# Hunt Ban & Free Vote



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

According to yesterday's article on The Telegraph, Owen Patterson states that there is no point in a vote on the ban on hunting as there are not enough members of parliament to support or vote for a change in the law.

My point is, given that many of us have already walked the streets for MPs in order to help at election time, why then have the MFHA not organised hunts to get on more friendly terms with coalition MPs so that these MPs not only understood and were educated with regards to hunting, they would then be happy to vote for an overturn on the ban?

Come on MFHA - sharpen up, hope that a labour government isn't on it's way, as if it is, you've just missed an opportunity to change hunting forever ......


----------



## Doormouse (27 December 2012)

The MFHA are not the sharpest organisiation sadly. They don't seem to do anything as far as I can see.


----------



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

There is a real risk that Labour could get into power at the next election, and, if so, they would almost certainly tighten up loop holes.

The Mfha (same guys presiding since the ban) are missing an opportunity to sort this mess out...

Maybe the Countryside Alliance should lean on the Mfha & encourage them to do something ?


----------



## Judgemental (27 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			There is a real risk that Labour could get into power at the next election, and, if so, they would almost certainly tighten up loop holes.

The Mfha (same guys presiding since the ban) are missing an opportunity to sort this mess out...

Maybe the Countryside Alliance should lean on the Mfha & encourage them to do something ?
		
Click to expand...

Hunters you are so right, yes the Labour Party could easily tighten the legislation and simply by using The Statutory Instrument that they built into the act.

By the same token the present government could also use The Statutory Instrument to loosen the legislation.

For those of you who do not know how a Statutory Instrument works, in it's simplest form, it allows the Secretary of State or Under Secretary of State, to make amendments at the stroke of his or her pen. Yes the amendments have to go before both Houses of Parliament.

Nevertheless there is an inbuilt mechanism for making changes, not wholesale changes but changes which might just keep the rank and file of hunting supporters happy and throw a bone or two of hope in their direction.

However try and tell the movers, shakers and grandees of hunting that such an approach is worthwhile, one might as well shout into the wind whilst banging one's head against a brick wall.

*As thick as two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle springs to mind.*


----------



## combat_claire (27 December 2012)

Jeez! I wonder just where you guys have been living for the past 10 years. 

Vote Okay is the body that has been mobilising hunting people to a, act as ambassadors and see that MPs are fully informed on the hunting issue and b, that help is given in target seats.

At every turn the Vote Okay teams have faced resistance and unwillingness from hunting folk to get stuck in with stuffing, leafleting, canvassing and helping on polling day. The bottom line is that if everyone had done their fair share in 2010 then we could have secured a conservative majority. Instead too many people sat on their asses and dismissed the possibility of change through the ballot box.

Frankly there is no point shouting 2yrs down the line that the MFHA are useless and have done nothing when the schemes had minimal support from the bulk of hunting folk.

For the record I used my annual leave in 2010 to spend time campaigning in Bedford and we turned that blue. The sad thing is we saw the same faces day in, day out the vast number of subscribers never showed up. I would much rather have been stag hunting than getting my fingers trapped in letterboxes so it was even more galling to snatch a quick peek at Facebook to see that X has had a fab day with the exmoor and off with DSSH tomorrow. 

If everyone had pulled their weight we might have had repeal by now. Instead we face another season of worrying about spurious prosecutions and saboteur activity.


----------



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

Judgemental, firstly thank you for making me smile & secondly for offering a glimmer of hope. The Act as it stands, I think both sides would agree is not the best for either side.

Should you be right with your post regarding changes (I'm no expert) why do you think this has not happened already?

I ask this as not so very long ago I met with William Hague & he assured me that all was being done for hunting people?


----------



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

Combat Claire I am well aware who Vote Ok are, just not aware that anyone was doing anything. And, furthermore, the actions of the MPs (or lack of action) seems to confirm my theory (sadly.)


----------



## ROG (27 December 2012)

I am a simple member of the public and not a horserider 

I fail to see why a pack of dogs need to go after one fox

I can see the excitement of using horses to chase a target across country - I bet that is great fun so may that continue if it is not inconveniencing anyone

So for this simple member of the public, please explain why a few people across the UK (few in comparison to all in UK) should have something which it seems most of us do not want?


----------



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

I think there are plenty of other forums for a hunting debate....

 I'm merely asking the question, 'Why are we waiting?'


----------



## Judgemental (27 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			Judgemental, firstly thank you for making me smile & secondly for offering a glimmer of hope. The Act as it stands, I think both sides would agree is not the best for either side.

Should you be right with your post regarding changes (I'm no expert) why do you think this has not happened already?

I ask this as not so very long ago I met with William Hague & he assured me that all was being done for hunting people?
		
Click to expand...

Primarily apathy and the fact that the Conservative party take the grass roots rural vote for granted.


----------



## Maesfen (27 December 2012)

If it wasn't so sad I'd almost find it amusing that they can't spare time for the repeal but they have spared time for a gay marriages bill, says it all really, they've kicked their rural voters in the teeth; deeply disappointed, was hoping we had the new broom to sweep clean, turns out to be as twisted as the others now they're in.


----------



## combat_claire (27 December 2012)

Maesfen. At the present time the composition of the commons is such that any free vote that is introduced would be lost. End of. Cameron would say he had fulfilled his promise and repeal would be kicked into the long grass.

We need to resolve the west lothian question as a matter of urgency and then fight every by-election and general election harder than we ever had to ensure that we have a pro-hunt majority.

Which brings us neatly back round to people pulling their weight in election activity!


----------



## Suelin (27 December 2012)

ROG said:



			I am a simple member of the public and not a horserider 

I fail to see why a pack of dogs need to go after one fox

I can see the excitement of using horses to chase a target across country - I bet that is great fun so may that continue if it is not inconveniencing anyone

So for this simple member of the public, please explain why a few people across the UK (few in comparison to all in UK) should have something which it seems most of us do not want?
		
Click to expand...

Not all of us want football but we have it. Not all of us want any number of things but we have them.  Isn't that what freedom is all about?  Folk that don't like hunting don't have to go anymore than folk that don't like football (other sports are available) can choose not to go.  Simples.


----------



## combat_claire (27 December 2012)

Rog, 

The hunting issue is certainly an emotive one. I guess a good starting point is to look at the various methods you could use to control foxes (some foxes in the countryside are great as they keep slugs and rabbits down, too many are a nuisance and begin to predate stock). You could poison them, snare them, shoot them or hunt them.

Poisoning and gassing lead to a lingering and painful death. If snared a fox could be trapped for hours until the keeper next checks them. If shot there is no guarantee of a clean kill. A wounded fox will slink off to die many days later from blood loss or gangrene. I have seen foxes that were starving to death because a botched shot had broken its jaw. None of these methods are selective to pick out the old or the weak.

Then we have hunting. There are only ever two outcomes of a hunt: it is either killed or it gets clean away. The sick and the weak are the ones who are killed ensuring a strong, healthy fox population at sustainable levels. The kills I saw pre-ban are over in seconds. There is no gruesome tug of war so popular with the anti campaigns. However the carcass will be broken up by the pack postmortem.

Unfortunately it costs money to keep a pack of hounds and so the pest control is free the tab is picked up by those who subscribe to ride with the pack. 

The hunt also offers many other benefits that are not offered by the other control methods. We pick up fallen stock for farmers, who would otherwise have to pay large sums to dispose of it. 

We bring huge economic benefits in the form of equipment, hirelings, livery, accommodation etc

We allow a second career for ex-racehorses and training on hunting field makes us very competitive in equine sports.

Research by the University of Kent showed that those involved with countrysports planted more trees, hedges and coverts than anyone else. With corresponding benefits for wildlife.


----------



## ROG (27 December 2012)

I do see some valid points raised but in my view, and probably those of the majority of the public, I see a load of dogs after one fox which I find delporable as it smacks of bullying

OK, thats a human putting human traits onto animals but that is the way most think IMO


----------



## Maesfen (27 December 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Maesfen. At the present time the composition of the commons is such that any free vote that is introduced would be lost. End of.
		
