difference to overall fox numbers, with many more being killed e.g. on the road? (Obviously, this varies a bit depending on geography.)

There is a separate argument for killing particular 'rogue' foxes that have become a problem with livestock - but that is different from 'controlling numbers'.


----------



## Fellewell (20 May 2015)

fburton said:



			How much do fox populations go up if they are not 'controlled' by human hand? Isn't it the case that hunting makes very little difference to overall fox numbers, with many more being killed e.g. on the road? (Obviously, this varies a bit depending on geography.)

There is a separate argument for killing particular 'rogue' foxes that have become a problem with livestock - but that is different from 'controlling numbers'.
		
Click to expand...

But they are being controlled by human hand, that's the point. It is legal to snare, trap and shoot foxes even in urban areas and when outside agencies get involved there's no telling how many foxes are unnecessarily suffering.


----------



## lar (20 May 2015)

So the argument for repeal is purely for reasons of control?

And the argument against is that chasing a mammal for enjoyment is barbaric?

So 
Repeal the Act and allow the hunt staff and them only to hunt as they used to. Everyone else who just wants a nice time galloping around the countryside can carry on drag/trail hunting.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (20 May 2015)

Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad! 

I confess I'm a little bemused by the whole hunting/shooting thing. It's ok to go shooting, which results in food for the table, although in this day and age, very few, if any, need this to feed themselves. It's not ok to fox hunt, the only result is a dead fox (how often is a hunt 'successful'?) It's encouraged to shoot rabbits, I think, because they're pests. Pigeons too? A bloke used to shoot pigeons at the yard, I'd take some for the dogs, but some were left on the muck heap.


----------



## {51248} (21 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			if one is vehemently against the killing of foxes then surely this objection should extend to all living beings across-the-board,.
		
Click to expand...

I am not vehemently against the killing of foxes.  I *am* vehemently against a sport being made out of it.


----------



## {51248} (21 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad! 

I confess I'm a little bemused by the whole hunting/shooting thing. It's ok to go shooting, which results in food for the table, although in this day and age, very few, if any, need this to feed themselves. It's not ok to fox hunt, the only result is a dead fox (how often is a hunt 'successful'?) It's encouraged to shoot rabbits, I think, because they're pests. Pigeons too? A bloke used to shoot pigeons at the yard, I'd take some for the dogs, but some were left on the muck heap.
		
Click to expand...

I fully accept that it is necessary to cull, kill, or otherwise control animals that are pests / kill or harm livestock / harm crops.  My point is that it is immoral to make a sport out of it.  So, here in full is my thesis....

It may or may not be necessary to kill foxes.  There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most effective means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary).   There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most humane means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary).   There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

However, if it is necessary to kill foxes, then I believe it is immoral to make that a sport out of that process.


----------



## fburton (21 May 2015)

Couldn't be clearer.

(Quite separate from this - I would still be interested to know how many more foxes there would be if they weren't deliberately killed.)


----------



## Tea Drinker (21 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			I fully accept that it is necessary to cull, kill, or otherwise control animals that are pests / kill or harm livestock / harm crops.  My point is that it is immoral to make a sport out of it.  So, here in full is my thesis....

It may or may not be necessary to kill foxes.  There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most effective means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary).   There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

Hunting with dogs may or may not be the most humane means of killing foxes (if such killing is necessary).   There are arguments on both sides.  I do not intend to involve myself in this discussion.

However, if it is necessary to kill foxes, then I believe it is immoral to make that a sport out of that process.
		
Click to expand...

OK - I get that but if, like me, you believe that hunting foxes with foxhounds IS the most effective and humane way to kill them (and that is it necessary to kill them - just ask the sows on our farm who lose their piglets to Mr Fox on a regular basis!) then to ensure we get the foxhounds to come on our farm and do the job we believe is necessary - then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job! 

The only way this happens is if the huntsman charges interested parties (ie the people on horses who want to come for a variety of reasons) a wodge of cash to have the privilege of riding on land that is private and otherwise inaccessible to them. It costs many tens of thousands of pounds to run a pack of foxhounds. Farmers cannot on their own pay for this.

So as farmers, we have a service done at no cost to us. Keeps British-produced pork prices down 
Foxes are dispatched using hounds. As a farmer, we believe that hounds provide the most effective method because they can only really catch the older/weaker fox who is typically the one hanging around our outdoor (free range if you like) pig unit. These are the problem foxes. The younger, spritely foxes tend to hunt far and wide over a large territory. As farmers and countrymen, we are deeply uncomfortable with hiring in rifle shooters who pretty much kill any fox passing through hence why we prefer foxhounds not man to do the killing. Rifle-operators do not discriminate on the age/health of a fox (plus we've witnessed too many bodged shots on foxes so we just won't have that kind of animal cruelty happen on our land).

The horse riders have each paid their daily fee to come and ride on land they otherwise cannot access. They may be there for the riding pleasure or to see hounds work. It does not matter to us as farmers why they are there. We suffer a small amount of land damage (from 80 horses riding across) but in return get a service we deem worthy of the 'cost'.

The countryside is a delicate equilibrium. The pressures of commerical farming and land development are ever present. As farmers, we constantly face pressure to produce food as cheaply as possible yet wanting to protect our lands (often inherited over generations) for our future children, both our own and for society, in general. One would hope that driving around our country that people generally like what they see; a mix of wildlife able to co-exist with modern farming/food production for the masses.

Take pheasant shooting. That too is a sport that people partake in for fun. Many pheasants are eaten but during the 2014/15 season, we were having to dump pheasants because game dealers had an oversupply and the public won't eat them. (Selling price dropped below 10p a bird in our area.) However 10% of our farm is put down to pheasant habitat now. Take away pheasant shooting and you'll see a wildlife haven ripped up and replaced with crops sprayed with insecticide. But having these wildlife havens also brings in more foxes.....!
I would put it to you that you have to park up your moral sensibilities and in this day and age, you have to accept what you see as "cruelty" or "immoral sport" in order to protect the greater good of the countryside and our wildlife in general. 

It's a really sensitive issue that on the face of it is morally repugnant. No sane person from any walk of life takes pleasure in the killing of a random animal! You have to look beyond the surface and see it from the point of view from people who really know the countryside and how it works. I don't want to come across as preachy but just like I would not presume to tell you the machinations of how spitfires work and function, it is hard to accept proclamations of cruelty based on people who have no working knowledge of the countryside's equilibrium.


----------



## Tea Drinker (21 May 2015)

Sorry for the essary. Urgh!


----------



## lar (21 May 2015)

Tea Drinker said:



			OK - I get that but if, like me, you believe that hunting foxes with foxhounds IS the most effective and humane way to kill them (and that is it necessary to kill them - just ask the sows on our farm who lose their piglets to Mr Fox on a regular basis!) then to ensure we get the foxhounds to come on our farm and do the job we believe is necessary - then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job! 

The only way this happens is if the huntsman charges interested parties (ie the people on horses who want to come for a variety of reasons) a wodge of cash to have the privilege of riding on land that is private and otherwise inaccessible to them. It costs many tens of thousands of pounds to run a pack of foxhounds. Farmers cannot on their own pay for this.

So as farmers, we have a service done at no cost to us. Keeps British-produced pork prices down 
Foxes are dispatched using hounds. As a farmer, we believe that hounds provide the most effective method because they can only really catch the older/weaker fox who is typically the one hanging around our outdoor (free range if you like) pig unit. These are the problem foxes. The younger, spritely foxes tend to hunt far and wide over a large territory. As farmers and countrymen, we are deeply uncomfortable with hiring in rifle shooters who pretty much kill any fox passing through hence why we prefer foxhounds not man to do the killing. Rifle-operators do not discriminate on the age/health of a fox (plus we've witnessed too many bodged shots on foxes so we just won't have that kind of animal cruelty happen on our land).

The horse riders have each paid their daily fee to come and ride on land they otherwise cannot access. They may be there for the riding pleasure or to see hounds work. It does not matter to us as farmers why they are there. We suffer a small amount of land damage (from 80 horses riding across) but in return get a service we deem worthy of the 'cost'.

The countryside is a delicate equilibrium. The pressures of commerical farming and land development are ever present. As farmers, we constantly face pressure to produce food as cheaply as possible yet wanting to protect our lands (often inherited over generations) for our future children, both our own and for society, in general. One would hope that driving around our country that people generally like what they see; a mix of wildlife able to co-exist with modern farming/food production for the masses.

Take pheasant shooting. That too is a sport that people partake in for fun. Many pheasants are eaten but during the 2014/15 season, we were having to dump pheasants because game dealers had an oversupply and the public won't eat them. (Selling price dropped below 10p a bird in our area.) However 10% of our farm is put down to pheasant habitat now. Take away pheasant shooting and you'll see a wildlife haven ripped up and replaced with crops sprayed with insecticide. But having these wildlife havens also brings in more foxes.....!
I would put it to you that you have to park up your moral sensibilities and in this day and age, you have to accept what you see as "cruelty" or "immoral sport" in order to protect the greater good of the countryside and our wildlife in general. 

It's a really sensitive issue that on the face of it is morally repugnant. No sane person from any walk of life takes pleasure in the killing of a random animal! You have to look beyond the surface and see it from the point of view from people who really know the countryside and how it works. I don't want to come across as preachy but just like I would not presume to tell you the machinations of how spitfires work and function, it is hard to accept proclamations of cruelty based on people who have no working knowledge of the countryside's equilibrium.
		
Click to expand...

So - back to my suggestion for a compromise.  Hunts start to operate in parallel.  Hunt staff are the only ones allowed to hunt live quarry.  Everyone else carries on trail/drag hunting.

Just out of interest - how is a hunted fox ACTUALLY despatched?  A lot of the emotive anti hunt sentiment seems to revolve around a fox being "ripped to death" by hounds.  Is this factually accurate - or is the fox already dead by this point?  I only ask because I don't think I've ever seen a counter argument from a hunt supporter and it does seem to be what causes most bile from the antis.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (21 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad! 

Bit Rude !!  The forum is for everyone not just those whose views you agree with.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tea Drinker (21 May 2015)

I'm afraid as landowners, we do not allow the hunt to come over our land if purely trail hunting. Other landowners feel the same, I know. Horses in those numbers cause damage to the farmland so that just isn't going to happen. Where is the benefit to us farmers?!
As it stands, we use guns to despatch any foxes that are found by the Hunt at the moment in the course of their trail hunting. It's not our preferred way of controlling fox numbers because we no longer know if this fox is a young or healthy one or whether it's one of the problem ones we tend to get honing in our pigs! 
Foxes are still getting killed just as they were pre ban - it's just now it's indiscriminate whereas pre-ban we feel that we were at least managing to be selective! It's quite rare for a pack of foxhounds to catch a young healthy fox. They outstrip the hounds easy peasy.

How is a fox kiilled by hounds?
- Quickly!

The lead hound will go for the back of a foxes neck and break it. Just like terriers do with rats. Centuries of breeding mean a foxhound knows how to do one thing : kill a fox as efficiently as it can. The kill is instant. Mother Nature is good at ensuring things like that. You don't send a cat in to kill a fox. Cats kill birds. Foxhounds kill foxes. And so on...
For sure the second, third and fourth hounds also like to "kill" the fox too so they too will go for its neck but by then the poor thing is dead. That's where this idea of being "ripped to death" comes in. The first one kills it outright though. Foxes don't outlive foxhound jaws. It's just not possible! It's not a grey area here. A fox gets away without a scratch. Or it's stone dead in an instant. (Which is why we dislike rifle shooters. They cannot be sure of this black and white outcome. They are usually shooting at night and from 100's of yards away.)
The fox is not "ripped to death". It has its neck broken. 
As soon as possible, the Huntsman will be off his horse and remove the fox for it to be disposed of. There is no meat on it so it's not like the hounds are all feasting on it. Once the fox is dead, all but a couple of hounds lose interest in it. Like a terrier does with a rat. It's in their nature. They are already looking for their next prey. 
Like every other carnivorous animal in the world.


----------



## {51248} (21 May 2015)

Tea Drinker said:



			OK - I get that but if......... then we need to make it viable for the huntsman to drive over and do his job! 
.
		
Click to expand...

OK, we're all intelligent people, lets sit down together and devise a way to do that.


----------



## millikins (21 May 2015)

I don't really get the "immoral" argument. If we assume (for the sake of this post) that controlling fox numbers and maintaining a healthy population is effectively done by hunting them with hounds and is a popular choice amongst farmers, then why is a hunt follower immoral for participating in the activity?


----------



## {51248} (21 May 2015)

millikins said:



			I don't really get the "immoral" argument.
		
Click to expand...

I guess that's why you support hunting and I don't.


----------



## fburton (21 May 2015)

Doesn't it come down the nature of the "pleasure" or enjoyment obtained from participating? And whether the activity is considered a necessary evil, or a wholly good thing?

Would making a pastime of attending state executions (in countries where it is done and considered a necessary evil) be immoral? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/who-watches-americas-executions/379044/) My feeling is that it _would_ be immoral, but then I suppose it would depend on the motivation of the person attending (and I also think the death penalty is an _unnecessary_ evil). 

Likewise, would going to watch animals being slaughtered be considered immoral? It could be argued by someone proposing to do so that they were taking pleasure in "a job well done" - though personally I would be very suspicious of such an argument.

Of course, people following hounds to hunt foxes used also to be a tradition, so it was already normalized as a socially acceptable activity. But apart from that is it really _so_ different in principle from the previous hypothetical example?