Click to expand...

I said this to OH last night funnily enough when we saw the news; it stands to sense to not have a vote unless there is a very good chance that you'll win.




			Which brings us neatly back round to people pulling their weight in election activity!
		
Click to expand...

It's not a case of us not pulling our weight, that's a given but it's who the voters choose to give their vote to which is the problem as we all know many of those that changed their vote completely at the last moments.


----------



## Lolo (27 December 2012)

Maesfen said:



			If it wasn't so sad I'd almost find it amusing that they can't spare time for the repeal but they have spared time for a gay marriages bill, says it all really, they've kicked their rural voters in the teeth; deeply disappointed, was hoping we had the new broom to sweep clean, turns out to be as twisted as the others now they're in.
		
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between gay marriage (basic human right to have equality regardless of what you look like and who you love IMO) and being allowed to chase a fox with a pack of hounds. Making arguments like that weakens the strength of anything else you may say and is massively offensive. If nothing else, you CHOOSE to go hunting.


----------



## Hunters (27 December 2012)

Oh god I give up. Do people not read the original posts? 

It's not about who people give the vote to. It's about educating the MPs and the fact that there has been no leadership or directive given. 

Not rocket science.


----------



## Countryman (27 December 2012)

The Hunting Act only affects England & Wales. Scotland has its own parliament to make laws about hunting. English and Welsh MP's cannot influence that. Therefore, many see it as unfair that Scottish MP's in Westminster can vote on bills that will only affect England & Wales. If this so called "West Lothian Question" could be resolved in some way so that only English and Welsh MP's voted on solely Anglo-Welsh laws, there would be a very significant majority in favour of repeal!

Let's see how the Scottish Indepemdence referendum goes. If they choose to stay in the UK, it's likely some compromise will be made to sort out the West Lothian Question.


----------



## combat_claire (27 December 2012)

And as I said in my original post, part of Vote Okay's role is to have ambassadors who liaise with their MPs to do exactly what you complain is not being done.


----------



## combat_claire (27 December 2012)

Rog, 

This is what our ex-master wrote in the run up to the hunting ban: I've copied and pasted because he said it much better than I could. His other faqs can still be found at www.fitzwilliamhunt.com.  

Many people think that the fox has no chance because it is only one little animal against lots of humans and dogs.

Consider these points :

The Fox is faster than the hounds
The fox is in its own territory. It knows it like the back of its hand.
The hounds are lost. They do not know where they are.
The fox can run through or under many obstacles that the hounds will have to bypass
The fox is much lighter than the hounds, and can run across soft ground much more easily than them.
The fox can keep running at its own pace, whereas the hounds have to follow the "scent" (smell). Each time they lose the scent and have to "cast around" for it, the fox gains time.
The fox, who sometimes hunts by scent himself, knows how to disguise his scent by running through water, manure, sheep, across tarmac or similar confusing smells.
The fox also knows that he can confuse and evade his pursuers by leading them to where another fox is lying (yes, they do do this), and letting the hounds hunt the "fresh" fox.
*

So you can see that the fox, contrary to what you thought, actually has the advantage over the hunters.

In practice hounds probably kill less than one in three foxes that they chase.

Huh! You might say that but how would you like to be chased across a field by a pack of dogs?

So why do we use so many dogs at a time?

This is simply a matter of ensuring that when the fox does get killed, it gets killed as quickly as possible.

Look at it this way : If you were going to be killed and eaten by dogs, would you prefer to be killed by one or by thirty.

Thirty dogs would be messier to look at , yes, it would appear to be more violent, yes, but it would also be much, much quicker. And lets face it, speed is what is important.

One dog = slow

Thirty dogs = fast.

Work it out for yourself

(incidentally, this is yet another indicator that we are not in this for sadism  if we we were , we would want it to be slow)


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2012)

ROG said:



			I do see some valid points raised but in my view, and probably those of the majority of the public, I see a load of dogs after one fox which I find delporable as it smacks of bullying

.......
		
Click to expand...

ROG,  I applaud your post,  for both its simplicity,  and its vision,  and this is where we have a problem.  It's a case of perception,  and without the simple act of experiencing the chase,  the whole becomes a conundrum to the bystander,  and the voter.  The bystander and the voter being one and the same,  generally.  

The only realistic answer is that those ruralified bods who care so passionately about their world,  find a way of explaining to the all so often less than entitled and the voter (they being one and the same),  that they have the best interests of wildlife at heart.  

The first person to respond to the above passage,  by asking how anyone can have the best interests of wildlife at heart,  by killing it,  isn't even at the bottom of the ladder of understanding.

ROG,  the fairest contest for the hare,  is a pair of greyhounds,  the fairest contest for the fox,  is a pack of hounds.  It's been thus for hundreds of years,  and because of this lucid and honesty balance,  we now have (or had),  our world.  It worked,  trust me on this,  but with the introduction of politics,  prejudice and class-fueled hatred,  we now have a shambolic system which benefits no one.  The curious thing is,  that it's wildlife which suffers,  and again,  those who disagree,  are those with little understanding.

What to do?  Dunno.

Alec.


----------



## Herne (27 December 2012)

Hunters, the reason why the ban has not been repealed is that not enough pro-repeal MPs were elected at the last election to win the vote. Simple as that.

The hunting world does have a system of lobbying MPs to try to persuade them to become in favour of repeal, but the simple problem is that not enough normal hunting people bother to take the effort to make their feelings known to their MPs - and as a result the noise that the antis make is not countered.

Judgemental is correct that a Statutory Instrument can be used to vary the conditions of exempt hunting under the Act, but the problems are that what one SI can do, another can just as easily undo and the scope of those changes are relatively limited.

Repeal remains the optimum target - and to achieve that, hunting people need to get off their backsides and get back on the campaign trail...


----------



## oakash (27 December 2012)

Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense! Sorry about their polocies of a local vote on Hunting, but if enough of us join, I dare say we could bring them round to seeing the truth -that hunting with hounds is the very best and most humane way of controlling a fox population without the horrible gunshot wounds which are currently so common.

ROG's level of ignorance (sorry ROG) is all too common, and it is that which we have to address in the bulk of the (disinterested) populace.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2012)

Herne said:



			Hunters, the reason why the ban has not been repealed is that not enough pro-repeal MPs were elected at the last election to win the vote. 

...
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The reason why we have members of parliament who are so fearful of doing what's right,  is because they're spineless.  It's all to do with vote catching and gathering,  and in that,  I'll admit,  you have the upper hand.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2012)

oakash said:



			.......

ROG's level of ignorance (sorry ROG) is all too common, and it is that which we have to address in the bulk of the (disinterested) populace.
		
Click to expand...

"Ignorance"?  Not so.  Misunderstanding and perhaps misinformed,  but ROG isn't "Ignorant".

Alec.


----------



## Herne (27 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Nonsense. The reason why we have members of parliament who are so fearful of doing what's right,  is because they're spineless.  It's all to do with vote catching and gathering,  and in that,  I'll admit,  you have the upper hand.
		
Click to expand...

Eh?


----------



## Herne (27 December 2012)

oakash said:



			Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense! Sorry about their polocies of a local vote on Hunting, but if enough of us join, I dare say we could bring them round to seeing the truth -that hunting with hounds is the very best and most humane way of controlling a fox population without the horrible gunshot wounds which are currently so common.
		
Click to expand...

Foolishness.

If you vote UKIP, you will get Labour.


----------



## 1t34 (27 December 2012)

You were robbed.............although I struggle to understand how those who thought a Tory majority would or will get a repeal. It won't, whilst the majority of the population wither are really not bothered (their waning incomes, job insecurity and reductions in services like the NHS are probably foremost in their minds) or are against hunting. The main protagonists have not to date manged to persuade the public that a) Hunting matters - most people really aren't interested in a minority activity, however helpful it may have been to preserving good wildlife stock b) still believe it is the preserve of the privileged and wealthy. All the main people put up to defend hunting reinforce this perception. The Act will never be repealed at a national level Tory majority or not. Politicians in the main want to get re-elected, something like hunting is marginal.