----------



## lar (21 May 2015)

Tea Drinker said:



			I'm afraid as landowners, we do not allow the hunt to come over our land if purely trail hunting. Other landowners feel the same, I know. Horses in those numbers cause damage to the farmland so that just isn't going to happen. Where is the benefit to us farmers?!
As it stands, we use guns to despatch any foxes that are found by the Hunt at the moment in the course of their trail hunting. It's not our preferred way of controlling fox numbers because we no longer know if this fox is a young or healthy one or whether it's one of the problem ones we tend to get honing in our pigs! 
Foxes are still getting killed just as they were pre ban - it's just now it's indiscriminate whereas pre-ban we feel that we were at least managing to be selective! It's quite rare for a pack of foxhounds to catch a young healthy fox. They outstrip the hounds easy peasy.

How is a fox kiilled by hounds?
- Quickly!

The lead hound will go for the back of a foxes neck and break it. Just like terriers do with rats. Centuries of breeding mean a foxhound knows how to do one thing : kill a fox as efficiently as it can. The kill is instant. Mother Nature is good at ensuring things like that. You don't send a cat in to kill a fox. Cats kill birds. Foxhounds kill foxes. And so on...
For sure the second, third and fourth hounds also like to "kill" the fox too so they too will go for its neck but by then the poor thing is dead. That's where this idea of being "ripped to death" comes in. The first one kills it outright though. Foxes don't outlive foxhound jaws. It's just not possible! It's not a grey area here. A fox gets away without a scratch. Or it's stone dead in an instant. (Which is why we dislike rifle shooters. They cannot be sure of this black and white outcome. They are usually shooting at night and from 100's of yards away.)
The fox is not "ripped to death". It has its neck broken. 
As soon as possible, the Huntsman will be off his horse and remove the fox for it to be disposed of. There is no meat on it so it's not like the hounds are all feasting on it. Once the fox is dead, all but a couple of hounds lose interest in it. Like a terrier does with a rat. It's in their nature. They are already looking for their next prey. 
Like every other carnivorous animal in the world.
		
Click to expand...

But if the hunt in parallel were disposing of your foxes - just one or two hunt staff doing the pest control job?  In any event there obviously are landowners in sufficient numbers who are willing to allow trail hunting on their land hence the actual increase in numbers following hunts.  The point I'm trying to make is that if you remove the element of followers gaining enjoyment from an animal being killed then to my mind the argument for repeal to allow humane destruction of foxes is immeasurably strengthened.

And thank you very much for your excellent explanation of the actual mechanics of the fox's despatch.  It is very much as I thought and I don't understand why those who are pro hunt don't make this counter argument more strongly.  I see the phrase "ripped to death by a pack of hounds" so often in anti hunt publicity and it is such an emotive phrase that I do feel if this could be proved more often to be a nonsense it would again strengthen the pro-hunt lobby's hand.


----------



## fburton (21 May 2015)

lar said:



			And thank you very much for your excellent explanation of the actual mechanics of the fox's despatch.  It is very much as I thought and I don't understand why those who are pro hunt don't make this counter argument more strongly.  I see the phrase "ripped to death by a pack of hounds" so often in anti hunt publicity and it is such an emotive phrase that I do feel if this could be proved more often to be a nonsense it would again strengthen the pro-hunt lobby's hand.
		
Click to expand...

You'd think there would be video clips available - and if they provided conclusive evidence for one or other side's argument, I'd expect them to be shown in short order.

I don't _know_ which is right; I suspect that it isn't totally black and white - or, rather, that the fox is usually killed very quickly by having its neck broken, but that sometimes some "ripping" may occur prior to that event. As I said, I don't know for sure.


----------



## Countryman (21 May 2015)

Animal welfare law should be based on just that - Animal Welfare. Whether or not the hounds eat ("rip") the carcass of the fox *after* they have humanely killed it is frankly beside the point. Some do, some pack's - I think Fell Hounds - don't. Unfortunately many people seem to feel strongly about this.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (21 May 2015)

Is the chase not supposed to be distressing (and therefore cruel)  for a fox also ?


----------



## millikins (21 May 2015)

Surely all animals are chased frequently without suffering particular stress. How many rabbits does a fox chase before it catches one? Dogs chase cats, cats aren't traumatised by it. I favour the argument that all living things (us included) have an awareness of the nearness of danger and until the danger encroaches closer than the ability to run away or reach safety there is little or no fear. I agree the fox will probably be afraid when hounds catch up with it but so it will be if snared or badly shot and it is accepted that foxes will be controlled by one means or another. And if hunting should remain banned because it's cruel to chase a fox or a deer, why are rabbits and rats not protected by law for the same reason?


----------



## abb123 (21 May 2015)

I doubt that the act will be repealed in this parliament. There isn't the public opinion to back a repeal, I don't think it would go down well to put parliamentary discussion time to it when there are more important things, and it was not a main part of the Tory campaign so they would struggle to say that they have a mandate to push it through.

Also, as the Tories have a very small majority they would need a three line whip. This would be highly unlikely for items such as this as MPs would normally have a free vote where it is a matter of conscience.


----------



## millikins (21 May 2015)

I think it was in the manifesto to offer a free vote. The SNP have said they will abstain which would make things far more uncertain.


----------



## abb123 (21 May 2015)

The SNP are already saying that they are considering voting due to the large number of people that have contacted them asking them to vote against repeal.


----------



## Countryman (21 May 2015)

Yes, I'm confident there is no cruelty in the (frankly short) chase. Indeed much of the time the fox may not be aware he is being pursued - he is merely keeping away, just as they do when a dogwalker crosses the neighbouring field. In addition to this, as he has never been caught before, he is not expecting to be caught- he knows he can get away, and he has no premonition or idea of the concept of death.

Abb123, if the SNP pledge to vote on it, then repeal will just have to wait a few months  until English Votes for English Laws legislation locks them out from voting on any such matter entirely.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (21 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:





cinnamontoast said:



			Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad! 

Bit Rude !!  The forum is for everyone not just those whose views you agree with.
		
Click to expand...

Please don't be ridiculous. In what way am I trying to keep the forum only for me? Looking at your join date, I doubt you were here for that poster who seriously believed that ragwort didn't really harm horses and should be allowed to grow freely to encourage the cinnabar moths, sod the horses. She was, in many people's opinions, quite odd. I think you are being overly dramatic.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Cinnamontoast (21 May 2015)

For those interested in the mechanics of how the hounds may despatch the fox: (text too long for pasting) http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2015)

Any comments relevant to Deer as a pest are conspicuous by their absence and the issues of not being able to safely shoot them, on Dartmoor and Exmoor or in many other areas.

For those who have only recently joined the thread it is entitled The Acting Act 2004 because the act is a farce.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:





Smurf's Gran said:



			Please don't be ridiculous. In what way am I trying to keep the forum only for me? Looking at your join date, I doubt you were here for that poster who seriously believed that ragwort didn't really harm horses and should be allowed to grow freely to encourage the cinnabar moths, sod the horses. She was, in many people's opinions, quite odd. I think you are being overly dramatic.
		
Click to expand...

Cinnamon Toast, I really dislike it when heated debates reduce into slanging matches where some people on here cannot cope with someone who has a different point of view and this is challenged.  At times responses range from personally insulting, condescending, to assuming that people are stupid as they have a different point of view, it makes the forum an unpleasant place and prevents proper debate, plus its not an adult way to behave,  but these types of comments are abundant in some of the more "lively" threads.  

In my reference to the forum being for everyone I suppose I was alluding to people being able to express their views without others assuming they must be mad, or insulting them.  (I am ridiculous / overly dramatic!! though I admit this is mild compared with some of the stuff) 

Plus your reference to this person was very unclear, it was not possible to tell as to whom you were referring  and if it was someone active on threads now, and in particular, active on this one !!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## fburton (22 May 2015)

Countryman said:



			Animal welfare law should be based on just that - Animal Welfare. Whether or not the hounds eat ("rip") the carcass of the fox *after* they have humanely killed it is frankly beside the point.
		
Click to expand...

Quite!



Countryman said:



			Yes, I'm confident there is no cruelty in the (frankly short) chase. Indeed much of the time the fox may not be aware he is being pursued - he is merely keeping away, just as they do when a dogwalker crosses the neighbouring field. In addition to this, as he has never been caught before, he is not expecting to be caught- he knows he can get away, and he has no premonition or idea of the concept of death.
		
Click to expand...

Would this argument also apply to dispatching sheep using suitably large 'hounds'? Or do prey species have a concept of death, know they might not get away, and are thus capable of suffering stress? I find it hard to accept Millikin's assertion that "all animals are chased frequently without suffering particular stress".



millikins said:



			... it is accepted that foxes will be controlled by one means or another.
		
Click to expand...

I accept that specific foxes may need to be 'taken out' because of the destructive habits they have acquired (or at least there are strong economic arguments to do so). I am not yet convinced overall numbers need to be controlled.




			And if hunting should remain banned because it's cruel to chase a fox or a deer, why are rabbits and rats not protected by law for the same reason?
		
Click to expand...

This does appear to be a glaring inconsistency, I agree.


----------



## Fellewell (22 May 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			Don't say her name, she'll ruddy well appear! Epic she was, for sure! Epically mad! 

I confess I'm a little bemused by the whole hunting/shooting thing. It's ok to go shooting, which results in food for the table, although in this day and age, very few, if any, need this to feed themselves. It's not ok to fox hunt, the only result is a dead fox (how often is a hunt 'successful'?) It's encouraged to shoot rabbits, I think, because they're pests. Pigeons too? A bloke used to shoot pigeons at the yard, I'd take some for the dogs, but some were left on the muck heap.
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I think we're safe. On the 2015 National Moth Recording Scheme there has been a range expansion of Cinnabar Moth in Scotland. She's probably north of the border as we speak.

I'm always bemused as to how the general public can sit down and be entertained by dozens of zebra being picked off by crocodiles and bison having to rely on death by hypovolemic shock when brought down by wolves. All followed and filmed by award winning camera crews. 

However, the humane culling of our own wildlife is completely beyond them. That's one heck of a disconnect!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Don't worry, I think we're safe. On the 2015 National Moth Recording Scheme there has been a range expansion of Cinnabar Moth in Scotland. She's probably north of the border as we speak.

I'm always bemused as to how the general public can sit down and be entertained by dozens of zebra being picked off by crocodiles and bison having to rely on death by hypovolemic shock when brought down by wolves. All followed and filmed by award winning camera crews. 

However, the humane culling of our own wildlife is completely beyond them. That's one heck of a disconnect!
		
Click to expand...


I think one of the differences is, is that animals are expressing natural behaviour in a mainly natural environment, whereas hunting with hounds is engineered by people for the purpose of sport. 

 In terms of the programmes you refer to,  I suppose many (myself included) would not blame the animal for following its nature in a natural environment where it is expressing instinctive behaviour.  I would however, expect people to behave differently and demonstrate more compassion etc.  

While many would argue that hounds are only expressing their natural behaviour in chasing foxes etc - foxhounds have been bred specifically for hunting, by people for the purposes  of sport and enjoyment of people.   Nature has not brought them together to chase and kill a fox - people have, and I think it is the killing for sport that many people find objectionable and outdated.

Also  I'm not sure that hunting is a "humane" form of culling either.


----------



## Fellewell (22 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I think one of the differences is, is that animals are expressing natural behaviour in a mainly natural environment, whereas hunting with hounds is engineered by people for the purpose of sport. 

 In terms of the programmes you refer to,  I suppose many (myself included) would not blame the animal for following its nature in a natural environment where it is expressing instinctive behaviour.  I would however, expect people to behave differently and demonstrate more compassion etc.  

While many would argue that hounds are only expressing their natural behaviour in chasing foxes etc - foxhounds have been bred specifically for hunting, by people for the purposes  of sport and enjoyment of people.   Nature has not brought them together to chase and kill a fox - people have, and I think it is the killing for sport that many people find objectionable and outdated.

Also  I'm not sure that hunting is a "humane" form of culling either.
		
Click to expand...


Mesolithic man first used dogs for hunting 20,000 years ago, his survival depended on their partnership. Using hounds has always been the most efficient/humane means of hunting/culling.

Your pet dog/cat will hunt and kill prey, especially if the prey is weak/sick.He will do this whether you are present or not, this is known as natural selection.

Assuming that animals do what they are bred for is nonsense. My family kept Sandringham gundogs, they were the best ratters ever (arguably not what they were bred for). You may argue that a Lab can be trained to hold an egg in his mouth without cracking it. I have seen a fox do the same thing, their instincts are the same.

You enjoy watching hunting on television, it's natural, of course it is. However man has a 20,000 year history of stepping in and hastening an end to this natural act. This is both natural and humane.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Mesolithic man first used dogs for hunting 20,000 years ago, his survival depended on their partnership. Using hounds has always been the most efficient/humane means of hunting/culling.

Your pet dog/cat will hunt and kill prey, especially if the prey is weak/sick.He will do this whether you are present or not, this is known as natural selection.


Assuming that animals do what they are bred for is nonsense. My family kept Sandringham gundogs, they were the best ratters ever (arguably not what they were bred for). You may argue that a Lab can be trained to hold an egg in his mouth without cracking it. I have seen a fox do the same thing, their instincts are the same.


You enjoy watching hunting on television, it's natural, of course it is. However man has a 20,000 year history of stepping in and hastening an end to this natural act. This is both natural and humane.
		
Click to expand...



I don't enjoy watching hunting on television actually, and for Fox hunting, man is not stepping in and hastening a natural act, man is setting the whole thing up for sport. 

Also re Mesolithic man - they may have depended on a relationship with dogs then, but man's survival does not depend on partnership with hounds now.  Hunting foxes is not necessary to survival these days. 

Re dogs and cats hunting and killing prey, Im unsure how this is relevant, but yes they may well hunt and kill things, but I would not deliberately set my dog / cat onto anything for the fun of it, and therein lies the difference.  

Not sure you understood my points tbh, as for saying that fox hunting is humane this is your opinion and that does not necessarily make it fact.


----------



## Tea Drinker (22 May 2015)

I believe hunting with hounds is the most humane form of culling.