Much better for things to be tackled in a small, local way which engages the public not in a 'rights' or preservation of tradition debate, but a test of conservation. If hunting preserves wildlife and reduces farmers losses then better to offer some sort of pilot or trial that proves this in a small area, the badger cull has to some extent offered a reasonable model for this. This then offers the opportunity to a) offer a bit more of a rational (less exclusive and privileged) argument for the majority of people and b) if fronted correctly offers a much less heated and adversarial position for those organisations who are opposed. I have suggested before that local referendums could also be a solution, if the majority of the community were in support.

Sorry but those who are in support of Tory government for repeal are uniformed about how government works and seriously out of touch with the population as a whole.


----------



## Judgemental (27 December 2012)

KV Chaps and Chapesses, no names no pack drill but there are certain posters who appear on a thread such as this, only when we, the rank and file 'cannon fodder' have rattled the High Command!

With absurd entreaties that we must be more reasonable and wait for the right moment.

In case the High Command cannot count, (or measure the thickness of two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle) the ban came into place in 2004 that was eight (8) years ago! 

How long do we have to wait?


----------



## Herne (27 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			How long do we have to wait?
		
Click to expand...

Until we have a parliamentary majority in favour of action, obviously...

However, that does not mean that we should be idle. We should be being politically active, making sure that our voice is heard, and doing what is necessary to achieve that greater political representation that we need.

Not just complaining that "someone else" isn't achieving anything.


----------



## devonlass (27 December 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Rog, 

The hunting issue is certainly an emotive one.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't want to quote your whole post and take up the whole page,but can i just say what an informative and polite response yours was.

I am very anti hunt (and even more anti tory) and that won't change TBH (I have no issue with land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance,but terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it is just something I cannot relate to or consider acceptable),but I did actually read your post and consider some of your points,not something that normally happens when I read pro hunting posts have to say!!

No other point to make BTW in regard to the thread and sorry for going slightly O/T but did want to comment and applaud C_C's attitude.

Usually such questions would be shot down and jumped upon,made a refreshing change to read a carefully considered and reasonable reply


----------



## Herne (28 December 2012)

devonlass said:



			I am very anti hunt (and even more anti tory) and that won't change TBH (I have no issue with land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance,but terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it is just something I cannot relate to or consider acceptable),but I did actually read your post and consider some of your points,not something that normally happens when I read pro hunting posts have to say!!
		
Click to expand...

(Ok. I am going to start with a seemingly arrogant statement, but bear with me, I go on to explain...)

The difference between you as an anti-hunter and me as a pro-hunter is that I have one particular advantage over you - in that I know something, for a definite fact, that you do not know. And that one fact indicates very strongly that my analysis of the whole hunting argument is more accurate and more realistic than yours.

That one fact is this: I KNOW that I am not a sadist.

All the things that you know about hunting, I also know. In all likelihood, as a lifelong hunter at top level, I know infinitely more about it than you will ever know. And yet, knowing everything that you know, I choose to support hunting. Why?

Basically, this can only be for one of two reasons: EITHER, I am a sadist OR I also know other things that YOU do NOT know that lead me to an alternative conclusion - possibly the same conclusion that you would also reach if you knew what I do.

Of course, I also know that if I were a sadist, I would still deny it. So, how do I demonstrate it to you?

I can't, so I will ask you to demonstrate something to yourself.

Clear your mind - and then imagine that you yourself were a sadist.

Imagine that you wanted to go out and get kicks by inflicting suffering on animals.

You have two choices:

Choice 1. You can get on a horse, and try to follow a load of dogs that someone else is setting to chase a fox. The dogs and the fox are faster than your horse and they can go cross country whilst your horse has to go around the edges of fields and around obstacles you can't jump. Most of the time, the fox will be out of sight, a lot of the time, the hounds will be out of earshot. When the dogs catch the fox, because there are thirty or fourty of them, they will rip the fox to shreds in seconds. You will pay a lot of money for this activity - regardless of how effective it is in giving you your kicks.

Choice 2. You can go out on your own into the countryside with a gun. You get to pick what you shoot at and you get to choose where you shoot it. Yes, you could shoot it through the brainpan and kill it stone dead, but you could also shoot it through the guts and watch it squirm &#8211; and it is YOU that is causing the suffering yourself, personally, not some pack of dogs controlled by someone else.

Remember, you are choosing which activity to give your hypothetical sadistic self the biggest kicks. Go on, now, be honest. Which one would you pick?

And therein lies the flaw in the case against hunting. The case against hunting only works if hunters are sadists, and yet hunting would actually be such a ridiculously ineffective method of enjoying sadistic kicks compared with all the rest that if hunters were sadists, they wouldn&#8217;t hunt.

Because, if we are not sadists, then we are not "terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it"; we are merely "land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance" by a different method.


----------



## devonlass (28 December 2012)

Herne said:



			Because, if we are not sadists, then we are not "terrifying and killing for sport and taking pleasure from it"; we are merely "land owners eliminating foxes if causing a nuisance" by a different method.
		
Click to expand...

I would like to be clear that I generally don't get involved in hunting threads solely because my views are so anti and I can get very passionate up here on my soapbox

I just wanted to comment on C_C post as it made such a change to read a balanced response to a hunt challenging question,and thought it deserved a mention.

However as you have asked (and pretty politely also I may add,thanx for that),I will respond.

I never suggested you were sadists,that's too strong a word and incorrect in it's meaning.
However I do believe it takes a certain sort of person to enjoy participation in blood sports,and that the majority of people would take no interest or pleasure from it.Make of that what you will,it's not meant to be offensive,just an observation on human nature and social awareness.
Hunting does involve terrifying/terrorising and killing small creatures I'm afraid whichever way you dress it up or try to justify it,that is the bottom line.

I cannot imagine myself in the scenarios you proposed,I honestly can't.That requires a desire to inflict my will and advantages on others weaker than myself,it's a 'quality' I simply don't possess,even for imaginary purposes.

No that it matters as the argument remains the same,small minority traditionalists vs modern Joe public.

Rog was correct when he said that most of the general public do not support hunting.This won't change IMO no matter how much you inform people.You like to believe that it is simply a case of ignorance and that if the rest of us 'understood' we would support your way of thinking,not so.

Many people understand the need to get rid of pests if absolutely necessary,but to most of us this involves a swift and painless method of delivery as possible.It's not something we wish to drag out or a social event that we enjoy,and certainly not an entire lifestyle and community that we wish to support and encourage.

It's elitist,outdated and socially unacceptable.

Apologies again for taking thread O/T.I will shut up now,and hope very much that you have taken my comments as they were intended and not in an antagonistic way.


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's. 

Perhaps and only perhaps there then might have been enough MPs to turn the vote around, but instead the opportunity to have the vote has been lost & as I previously have been saying for the last 4 years, if Labour get back into power they will almost certainly tighten the law & you could begIn to see a decline in people wanting to be hunt staff & this would lead to a decline in hunts.

All pro hunters should be asking their masters what the Mfha are doing about addressing this.

You have been warned.


----------



## combat_claire (28 December 2012)

And Hunters for the third time many hunt masters have been acting as Vote Okay ambassadors to put our case to MPs and ensure they can attend hunt events.


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Well that's ok then - it's clearly all in hand...... Not


----------



## JanetGeorge (28 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			With absurd entreaties that we must be more reasonable and wait for the right moment.

In case the High Command cannot count, (or measure the thickness of two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle) the ban came into place in 2004 that was eight (8) years ago! 

How long do we have to wait?
		
Click to expand...

Yes - the ban came in in 2004 - that was SEVEN years after a Labour Government was elected that was COMMITTED to a hunting ban!  That's how long it can take to get something done even when the odds are in your favour!

The Conservative part of the co-alition Government doesn't have odds in its favour and any attempt to repeal the Hunting ban now WOULD be defeated!  Fact!  