From studies quoted in that "vet.." website someone posted above, "shooting is intrinsically unsafe and inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. Shooting can only be as certain and quick as death by hounds when a close or point blank shot is applied directly to the cranium, as happens in the slaughterhouse or when the hunted  deer is brought to bay. Clearly, this is not possible for foxes, stalked deer and hares. Even the most experienced marksmen,whether lamping for foxes at night, or stalking deer by day do not aim at the head; it is too small a target. "

Studies have shown the wounding rates by gun to be between 15 and 40% (also from that website above). That is not humane. 
There is a 0% wounding rate when hunting with hounds.

And let's not even go down the old gassing or trapping route!

However, what I will concede is that shooting kills far more than foxhunting with hounds ever has done. Marksmen shoot and kill hundreds if not thousands of foxes in our area. Which certainly makes it the most "effevtive" method of culling if we are too measure based on cold, hard numbers! Some will have been killed outright, some a week or two after being wounded. Either way, the fox dies.
When hunting with hounds, you'll typically only catch and kill the sub-prime foxes or pockets where there are "too many". And there are not masses of those. Take the 80/20 rule. 20% of the foxes probably do 80% of the damage. Foxhunting would seek to take out those 20%. Estates employing marksmen will be looking for a blanket 100%. And as a true country person, this is not a method of wildlfe management I could ever condone.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Thanks for the information Tea Drinker - very useful.

I suppose for me I just cannot get away from  the fact that a fox is killed for man's sport. 

This just does seem very wrong to me whatever the reason.


----------



## Tea Drinker (22 May 2015)

Trying hard not to be patronising but.... (and it's been said anything said before the word "but" should be disregarded!!)
....
It would seem to me that you (Smurf's Gran) are letting *your* issues cloud your judgement on what is best for the *fox*.

To be humane, you need to minimse the amount of suffering imposed. As a previous poster discussed above, animals have no conception of death, per se, but an inbuilt desire to keep themselves safe from 'trouble'. Hunting with hounds never results in an inhumane final position. Either the fox gets away with only temporary loss of breath (!) or he is killed in an instant. No other method of fox population control can give the same result. There are always compromises with every other method employed when imposing a manmade cull on a species that causes damage to manmade problems (eg food production/pigs/ wildlife habitat etc).
We humans have shaped the world we live in and we humans have to create manmade solutions. We cannot modfiy the planet we live on and then expect nature to adjust their own behaviour to suit man. Fox presents a problem for Rural Man.

And if some people take pleasure in seeing a necessary procedure done well (ie the skilled hunting of a fox by hounds), then there is no shame in that. 

A job they believe to be necessary and performed in the most professional way as possible. Without a healthy population of foxes, there would be no hunting. No continution of a countryman's skill honed over hundreds of years. Yes, it's a tradition but it's one based on integrity, respect and an overriding love for all these rural. They are not bloody thirsty sociopaths seeking meaningless killing of an animal. They are just like you only they live in tune with rural wildlife management. Those following the huntsman may do so out of interest in the hunting process 'done well' (and there is such skill involved in doing this job well) or perhaps they have no regard for the hunting per se and just wish to enjoy a day out over the countryside not usually accessible to them. They do not deserve the vitriol that some seek to attribute to them. Foxhunting is not a grotesque and spiteful process that some would initially claim it to be. It is so much more than that and interwoven through the fabric of rural Britain.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Tea Drinker said:



			Trying hard not to be patronising but.... (and it's been said anything said before the word "but" should be disregarded!!)
....
It would seem to me that you (Smurf's Gran) are letting *your* issues cloud your judgement on what is best for the *fox*.

To be humane, you need to minimse the amount of suffering imposed. As a previous poster discussed above, animals have no conception of death, per se, but an inbuilt desire to keep themselves safe from 'trouble'. Hunting with hounds never results in an inhumane final position. Either the fox gets away with only temporary loss of breath (!) or he is killed in an instant. No other method of fox population control can give the same result. There are always compromises with every other method employed when imposing a manmade cull on a species that causes damage to manmade problems (eg food production/pigs/ wildlife habitat etc).
We humans have shaped the world we live in and we humans have to create manmade solutions. We cannot modfiy the planet we live on and then expect nature to adjust their own behaviour to suit man. Fox presents a problem for Rural Man.

And if some people take pleasure in seeing a necessary procedure done well (ie the skilled hunting of a fox by hounds), then there is no shame in that. 

A job they believe to be necessary and performed in the most professional way as possible. Without a healthy population of foxes, there would be no hunting. No continution of a countryman's skill honed over hundreds of years. Yes, it's a tradition but it's one based on integrity, respect and an overriding love for all these rural. They are not bloody thirsty sociopaths seeking meaningless killing of an animal. They are just like you only they live in tune with rural wildlife management. Those following the huntsman may do so out of interest in the hunting process 'done well' (and there is such skill involved in doing this job well) or perhaps they have no regard for the hunting per se and just wish to enjoy a day out over the countryside not usually accessible to them. They do not deserve the vitriol that some seek to attribute to them. Foxhunting is not a grotesque and spiteful process that some would initially claim it to be. It is so much more than that and interwoven through the fabric of rural Britain.
		
Click to expand...

TD  I do feel rather patronised actually.   Because I am in disagreement with you I have issues ?  (I don't think you meant to offend in this though) 

I have never said that those who hunt are blood thirsty sociopaths, and I have friends also who hunt, but my " moral code" if you like, baulks at the fact that an animal is killed for sport.  To me this is wrong.  You may regard my philosophy as being simplistic - but its quite straightforward to me.

I am not getting into the detail of your post - I have been in that place many times before and feel it can be a waste of time, I can see your point of view and why you hold your beliefs, I just don't agree. 

I don't know what is best for the fox,  but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself.

I also think that the vitriol expressed on both sides of the argument has prevented a proper discussion of what may be a workable solution ( I don't know what solution might be btw)

However, I do think that my beliefs  ( or issues !!) are shared by a great many other people also, backed up by a number of opinion polls (which the validity of,  are often disputed endlessly on here)


----------



## millikins (22 May 2015)

Hunting was set up not as a sport but the most effective way to disperse the young adults before they can establish territories and breed and to kill those adults that were causing damage to livestock. The sporting aspect is secondary, not the main purpose but a necessary adjunct to fund it.


----------



## Tea Drinker (22 May 2015)

"I don't know what is best for the fox, but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself."

This pretty much sums up the fox hunting debate!
Parliament didn't need to spend 700 hours+ debating the issue. It's all said and done in that one sentence :-D


----------



## Fellewell (22 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I don't enjoy watching hunting on television actually, and for Fox hunting, man is not stepping in and hastening a natural act, man is setting the whole thing up for sport. 

Also re Mesolithic man - they may have depended on a relationship with dogs then, but man's survival does not depend on partnership with hounds now.  Hunting foxes is not necessary to survival these days. 