A majority of Conservative MPs, a few Lib-Dems and even one or two Labour MPs ARE committed to repeal - but it doesn't add up to the numbers needed to GET repeal.  And - guess what - I have NO part in 'High Command' - but I DO know how the system works!

TBH, it is almost impossible to 'woo' a vociferously anti-hunt Labour MP.  They are almost all in constituencies where they would lose their seat if they changed sides, but even if they were smack in the middle of a 'strong' hunting area and were lobbied every day of the week, they STILL wouldn't change!

As for the idea that traditional hunting could resume in small areas due to a successful local referendum, it's ludicrous.  The first few hunts to 'benefit' from a successful local referendum would be hit SO hard by saboteurs they'd have to shut up shop!


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Janetgeorge, you are quite right in the length of term it took to get the ban on hunting & of course Labour used the Parliament Act to enforce the ban.  

The point that I'm still (obviously badly) trying to make, is that I don't see a great deal of direction let alone action with regards attempting to sway the vote.

This could be the last chance to change the ban. There are approx 2 years to the next election. No time to waste in my humble opinion, but I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall as clearly there's nothing left to do according to most of the posts on here..


----------



## combat_claire (28 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			This could be the last chance to change the ban. There are approx 2 years to the next election. No time to waste in my humble opinion, but I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall as clearly there's nothing left to do according to most of the posts on here..
		
Click to expand...

This is not what other people have been saying at all. Maybe your neck of the woods is different but for the last 11 years we have had very active Vote Okay representatives/ Masters and CA Regional Directors who have worked their asses off to get results in the political arena. 

In 2001 the majorities of 2 anti-hunting MPs were cut drastically
In 2004 we helped at the Leicester South by-election
In 2005 we unseated 2 anti-hunting MPs and left the third dangling by a thread
in 2009 We helped ensure that Chloe Smith was elected for Conservatives in a by-election
In 2010 we finally got rid of the anti-hunting MP in Corby and turned Bedford blue with another supportive MP
In 2012 we threw our support into the Corby by-election
We have hosted visits from Ministers at kennels
We have invited and had MPs attend hunt social events
We are active letter writers to local MPs

If you don't think enough is being done, then why don't you volunteer to help Vote Okay mobilise the troops in your county. If every hunt had been as active as the Fitzwilliam has been then the political picture might well have looked very different today.


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Already done. 

Speaking as an ex master all MPs in our area are now conservative and thanks Thr efforts me & many others did


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Sorry iPhone trouble. 

We worked tirelessly on the streets etc and replaced one lib Dem MP with a conservative & two labour MPs to conservative. 

Our hunt area is done!


----------



## Kittykins (28 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's.
		
Click to expand...

You're right, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, LibDem or Conservative, but not because of the lack of effort from the MFHA. It's because the Cameron-led Tory party doesn't give a stuff about it's loyal suppoters. 

I'm fairly politically active in our local area - I'm a Tory Councillor on the local (District) Council and did a lot for our local association in the 2010 election. The hunt were our main supporters in terms of leafletting - we wouldn't have managed to get half as much literature out had they not helped. The Tory Party, in my view, therefore owes it to the hunting fraternity to work towards overturning the ban (quite apart from the fact that freedom is a cornerstone of the Tory ethos, or should be at least!). Yet when I went to Tory Party conference that year I was horrified to find a mock wall displayed, across which had been scrawled the signatures of Tory MPs who supported upholding the ban. There were quite a few names on it. 

Cameron appears to think that, in order to win the next election he needs to not only abandon his core vote, but furthermore somehow 'stick it to them' in order to attract the liberal centre ground. Firstly, that's the sort of sordid calcuation that gives politics a bad name. Secondly, it's the sort of calculation that can only work if the core vote has no-where else to go - but they do: UKIP. Cameron can hardly clain to be a master tactician anyway - he managed to lose an election against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers we've ever had, in the midst of a recession! 

So to blame it all on the poor MFHA is to slightly miss the bigger picture, which is that a Cameroon government would never have and will never overturn the ban, and all Hague's posturing about them doing everything they can is just that: posturing in the hope that the hunts will turn out for them again in 2015. 

Personally, the Tories have sold out too often for me to stomach. I'll probably run for UKIP at the next election, even if it means losing my seat on the council.


----------



## Herne (28 December 2012)

devonlass said:



			I will shut up now,and hope very much that you have taken my comments as they were intended and not in an antagonistic way.
I would like to be clear that I generally don't get involved in hunting threads solely because my views are so anti and I can get very passionate up here on my soapbox

Click to expand...

We all get passionate, it is an emotive subject. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion.

Passion shouldn&#8217;t mean that we can&#8217;t have a rational discussion about it, though &#8211; even though with so many people, on either side, it does.

Here&#8217;s another question for you: what if your side is wrong? What are the consequences then?

If I am wrong, then I am guilty of causing unnecessary and unjustifiable suffering in the process of hunting.

But what if your side is wrong? What will your side be guilty of?




			Many people understand the need to get rid of pests if absolutely necessary,but to most of us this involves a swift and painless method of delivery as possible.

Hunting does involve terrifying/terrorising and killing small creatures&#8230;
		
Click to expand...

So does shooting, so does snaring, so does the use of humane live traps, so does not controlling foxes at all. Every decision in wildlife management &#8211; even one to do nothing at all &#8211; involves making decisions about what lives and what dies and how. Kill the fox, the fox dies; leave the fox, the rabbit dies. Either way, your decision is a life-or-death one for something.

Changing a culling method does not remove animal suffering entirely, it only changes what suffers and how.


*Fundamental question:* The imposition of the Hunting Act 2004 stopped (most) hunting with dogs. In terms of the net amount of animal suffering in the countryside, what effect has that Act had? Has it gone up or or has it gone down?

Yes, the suffering caused by hunting has been removed from one side of the equation; but, the suffering generated by other methods of culling, or by predation, or involved in foxes &#8220;dieing of natural causes&#8221; equally have to be added to the other side of the equation.

So, what has the result been. Has the Act, overall, resulted in more suffering or less suffering?

If the answer is &#8211; as you must concede it could hypothetically be &#8211; that the Hunting Act 2004 has increased the net amount of animal suffering; then would you not also have to concede that it would be pretty much a failure as an &#8220;animal welfare measure&#8221; and should be scrapped? If.





			You like to believe that it is simply a case of ignorance and that if the rest of us 'understood' we would support your way of thinking,not so.
		
Click to expand...

Really???

Even if it was explained to you with facts and figures and diagrams that you could not dispute that the Act had increased animal suffering as a whole, you would still let your aversion to something on the grounds of it being &#8220;_ elitist,outdated and socially unacceptable_&#8221; sway your decision towards something that caused increased animal suffering?

How does that tie in with your claim not to be able to &#8220;to inflict my will and advantages on others weaker than myself&#8221;&#8230;?


There is more to the whole question of field sports, or blood sports if you prefer, than just the good guys defeating the bad guys.

The good guys then have to go on and demonstrate that their way is better, otherwise they are not, in fact, the good guys after all&#8230;

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You should owe it to the animals that you are concerned about to KNOW you are right, not just assume that you are &#8211; and that is a whole, different ball game. 

Likewise, my comments are not designed to be antagonistic&#8230;


----------



## Herne (28 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			Wake up all those pro hunting people, it makes no difference whether your MP is Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. The MFHA have missed a trick. The MFHA should have had hunt masters & educated others to visit 'woo' & educate MP's. 

Perhaps and only perhaps there then might have been enough MPs to turn the vote around, but instead the opportunity to have the vote has been lost & as I previously have been saying for the last 4 years, if Labour get back into power they will almost certainly tighten the law & you could begIn to see a decline in people wanting to be hunt staff & this would lead to a decline in hunts.

All pro hunters should be asking their masters what the Mfha are doing about addressing this.

You have been warned.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, Hunters, you are an ex-master and/or an educated other.

You take your pick of any of the labour MPs or blue foxes and "turn" him or her. 

No? Why not? If the MFHA are missing a trick, why should you miss it too? There is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking independent action. You know what needs to be done, you don't need the MFHA's permission. Lueu in, there, boy!

Pick a target, make an appointment and off you go.

I look forward to the news conference.

In the mean time, I shall carry on trying to secure the selection and election of pro-hunt MPs. I know which of us I suspect shall have more success.



Hunters said:



			Already done. 

Speaking as an ex master all MPs in our area are now conservative and thanks Thr efforts me & many others did
		
Click to expand...

Excellent. Thank you very much. (and I mean that genuinely).

I wish I could say that about my area. I have one labour seat to regain.

But we know the process works. You and I and many others have proved it.

We need to repeat it, moving out of our areas, out of our comfort zones if necessary, until we attain the majority we need.


----------



## Shoveller (28 December 2012)

A few points. Firstly I cannot see why any future labour government would want to spend another second looking at hunting legilslation. The much more leniant Scottish legislation has never been tightened and so far as I'm aware the whole subject has more or less left the political agenda north of the border. I also struggle to see how our legislation could be "tightened up" to make things much worse. I suppose a complete ban on terrierwork, but that's about all. Most hunts are trail hunting which is an activity not described in the act or affected by it.

As I understand it, a change by statutory instrument would still need approval by the commons. Due to the tribal nature of the place, if you made a small change that would make exempt hunting far more practical (such as removing the limit of 2 hounds for flushing a mammal to guns) most MPs would still line up and vote the same way as they would for a repeal. This change would make our law similar to that in Scotland.

The West Lothain quesion provides our only real hope. Frankly I can't really see why it's even a question, it is scandalous that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that don't concern their constituants, (most famously with the Foundation Hospitals bill) and while Labour will never do anything about it because it as is the only way they can ever be in government in England, the Tories lack of interest in the matter is odd. The only explanation can be that the Tories are rooted in the idea of unionism, and even though they have virtually no support in Scotland, they cannot bring themselves to see how much better off the Tory Party's electoral prospects would be without Scotland. Perhaps Vote OK should go and help Alex Salmond win his independance referendum?


----------



## ROG (28 December 2012)

It is what the majority of the voting public want which is what MPs will go for because its votes that keep them in their jobs

I am in a group of thousands of advanced drivers who would like laws that enforce all drivers to pass the AD test but its never going to happen because the general public will show their anger to that at the next election - same goes for graduated driving licences

If anybpdy wants the hunting of foxes to return to as it was then its the general public that need to be behind it so that MPs have no choice but to bow to that pressure if they want to keep their seats

So.... are the general public likely to get behind a return to what it was ?


----------



## JanetGeorge (28 December 2012)

Kittykins said:



			Cameron appears to think that, in order to win the next election he needs to not only abandon his core vote, but furthermore somehow 'stick it to them' in order to attract the liberal centre ground. Firstly, that's the sort of sordid calcuation that gives politics a bad name. Secondly, it's the sort of calculation that can only work if the core vote has no-where else to go - but they do: UKIP. Cameron can hardly clain to be a master tactician anyway - he managed to lose an election against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers we've ever had, in the midst of a recession! 

So to blame it all on the poor MFHA is to slightly miss the bigger picture, which is that a Cameroon government would never have and will never overturn the ban, and all Hague's posturing about them doing everything they can is just that: posturing in the hope that the hunts will turn out for them again in 2015.
		
Click to expand...

For a Tory Councillor, you appear to be remarkably ignorant about just how hard Tory MPs have worked to keep hunting safe - not just from 1997 - but for the 50+ years preceding that.  I've lost count of the number of anti-hunting/anti-coursing bills that were defeated over the years - the only one I was seriously involved with was the Foster Bill in 1997/98, and David Cameron, William Hague, David Maclean, Edward Garnier and many others worked their butts off to kill that one!  I remember making frenzied 'phone calls to David and Edward at 11.00pm to get them to carry on with a totally pointless debate about nothing until the lawyers helping us could get some additional amendments drafted to defeat Foster's attempt to put in a last minute amendment (our amendments HAD to be in before the House rose that night!)

IF Cameron can win the next election outright, then he and his senior colleagues WILL stand by their pledge; and any hunt supporter who doesn't help that outcome shouldn't be allowed out hunting IMHO!


ETA: And DO run for UKIP - you probably deserve each other!


----------



## Kittykins (28 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			IF Cameron can win the next election outright, then he and his senior colleagues WILL stand by their pledge
		
Click to expand...

Would that be a cast-iron pledge? Is that like his cast iron pledge on a European referendum? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe anything that man says any more. 

And I'm well aware of how hard Conservatives have worked in the past. It only makes it all the worse that there is no sign that Dave and co will do again in the future. They're not interested in what is right, they're interested in what polls highest.


----------



## 1t34 (28 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			As for the idea that traditional hunting could resume in small areas due to a successful local referendum, it's ludicrous.  The first few hunts to 'benefit' from a successful local referendum would be hit SO hard by saboteurs they'd have to shut up shop!
		
Click to expand...

I don't usually respond when I am unhappy about how something I have posted has been responded to but I think this is a bit rude. You may think its ludicrous, however when I first suggested the idea you felt it might be worth exploring. 

You will never get the act repealed at a national level, whoever is in power. As such alternatives need to be explored, pressure groups explore different strategies all the time. I think I offered a different view, informed by knowledge of recent legislation and understanding of how local and national politics works. By all means disagree, but please don't use terms like ludicrous, I found it rather condescending and insulting. 

I'm not a 'flouncer' but won't be returning to this part of the forum for now.


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2012)

1t34 said:



			I don't usually respond when I am unhappy about how something I have posted has been responded to but I think this is a bit rude. By all means disagree, but please don't use terms like ludicrous, I found it rather condescending and insulting. I'm not a 'flouncer' but won't be returning to this part of the forum for now.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting debate and it has certainly drawn the experienced members of this forum.

I was gratified to see Herne is now supporting my view that the Statutory Instrument should be used, if only to give it a Parliamentary airing.

However, I say Janet steady on 'ludicrous' my goodness me, 'rude' oh dear, puts me in mind of Geoffrey Howe and the 'wet sheep' or was it 'toothless sheep' comment. If It34 thinks that is rude and has 'flounced out' we have plumbed new depths of, or should I say new heights of rudeness. It34 was clearly not a member when we enjoyed the great and entertaining instant put downs from the late and fondly remembered Rosie.

It34 you are being a trifle sensitive. Believe me if Mrs George was being rude, you would be seriously aware and I don't think 'ludicrous' even touches her ability to challenge issues.


----------



## JanetGeorge (28 December 2012)

It HAS been suggested that I know how to call a metal digging implement a spade!!

I did a little trawl - and it appears 1t34 is - by her own admission - a flouncer!  AND easily offended.  I certainly wasn't trying!


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe this post has shifted.

Owen Patterson ( who rides to hounds) has stated that a vote should not be called because it would be lost. Agreed.

By starting this post I have tried & largely failed to energise some of you to call for more action either from the Mfha or your local mp.

Please, do not argue amongst yourselves, it really is now or never - the time ahead is precious - use it or lose it


----------



## Countryman (28 December 2012)

So Paterson didn't say a vote wouldn't be held. He said right now, there was no point. Which in my opinion is absolutely right - as someone said earlier, we only get one go at this so we've got to get it right. 

I would have thought that even if the Scots vote to stay in the UK, in 2014, it's still likely that some sort of reform will be done to resolve the West Lothian Question BEFORE the 2015 election. Tories worried about losing the election know that doing something about the issue will certainly strengthen their hand significantly when it comes to forming a government. Hopefully, after reform, the strong majority in favour of repeal who can then vote on it will do, and we will have repeal. 

It's true that in the run up to the election, the Tories might worry about bad PR from repeal but this could be mitigated by possibly bundling it with lots of other unpopular laws to be repealed. 