Re dogs and cats hunting and killing prey, Im unsure how this is relevant, but yes they may well hunt and kill things, but I would not deliberately set my dog / cat onto anything for the fun of it, and therein lies the difference.  

Not sure you understood my points tbh, as for saying that fox hunting is humane this is your opinion and that does not necessarily make it fact.
		
Click to expand...

I may not understand your points but at least I read them.

The point is relevant because when you give a puppy or kitten a toy he will 'kill' it so you have unwittingly encouraged his hunting behaviour whether you like it or not. Any other interpretation of this behaviour is pure anthropomorphism. Predators hunt. They're either good at it or they perish.

Man may have to 'direct' a hound towards the correct quarry, hounds would just as happily kill a cat as a fox if left to their own devices. But there is nothing artificial about it, whatever you believe.


----------



## Lizzie66 (22 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I have never said that those who hunt are blood thirsty sociopaths, and I have friends also who hunt, but my " moral code" if you like, baulks at the fact that an animal is killed for sport.  To me this is wrong.  You may regard my philosophy as being simplistic - but its quite straightforward to me.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't a sport. It is a job, a method of controlling pests.  The huntsman is there to ensure that, as far as he can tell, they are on the trail of the pest they are trying to control. 

It is funded by people who are prepared to pay to follow hounds on horse, foot or car. Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. The landowners that support hunting do so because the hunt provides a service and they weigh up the damage caused by the hunt compared to the damage caused by the fox. Many also consider the welfare of the fox and decide on balance that hunting with hounds is the most humane & selective method. 

Conservation and preservation are two words that get muddled along with animal welfare and animal rights. I believe in conservation and animal welfare. A sick or diseased animal is more likely to prey on farmed animals and is also more likely to suffer a prolonged and painful demise. The only way to successfully maintain a healthy population is to "test" its health, hunting with hounds does this other methods don't. A healthy fox will (9/10) get away probably without even knowing that it was at risk.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Tea Drinker said:



			"I don't know what is best for the fox, but I do know that while man makes a sport of its control, many will find that unacceptable - such as myself."

This pretty much sums up the fox hunting debate!

Parliament didn't need to spend 700 hours+ debating the issue. It's all said and done in that one sentence :-D
		
Click to expand...

Indeed   lets just put it to the vote and have done !!


----------



## respectedpony driver (22 May 2015)

It is wrong to set one lot of animals onto another for fun.There will never be a repeal in fact it should be tightened up.There are millions of us anti hunting country people who will lobby our MPs.Dont forget, if there is a vote it will be a free vote and not guided by the Party Whips.Also Manifesto's are not compulsory, only ideas.


----------



## lar (22 May 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			It isn't a sport. It is a job, a method of controlling pests.  The huntsman is there to ensure that, as far as he can tell, they are on the trail of the pest they are trying to control. 

It is funded by people who are prepared to pay to follow hounds on horse, foot or car. Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. The landowners that support hunting do so because the hunt provides a service and they weigh up the damage caused by the hunt compared to the damage caused by the fox. Many also consider the welfare of the fox and decide on balance that hunting with hounds is the most humane & selective method. 

.
		
Click to expand...

But surely 10 years on from the ban with more people than ever crashing about the countryside having a lovely time but NOT killing anything the idea that landowners would only allow "hunts" on their land to control foxes is null and void?

And as I KEEP saying - if you argue it is a service/most humane way to control the fox population then campaign for an amendment which will allow properly licenced professionals to provide this service but remove the hunt followers and you then remove the anti argument that hunting is about gaining pleasure from killing.


----------



## Sherston (22 May 2015)

Why do you all continue to let a thread like this go on and on and on????? Both sides that is of course!

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting. But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life. 

So I just don't know why you bother........

Enjoy the summer and the puppy and hound shows then horses will be in just like usual, but we can look forward to repeal.

Sherston


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 May 2015)

Sherston said:



			But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life. 

So I just don't know why you bother........
		
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. I, for one, am following this thread with interest. Am always prepared to change my point of view if given a convincing reason to do so.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 May 2015)

Sherston said:



			Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) 

Sherston
		
Click to expand...


And this is just the type of unnecessary insulting and negative comment that I object to. With the assumption that people who do not agree must  be ignorant in some way.


----------



## Judgemental (22 May 2015)

Sherston said:



			Why do you all continue to let a thread like this go on and on and on????? Both sides that is of course!

Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting. But no ones opinion is going to change from this thread or any other and it does not matter anyhow, its life. 

So I just don't know why you bother........

Enjoy the summer and the puppy and hound shows then horses will be in just like usual, but we can look forward to repeal.

Sherston
		
Click to expand...

That is precisely the attitude that brought about the ban, because well informed folk, such as those who populate these forums did not, at that time, in 2004 have the facility to discuss the issues.

I agree with you, Smurf's Gran in your last post.

Plainly Sherston is a 'youngster' and needs to be educated. No doubt with age he or she will come to appreciate the pearls of wisdom that are debated here.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (22 May 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:





cinnamontoast said:



			Cinnamon Toast, I really dislike it when heated debates reduce into slanging matches where some people on here cannot cope with someone who has a different point of view and this is challenged.  At times responses range from personally insulting, condescending, to assuming that people are stupid as they have a different point of view, it makes the forum an unpleasant place and prevents proper debate, plus its not an adult way to behave,  but these types of comments are abundant in some of the more "lively" threads.  

In my reference to the forum being for everyone I suppose I was alluding to people being able to express their views without others assuming they must be mad, or insulting them.  (I am ridiculous / overly dramatic!! though I admit this is mild compared with some of the stuff) 

Plus your reference to this person was very unclear, it was not possible to tell as to whom you were referring  and if it was someone active on threads now, and in particular, active on this one !!
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you want to spin this out. I don't care what opinions others have: the more, the better, it enhances the debate. Ragwort was not mentioned on here except in the post I referenced-in jest, quite clearly. The poster I referred to was years back and was obsessed (I use the word advisedly, extremism would be more accurate) As you had no idea about what I was referencing, perhaps better not to get embroiled? 

At no point have I been 'unable to cope' with others' points of view, that's actually very insulting. Slanging match? What are you on about? There is no slanging match anywhere on here. Don't mind me, but I made a joke (heaven forfend!) and now I'm being told I'm not adult and am making a slanging match of this. And you reckon I'm getting personal?? Gosh, the irony. :rolleyes3:

Don't mind me, I'd like to get back on topic, I'm learning a great deal.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Countryman (22 May 2015)

All I have to say is that laws should be based on animal welfare. 

They *should not* be based on some people's individual feelings as to the morality of following-literally following-a method of wildlife maagement, whether on foot or horseback. That should not come into it.

Whether the people following are grinning and paying for the pleasure, or whether they are weeping is totally and utterly irrelevant to ANIMAL WELFARE.

Therefore the people should not come into it.
Any laws re hunting should be about one thing only - the welfare of the fox.
If it has been shown that hunting is good for this, then hunting should be supported and certainly not opposed or banned.