Just by the way, to posters saying we shouldn't worry about Labour tightening the Act-the last government promised to do just that if they won in 2010 and believe me they could do an awful lot more than just ban terrier work. Have a look at the suggestions on the anti website POWA if you don't believe me. 

However, I think it's unfair to criticise Cameron. Yes, he's made a lot of mistakes and been unable to deliver on a lot of issues, BUT, when it comes to hunting, he is on our side. It is an issue close to his heart.


----------



## 1t34 (28 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			It HAS been suggested that I know how to call a metal digging implement a spade!!

I did a little trawl - and it appears 1t34 is - by her own admission - a flouncer!  AND easily offended.  I certainly wasn't trying!
		
Click to expand...

Well done you, how clever. I offered some advice and an alternative, if this is the reaction to people who want to help, it isn't really surprising that your goal of repeal has not been achieved. Maybe I am easily offended...and sensitive, but not half as sensitive as the people who you are trying to persuade to support your cause...............

And I do remember rightly, as I don't post that often, you thought this was an idea worth exploring a while ago. But never mind I was only trying to help a little help as I have some experience in developing strategies for changing policies and legislation, I shan't in future as this is clearly not what is wanted.


----------



## Hunters (28 December 2012)

I have just read an article on 'fracking' & it's possible benefits to the UK Market - yawn. But at least I benefited from being educated & informed on what could be a relevant issue.

Like the comments on here, one is open to debate not become personal. 

Please i implore you, look just that bit further round the corner. Look at Germany (no hunting St all now after it's ban.). Pull together, show some leadership, write /email the Mfha - ask if you or your hunt can do anything to assist swaying some of these MPs. 

Just please don't sit on your  hands


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 December 2012)

1t34 said:



			And I do remember rightly, as I don't post that often, you thought this was an idea worth exploring a while ago. But never mind I was only trying to help a little help as I have some experience in developing strategies for changing policies and legislation, I shan't in future as this is clearly not what is wanted.
		
Click to expand...

That was my polite response!!  It actually took about 2 minutes 'exploring', I'm afraid, for the flaws to become apparent!


----------



## Pale Rider (29 December 2012)

Quoted on the 'Today' program, so it must be right, 3 out of 4 people support a ban on fox hunting with hounds.
If MP's truly reflect the wishes of their constituents, now is not the time to try to lift the ban. I feel as time goes on foxhunting will go the way of other bloodsports, like bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. Totally unacceptable to the majority of people.


----------



## Hunters (29 December 2012)

Pale Rider - it's certainly not looking good. Due to the nature of my work, I spoke to many MP's before the ban & most admitted voting for a ban as:

A) it was a vote winner
B) it was 'tit for tat' reactive behaviour for what the Tories did to the miners.

What annoys me is that there is (and I admit it's a longshot) a glimmer of hope with the fact that we have a sympathetic prime minister. However, I feel that not enough is being done to 'assist' matters of persuasion. 

Furthermore, when on a forum such as this, you attempt to galvanise support, you are shot down & forum users start bickering.

Hunting ( right now) needs strong leadership & all I see are in fights in hunts like the Heythrop, Bicester & Kimblewick & those in charge do little to address the real issues.


----------



## Pale Rider (29 December 2012)

Hunters, if Cameron has any sense, he'll distance himself from horses and hunting until Mrs Brooks has been convicted.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2012)

Whilst The Ban itself,  was a disgraceful piece of legislation,  and has demonstrated just how corrupt and self promoting any government can be,  there can be no question that for any political party to support a reversal would be suicidal and the simple fact is that it isn't going to happen.  

Those who live a rural life were abandoned many years ago,  and Hunting is only one high profile facet to be sacrificed,  there are others;  our village schools,  our post offices,  our rights to race greyhounds against a natural quarry,  in fact all the fabric which makes (or made) up the rural idle has been emasculated.

The defence of those who hunted back in 2004 was all too little and too late.  By the time of The March,  the mindset was in place and for anyone to think that any political group will be prepared to be now branded as murderers,  and stand against a vociferous, unbalanced and distorted minority,  is living in a dream.

I congratulate those who campaigned to bring an end to hunting,  for they changed irrevocably,  an important and highly influential aspect of country life.  They managed to congratulate themselves,  though the reality is that the bulk of those who are responsible have no understanding of wildlife management,  they seem quite unable to accept that the wildlife which they would purport to protect,  only arrived in that happy state thanks to centuries of previous management,  and that their current engineered state of affairs,  is proving far more damaging than the previous arrangement.  

The saddest aspect of all this of course,  is that the ignorance displayed by those who would sanitise our world,  is such that they remain as blind and ignorant of their failings as are those politicians who also display a careless and shameful lack of thought.

Alec.


----------



## Simsar (29 December 2012)

Like^^^^^^^^


----------



## ConnieLove (29 December 2012)

Alec, I think you pretty much covered it for me


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2012)

Simsar said:



			Like^^^^^^^^
		
Click to expand...

Oh Simsar my year is now complete. Where have you been hiding, such a rare appearance.


----------



## Simsar (29 December 2012)

JM it is Simon, I still breafly check in here and breeding forum, but very rarely post, Sarah never comes on here anymore, she can't be bothered with the politics! Hope you all had a good Christmas and happy hunting.


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Whilst The Ban itself,  was a disgraceful piece of legislation,  and has demonstrated just how corrupt and self promoting any government can be,  there can be no question that for any political party to support a reversal would be suicidal and the simple fact is that it isn't going to happen.
		
Click to expand...

One could suggest that Cameron's PRE-election pledge to over-turn the hunting ban lost him some votes - but it was hardly suicidal.  The FACT is that while 75% of the population - if asked - will be anti-hunting, at least 90% of those people actually couldn't give a toss!  They wouldn't attend an anti-hunting demo, they wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, and they wouldn't spend £2 on an anti-hunt car sticker.  They sure as hell wouldn't change their vote over it!  So if Cameron (or his successor) can get back in with a working majority, the ban WILL be repealed. 




			The defence of those who hunted back in 2004 was all too little and too late.  By the time of The March,  the mindset was in place and for anyone to think that any political group will be prepared to be now branded as murderers,  and stand against a vociferous, unbalanced and distorted minority,  is living in a dream.
		
Click to expand...

You have a short memory Alec.  The 'too little, too late' started in the '60s and '70s when the LACS et al were getting into schools and brain-washing children (and their teachers!)  We listened to that well known MFH who advocated: 'keep our heads down and our powder dry!"  Those children are now poiliticians, and teachers, and voters!  It was 1992 - after the Quorn 'incident' that the battle started in earnest with the Campaign for Hunting funded network of PR officers!  Then when Labour got in in 1997 - committed to a ban - the antis were sure they'd get it within 12 months!    The 'Countryside Rally' in July, 1997 (which co-incided with the appearance of the Foster Bill) and the first BIG March in 1998 (timed to give our supporters in both Houses some encouragement) frightened the wits out of Blair.  They bought us another 6 years and the ONLY reason Blair allowed the use of the Parliament Act to push through the ban was that he needed to 'buy' support from his own backbenchers for a rather more important issue.  

The Conservatives will happily stand against the loony left and their fringes, once they have the numbers to allow the ban to be overturned.  If they can get the West Lothian question sorted in the meantime, that MIGHT be enough!  In the meantime we have to continue educating the public at large about hunting - not necessarily to turn them into hunters, but to make them appreciate what hunting is about - and what the next targets on the anti-agenda will be!


----------



## Hunters (29 December 2012)

And Janetgeorge, your last paragraph would appear to be agreeing with my sentiments, which in turn brings us full circle...

And so I will 'bang on again' about 'wooing' MP's, educating them & the public. 

When entertaining 'non country people' I often ask if they know where dead cows go? Of course this sends the table into silence for a few moments until the 'deadstock' explanation regarding hunts is explained. You'd be amazed how many guests leave my table 'pro' hunting as few have any idea that hunts 'pick up' deadstock etc

There used to be a lot of PR in our hunt and it worked a treat, not only educating the uninformed but bringing new fresh faces to the field. Maybe that's why we were able to gain three seats for the conservatives??