Making laws because people disliked who, they imagined (in their bigoted minds) hunted, is what got us into this current mess.


----------



## Judgemental (23 May 2015)

Daily Telegraph

Conservative attempts to scrap hunting ban could start within weeks
Exclusive: David Cameron wants to support a backbench proposal to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs - which is less certain to be successful in Parliament 


Saturday 23 May 2015

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent

Moves to repeal the hunting ban are set to begin within a month after it emerged that David Cameron has met with senior colleagues to discuss how to organise a free vote.

The news means that a vote to repeal the controversial legislation could take place in the House of Commons within the next 12 months.

However, senior sources told The Telegraph that the Government is unlikely to repeal the ban in new legislation published in the Queen&#8217;s Speech next week.

Instead it is looking at support a backbench Private Members Bill which is less certain to be successful.

A repeal on the ban is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech

The decision would infuriate pro-hunting campaigners who feel that using the backbench route to repealing the ban would breach a general election manifesto commitment.

The 2004 Hunting Act &#8211; which bans the hunting with dogs of wild mammals including foxes, deer and hares - came into force 10 years ago in England and Wales in February 2005.

&#8226; Hunting Act 'unenforceable' and encouraging anti-social behaviour says senior MP
&#8226; Ten years on from the hunting ban, has anything really changed?

There has never been a better chance that the ban - which is hated by countryside sports campaigners - will be dropped.

The Tories' election manifesto commits the Tories to giving &#8220;Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time&#8221;.

A Downing Street source insisted on Friday that the Government was still planning to give MPs a free vote on a &#8220;Government Bill in Government time&#8221; to repeal the ban.

The Prime Minister - who hunted with the Heythrop Hunt before he became Conservative leader - is keen on persuading a backbench friendly Conservative MP who comes near the top of the Private Members' ballot on June 4 to propose repealing the 2004 Hunting Act.

David Cameron had pledged to give MPs a free vote on the issue if he won the election

The Government would then support the Bill by ensuring it has enough time to be debated on the floor of the Commons, which gives it better chance of becoming law.

The risk is that as a Private Members&#8217; Bill the legislation will have to navigate through Parliament on Fridays when the Commons and Lords is sparsely attended.

A pro-hunting Tory MP will also have to come at the top of the ballot for the legislation to have a chance of succeeding.

There is also a concern that some of the intake of 74 new Conservative MPs who have an eye on retaining their seats in 2020 might be nervous about voting to repeal the ban.

The pro-hunting campaigners believe they have achieved the &#8220;magic number&#8221; of 286 votes it needs to win.

The figure is less than half of the 650-member House because the Scottish National Party's 56 MPs will not take part.

A poll by YouGov earlier this year found that a majority of British people support the 2004 ban on fox hunting, and even people living in rural areas shared this tendency.

Owen Paterson says the legislation is "bad for animal welfare"

Owen Paterson, a former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary, told The Telegraph: &#8220;There was a clear commitment to have a free vote on this issue.

&#8220;It is clearly bad legislation, bad for animal welfare, it&#8217;s bad for people who understand the countryside and I expect that to be delivered in the Queen&#8217;s Speech.

&#8220;It is a clear commitment in the manifesto. The Prime Minister stood up in front of the 22 committee and said he would deliver every word of the manifesto, and I am absolutely confident that he will.&#8221;

Tim Bonner, a spokesman at the Countryside Alliance, added: &#8220;This is a matter of trust between the Government and the countryside and we are confident that the vote will be delivered.

&#8220;The manifesto says that a Conservative government will &#8216;give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Acton a free vote, with a government bill in government time&#8217;.

&#8220;A vote on a Private Members Bill would not therefore fulfil the manifesto commitment.&#8221;

Mr Cameron says he is "a strong supporter of country sports"

In March Mr Cameron gave a passionate defence of hunting and pledged to give MPs a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Tories win the election.

The Act &#8220;has done nothing for animal welfare&#8221; and that he shares &#8220;the frustration&#8221; about the hunting ban, he said in a newspaper article.

Mr Cameron said that he has &#8220;always been a strong supporter of country sports&#8221;, adding: &#8220;It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government.

&#8220;The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.&#8221;


----------



## Smurf's Gran (23 May 2015)

Countryman said:



			Making laws because people disliked who, they imagined (in their bigoted minds) hunted, is what got us into this current mess.
		
Click to expand...

And now we have more insults !!  this is so counterproductive to people actually discussing the issues in a constructive way.  It also seems to me (and I am more than happy to be corrected in this)  that, on this forum, the insults exclusively come from the pro hunt side.

This helps no one, and just serves to polarise the  arguments.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (23 May 2015)

*Whispers* I'm not pro-hunt! If you want to see insults from the other side, I recommend the HSA Facebook page where Ricky Gervais suggests that all hunters should fall off their horses and break their effing necks and one of his charming followers says he'll kill all the horses. Lovely. There are lots of regular posts concerning how all the 'posh t w a t s' should be bludgeoned. The only hunter I know is far from posh.

I think Cameron needs to do this properly in a very open fashion or he risks losing credence from his followers. As it seems to be such a big issue and was clearly used in his manifesto, he needs to confront it and deal with it in the correct manner.

I'm not going to rely on the yougove pools after they claimed that Conservative and Labour were neck and neck up until the Conservatives won!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (23 May 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Daily Telegraph

Conservative attempts to scrap hunting ban could start within weeks
Exclusive: David Cameron wants to support a backbench proposal to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs - which is less certain to be successful in Parliament 


Saturday 23 May 2015

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent

Moves to repeal the hunting ban are set to begin within a month after it emerged that David Cameron has met with senior colleagues to discuss how to organise a free vote.

The news means that a vote to repeal the controversial legislation could take place in the House of Commons within the next 12 months.

However, senior sources told The Telegraph that the Government is unlikely to repeal the ban in new legislation published in the Queen&#8217;s Speech next week.

Instead it is looking at support a backbench Private Members Bill which is less certain to be successful.

A repeal on the ban is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech

The decision would infuriate pro-hunting campaigners who feel that using the backbench route to repealing the ban would breach a general election manifesto commitment.

The 2004 Hunting Act &#8211; which bans the hunting with dogs of wild mammals including foxes, deer and hares - came into force 10 years ago in England and Wales in February 2005.

&#8226; Hunting Act 'unenforceable' and encouraging anti-social behaviour says senior MP
&#8226; Ten years on from the hunting ban, has anything really changed?

There has never been a better chance that the ban - which is hated by countryside sports campaigners - will be dropped.

The Tories' election manifesto commits the Tories to giving &#8220;Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time&#8221;.

A Downing Street source insisted on Friday that the Government was still planning to give MPs a free vote on a &#8220;Government Bill in Government time&#8221; to repeal the ban.

The Prime Minister - who hunted with the Heythrop Hunt before he became Conservative leader - is keen on persuading a backbench friendly Conservative MP who comes near the top of the Private Members' ballot on June 4 to propose repealing the 2004 Hunting Act.