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 December 2012)

You're right Hunters!  We WON'T change the minds of committed anti-hunt MPs - believe me (unless their daughters ride and we can get them out hunting, maybe!)  I remember taking one out cubbing with the Quorn - pre-ban!  He SAW a clean kill by ONE hound, and a dead fox without so much as a drop of blood on it!  The pack had split and it was one of a few 'strays' who caught the fox.  The whipper-in retrieved the unmarked body before the rest of the hounds caught up - and Labour MP saw it VERY clearly!  But 3 days later, he was on the radio ranting about foxes being torn apart alive!

But we can do a lot to neutralise the general public's antipathy towards hunting - much of it through common sense and good manners.  Too many hunts - sadly - still hold up traffic and show disdain for other road users and landowners, block gateways etc.  That's enough to annoy even people who aren't anti-hunting!

And I see a sab was given a thumping at a southern hunt on Boxing Day!  That's just plain stupid - and plays right into their hands!  EVERYONE who goes hunting should see themselves as part-time PR officers for hunting!


----------



## Hunters (30 December 2012)

JanetGeorge I cannot disagree with one item of your above comment.

I can only add that you are correct in that many hunt riders to appear arrogant & indeed sometimes are in their ignorant actions.

PR, goes a long way.....


----------



## Hunters (30 December 2012)

(sorry 'do' appear arrogant ...


----------



## Hunters (30 December 2012)

The question still remains: What is to be done?

Is there more that can be done?

Are the 'so called' leaders MFHA/Countryside Alliance giving enough directive?  Or is the now politically minded RSPCA going to continue to kick hunting until the law gets tightened and we all go home?


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

The Tories have little or no chance of getting a majority in the next election-they can only have lost votes since the last one. Labour will probably get in, though not with a huge majority. We'd probably be waiting until 2020 or 2025 until there was a Tory government again. 
Therefore, if the law was going to be changed it would be have to be within this parliament.

At the moment, the votes really aren't there. According to the LACS, in 2010:
 324 MPs intended to vote against a repeal of the Hunting Act
 263 MPs intended to vote for a repeal of the Hunting Act
 14 MPs intended to abstain on a vote to repeal of the Hunting Act
 22 MPs were undecided or didn't answer on how to vote regarding a repeal of the Hunting Act

This will have changed very slightly since then. The 'No' votes would win by 61. 

The McKay Commission, which is looking at the West Lothian Question will report in May 2013, I believe. If Scottish/Northern Irish MPs were not allowed to vote, this is how the votes would look:
 271 MPs intending to vote against a repeal of the Hunting Act
 259 MPs intending to vote for a repeal of the Hunting Act
 5 MPs intending to abstain on a vote to repeal of the Hunting Act
 21 MPs undecided/did not answer on how to vote regarding a repeal of the Hunting Act

Again, this is based on the 2010 figures. Now, the 'No' vote would win by 12. However, looking at the names of the MPs on the 'undecided/did not answer' I can be pretty certain that some of them would be voting for repeal, based on how they have voted previously. So it really would be split down the middle.

Why this 'not enough votes' story has only just become news, I do not know. It has been known that there were not enough votes since 2010. 
The CA has not been keen to admit this. Instead, they have been coming out with vague statements telling us that 'repeal will come'-but *how* will it come? We've had two and a half years of this! 
And as far as I can see, a great many hunting people have given up on the idea of repeal, and given up on the political fight. This must change.


----------



## Hunters (30 December 2012)

Happyhunter 123, 12 MP's is not a lot.....?

I have therefore every faith all is in hand ?


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

Hunters said:



			Happyhunter 123, 12 MP's is not a lot.....?

I have therefore every faith all is in hand ?
		
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a lot, and I'm pretty sure that the difference is less than that when you consider those MPs who didn't bother replying to the League. But it isn't a clear majority, and therefore isn't a certain win. It would just depend on who turns up to vote.


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

I have no confidence in the LACS statistics. I believe Tim Bonner gave a good summary of our position in parliament and I will try to find it, but I really doubt the validity of the LACS claims.


----------



## happyhunter123 (30 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			I have no confidence in the LACS statistics. I believe Tim Bonner gave a good summary of our position in parliament and I will try to find it, but I really doubt the validity of the LACS claims.
		
Click to expand...

Well, yes. It is the LACS after all (very sparing with the truth), but I was unable to find any other statistics-the CA should have some of their own. Why don't they???


----------



## Countryman (30 December 2012)

Here Tim Bonner (CA head of campaigns I think) refutes the LACS figures proving at the moment it would be very very tight but if the West Lothian Question was answered, there would be a clear majority in favour of repeal. The two blog posts follow on from each other. 

http://huntingoffice.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/a-majority-against-repeal/


http://huntingoffice.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/lacs-retreats-on-mp-claims/

Admittedly they are from February but I think they still stand.


----------



## oakash (30 December 2012)

Herne said:



			Foolishness.

If you vote UKIP, you will get Labour.
		
Click to expand...

Your mistake, Herne. Vote for what you believe is RIGHT, not what you think will benefit you. Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.


----------



## Hunters (31 December 2012)

Roll on the answer to the West Lothian Question.... I do hope that if it's in our favour, that someone is using their intelligence to help matters along....,


----------



## happyhunter123 (1 January 2013)

I just wish that we were hearing a bit more of a plan from the CA. Constantly telling us that we 'are going to get repeal', but not telling us how isn't very reassuring. No wonder so many hunting people have given up hope!


----------



## Alec Swan (1 January 2013)

oakash said:



			....... Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.
		
Click to expand...

Tell me something,  has any voter ever acted in an ethical manner?

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (2 January 2013)

Hunting news now out of the press, I suppose everyone will go back to sleep for a while.  Still think the good old Mfha could do more, but maybe they are behind the scenes or something?


----------



## YorksG (2 January 2013)

Has anyone asked 'the majority' of the public, who profess themselves to be anti-hunting, where they stand on fishing? Surely if the hunting ban is on ethical grounds, along with a distaste for people enjoying the hunt, then fishing is actually a more legitimate target?


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 January 2013)

FestiveG said:



			Has anyone asked 'the majority' of the public, who profess themselves to be anti-hunting, where they stand on fishing? Surely if the hunting ban is on ethical grounds, along with a distaste for people enjoying the hunt, then fishing is actually a more legitimate target?
		
Click to expand...

Depending on who you ask the answer might be:  1) Fish don't feel pain (they do), 2) But we don't kill them, we catch and release (with damage to the mouth from the hook and to the scales from careless handling in MANY cases!) or 3)  But we catch them to EAT, not for fun!!


----------



## YorksG (2 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Depending on who you ask the answer might be:  1) Fish don't feel pain (they do), 2) But we don't kill them, we catch and release (with damage to the mouth from the hook and to the scales from careless handling in MANY cases!) or 3)  But we catch them to EAT, not for fun!!
		
Click to expand...

Surely 2) and 3) are mutually exclusive? I know realistically that this argument will never have legs, as the 'working man' rather than the 'toffs' fish. I do wonder how much awareness the public have of foot hunts and their followers, along with the considerably less well heeled mounted followers of some of the northern hunts? I wonder if they are even aware of tennant farmers?


----------



## Hunters (2 January 2013)

By bringing fishing into the debate, the whole aspect changes. Whilst having seen antis with 'Abolish Angling' logos on their T-shirts, one doesn't tend to find much public support for banning fishing.

Hunting, is of course seen as a 'toffs' sport. It's representatives are often also seen as 'toffs.' 

It doesn't help when representatives of hunting have double barrelled names either (no matter how good they are) - the public simply don't relate to them


----------



## Countryman (3 January 2013)

The argument "but we don't kill them" in fishing is rubbish-you've still inflicted pain on the creature for no reason other than to gain pleasure from it...I cannot see how someone can fish yet be anti hunting.