David Cameron had pledged to give MPs a free vote on the issue if he won the election

The Government would then support the Bill by ensuring it has enough time to be debated on the floor of the Commons, which gives it better chance of becoming law.

The risk is that as a Private Members&#8217; Bill the legislation will have to navigate through Parliament on Fridays when the Commons and Lords is sparsely attended.

A pro-hunting Tory MP will also have to come at the top of the ballot for the legislation to have a chance of succeeding.

There is also a concern that some of the intake of 74 new Conservative MPs who have an eye on retaining their seats in 2020 might be nervous about voting to repeal the ban.

The pro-hunting campaigners believe they have achieved the &#8220;magic number&#8221; of 286 votes it needs to win.

The figure is less than half of the 650-member House because the Scottish National Party's 56 MPs will not take part.

A poll by YouGov earlier this year found that a majority of British people support the 2004 ban on fox hunting, and even people living in rural areas shared this tendency.

Owen Paterson says the legislation is "bad for animal welfare"

Owen Paterson, a former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary, told The Telegraph: &#8220;There was a clear commitment to have a free vote on this issue.

&#8220;It is clearly bad legislation, bad for animal welfare, it&#8217;s bad for people who understand the countryside and I expect that to be delivered in the Queen&#8217;s Speech.

&#8220;It is a clear commitment in the manifesto. The Prime Minister stood up in front of the 22 committee and said he would deliver every word of the manifesto, and I am absolutely confident that he will.&#8221;

Tim Bonner, a spokesman at the Countryside Alliance, added: &#8220;This is a matter of trust between the Government and the countryside and we are confident that the vote will be delivered.

&#8220;The manifesto says that a Conservative government will &#8216;give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Acton a free vote, with a government bill in government time&#8217;.

&#8220;A vote on a Private Members Bill would not therefore fulfil the manifesto commitment.&#8221;

Mr Cameron says he is "a strong supporter of country sports"

In March Mr Cameron gave a passionate defence of hunting and pledged to give MPs a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Tories win the election.

The Act &#8220;has done nothing for animal welfare&#8221; and that he shares &#8220;the frustration&#8221; about the hunting ban, he said in a newspaper article.

Mr Cameron said that he has &#8220;always been a strong supporter of country sports&#8221;, adding: &#8220;It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government.

&#8220;The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.&#8221;
		
Click to expand...

Very interesting - thanks Judgmental 

So it looks as though the backbench route is to be the line taken - very "political"  DC is shown to appear to fulfil his promise to those who want repeal  while distancing himself already (by not fulfilling this as a manifesto promise)  

This is such a political hot potato.

I bet there will be more polls broadcast soon and a lot more heated debates


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			..... Some follow hounds for the social aspect, some for the opportunity to ride on land that would otherwise be unavailable to them and some for the enjoyment of watching the hounds work. .
		
Click to expand...

In other words, they are obtaining enjoyment out of an activity in which animals are deliberately chased and killed.  You may not call that a sport, but I still believe it to be morally wrong.


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

millikins said:



			Hunting was set up not as a sport but the most effective way to disperse the young adults before they can establish territories and breed and to kill those adults that were causing damage to livestock.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have any documented evidence of that ?


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			I may not understand your points but at least I read them.

The point is relevant because when you give a puppy or kitten a toy he will 'kill' it so you have unwittingly encouraged his hunting behaviour whether you like it or not. Any other interpretation of this behaviour is pure anthropomorphism. Predators hunt. They're either good at it or they perish.

Man may have to 'direct' a hound towards the correct quarry, hounds would just as happily kill a cat as a fox if left to their own devices. But there is nothing artificial about it, whatever you believe.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that the point was irrelevant.  Whether for subsistence hunting or fox hunting, a human has exploited the natural and bred instincts of a dog.  But subsistence hunting is one thing, and participating in fox hunting is another.... the point hinges on the intention and desires of the human, not the instincts of the dog.


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

Sherston said:



			Just recognise that there are some people that are anti (mostly ignorant of the reality of course) and some pro hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Or you could say that some people are ignorant of the morality....


----------



## Lizzie66 (26 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			In other words, they are obtaining enjoyment out of an activity in which animals are deliberately chased and killed.  You may not call that a sport, but I still believe it to be morally wrong.
		
Click to expand...

You have selectively quoted. What you missed out is the fact that the huntsman and the hounds are doing a job. I believe I did ask you earlier whether you would be OK with it if only the huntsman and hounds went out without all the followers, I don't believe you responded ?


----------



## fburton (26 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			Or you could say that some people are ignorant of the morality....
		
Click to expand...

Which would _also_ be unfair, imo.


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			You have selectively quoted. What you missed out is the fact that the huntsman and the hounds are doing a job. I believe I did ask you earlier whether you would be OK with it if only the huntsman and hounds went out without all the followers, I don't believe you responded ?
		
Click to expand...

The selected quote was the part that most interested me.  I don't believe that I misrepresented anything.  I did not reply to your earlier question due to pressure of time, but yes, if foxes do indeed need to be culled and if using dogs is the most effective and humane, then I would have no objection to an activity that did not involve followers.  Note that there are 'ifs' in this and they are big 'ifs'.


----------



## Lizzie66 (26 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			The selected quote was the part that most interested me.  I don't believe that I misrepresented anything.  I did not reply to your earlier question due to pressure of time, but yes, if foxes do indeed need to be culled and if using dogs is the most effective and humane, then I would have no objection to an activity that did not involve followers.  Note that there are 'ifs' in this and they are big 'ifs'.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for expanding. In which case I think we are in agreement on the principle of hunting with regard to animal welfare and cruelty and the only disagreement is around the morality of watching. 

As this is highly personal then I am very much that it is each to their own. My morals might be different to yours but that does not make either of us right or wrong just different.


----------



## {51248} (26 May 2015)

" In which case I think we are in agreement on the principle of hunting with regard to animal welfare and cruelty and the only disagreement is around the morality of watching. "

Ummm...  I have not discussed my feelings on the animal welfare or cruelty aspects, so you should not assume that I agree with you....  

"As this is highly personal then I am very much that it is each to their own. My morals might be different to yours but that does not make either of us right or wrong just different"

... but it's refreshing that you have such a mature viewpoint.


----------



## Fellewell (26 May 2015)

pakkasham said:



			I agree that the point was irrelevant.  Whether for subsistence hunting or fox hunting, a human has exploited the natural and bred instincts of a dog.  But subsistence hunting is one thing, and participating in fox hunting is another.... the point hinges on the intention and desires of the human, not the instincts of the dog.
		
Click to expand...

The point hinges on the most natural and effective way to cull a fox. Subsistence or not matters not one jot to the hounds or indeed the fox.


----------



## {51248} (27 May 2015)

Fellewell said:



			The point hinges on the most natural and effective way to cull a fox. Subsistence or not matters not one jot to the hounds or indeed the fox.
		
Click to expand...

Well your point might hinge round that , but my point (and the reason why I oppose fox hunting) is different and has been stated in my earlier posts.


----------