----------



## Hunters (3 January 2013)

Martin Salter (ex-mp) serious anti-hunter, yet prolific fisherman.

Double standards ???


----------



## happyhunter123 (3 January 2013)

Aha, this is more like what I wanted to hear from the CA !


http://www.countryside-alliance.org...ew-year-were-working-hard-for-hunting-in-2013

As for the hunting/fishing thing-in my view, out of hunting, shooting and fishing, hunting is by far the most easily justifiable!


----------



## Hunters (3 January 2013)

Oh at last the Countryside Alliance admits more work is to be done on MP's - hurrah hurrah !!!

Do they read these posts lol :-D


----------



## Herne (4 January 2013)

oakash said:



			Your mistake, Herne. Vote for what you believe is RIGHT, not what you think will benefit you. Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.
		
Click to expand...

Wishfull thinking, I'm afraid.

Liberal supporters have been voting for what they think is right since 1922 without getting anything very much (and I include the last two years in that!  )

Politics is always about making compromises. No one except a Prime-Minister with a massive landslide majority gets what they want in politics. Everyone else has to compromise and trade.

Voting for a minority party as a protest will never be as effective in attaining the changes that you want as joining a succesful party and working to change it from within.


----------



## Herne (4 January 2013)

Judgemental said:



			I was gratified to see Herne is now supporting my view that the Statutory Instrument should be used, if only to give it a Parliamentary airing.
		
Click to expand...

Our previous disagreement was not so much about whether it should be used as what it could be used for.

My reservation about the SI route is that what is done by SI is just as easily undone by SI, whereas what is undone by repeal is massively more difficult to redo by legislation.

However, give the political unlikelihood of obtaining the ideal solution, I am reluctantly moving closer to your position on the basis that some of what you can get is better than none of what you want.


----------



## Herne (6 January 2013)

oakash said:



			Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense!
		
Click to expand...

I KNOW it is utter foolishness...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html

Talk about cutting off your head to spite your nose...


----------



## Judgemental (6 January 2013)

Herne said:



			Our previous disagreement was not so much about whether it should be used as what it could be used for.

My reservation about the SI route is that what is done by SI is just as easily undone by SI, whereas what is undone by repeal is massively more difficult to redo by legislation.

However, give the political unlikelihood of obtaining the ideal solution, I am reluctantly moving closer to your position on the basis that some of what you can get is better than none of what you want.
		
Click to expand...

A wind of change bloweth then....

Perhaps the embryo of a move has been at last conceived.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 January 2013)

Herne said:



			I KNOW it is utter foolishness...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html

Talk about cutting off your head to spite your nose...
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.  And how can ANYONE take seriously an article whose headine includes the words: "Stunning blow for Cameron as poll says he'll lost dozens of MPs in Labour landslide"  

Mid-term polls are never anywhere NEAR accurate.  People use them to 'punish' their party, by saying they'll place their vote with UKIP or the Monster Raving Loonies!  Come election day, MOST come to their senses!  After all, why waste your vote!


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

Judgemental my fear is that if that is done then there will ever be any chance of getting the Act repealed due to a 'That'll keep 'em happy' mentality.

Out of interest, what sort of exemption would you put into the Act? A wrecking one, I assume, like 'if he has permission to hunt over the land' ?


----------



## Hunters (6 January 2013)

These polls may not be 100% accurate, but the conservatives have and are continuing to lose voters.

Selfishly, I would just like to see whosoever concerned sort what potentially could be the last chance to sort the ruddy mess.....


----------



## Judgemental (6 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			Judgemental my fear is that if that is done then there will ever be any chance of getting the Act repealed due to a 'That'll keep 'em happy' mentality.

Out of interest, what sort of exemption would you put into the Act? A wrecking one, I assume, like 'if he has permission to hunt over the land' ?
		
Click to expand...

Simples and as I have said before the wording of the act should be changed requiring a Police Officer to obtain a Magistrates Warrant in order to enter land or property in the investigation of an alleged offence. (Currently the act only requires a warrant for a dwelling house). In particular the warrant must be obtained for the officer to visit any tract of country so filmed in the evidence of the person or persons making the allegation. That the officer must walk the extent of the alleged line of any fox and hounds in it's entirety and certify that they have done so.


----------



## Countryman (6 January 2013)

I can see the point JM, especially if you're right and it requires the policeman to get a warrant to walk along the land he has filmed from the road.

However, wouldn't it just be easier to insert a real wrecking amendment like:
"His hunting is exempt if he has received permission to hunt over the land he hunts on"

Such an amendment would essentially legalise hunting again.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 January 2013)

Judgemental said:



			Simples and as I have said before the wording of the act should be changed requiring a Police Officer to obtain a Magistrates Warrant in order to enter land or property in the investigation of an alleged offence. 

........
		
Click to expand...

Would you propose that this should apply to any intended arrest,  or was it just for the offence of hunting?  As a bit of a for-instance;  The drink driver,  fleeing from the risk of capture,  abandoning his car and legging it across a field would presumably be free from arrest,  would he?

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Would you propose that this should apply to any intended arrest,  or was it just for the offence of hunting?  As a bit of a for-instance;  The drink driver,  fleeing from the risk of capture,  abandoning his car and legging it across a field would presumably be free from arrest,  would he?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec absolutely not. I am surprised by your comments bearing in mind the high regard you are held.

This is simply applicable to the Hunting Act 2004. Because it means there is a second line of 'precaution' in that, before the officer visits the person or persons against who an allegation is made, the officer first has to persuade a magistrate there is a case to answer.

Then if the magistrate so determines that a warrant should be issued, the police officer executes the warrant at the place where the alleged offence took place and if the offender is not present, then the officer has to find the offender.

Upon finding him or her the officer takes a statement and then is obliged to walk the line of the alleged hounds and fox, in so doing the officer is obliged to compile a map of the area in accordance with National Crime Specifications.

In the event there is an alleged kill, then under a further amendment via Statutory Instrument it becomes mandatory for Scenes of Crime Investigation unit to be called into the alleged crime area, to determine whether the alleged kill was sustained by hounds under the control of the alleged offender.

It will be important to add to the act via The Statutory Instrument that all hounds involved are identified and DNA tested to match that DNA found on the kill.

Frankly I cannot see that anybody could object to those proposals.


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act. 

The *ONLY* thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			However, wouldn't it just be easier to insert a real wrecking amendment like:
"His hunting is exempt if he has received permission to hunt over the land he hunts on"

Such an amendment would essentially legalise hunting again.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, such a wrecking amendment would be extremely unlikely to stand up to Judicial Review.


----------



## Countryman (7 January 2013)

I think we have to hope Cameron tries to sort out the West Lothian Question before 2015 then.


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

As I mentioned in the other thread, very unlikely to happen before the referendum in 2014 and almost impossible to push through thereafter prior to May 2015.

The devil shits in big heaps...


----------



## Countryman (7 January 2013)

I agree it'll only happen after the referendum. But don't you think Cameron might try to push it through before 2015 if only to put himself in a better position in the election.


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2013)

Herne said:



			Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act. 

The *ONLY* thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Herne - rubbish, absolute rubbish

The Statutory Instrument under Section 14 states as follows:

Subordinate legislation. 
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act 
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument, .
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, .
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and .
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In other words it can be used in any circumstance and Exempt Hunting is not specific. Where you dreamt that up from is a mystery?


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 January 2013)

Herne said:



			Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act. 

The *ONLY* thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Please noite JM and others:  Herne KNOWS how Parliament works and is better quaified than anyone else here to give advice on what can and can't be done - and when.  PLEASE listen to him - otherwise we're arguing about pigs flying!


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Please noite JM and others:  Herne KNOWS how Parliament works and is better quaified than anyone else here to give advice on what can and can't be done - and when.  PLEASE listen to him - otherwise we're arguing about pigs flying!
		
Click to expand...

Janet, don't we all for a variety of reasons and specific connections.

The Hunting Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

I invite anybody to read the Act in some cases for the umpteenth time because the Herne's of this world continually put their own Parliamentary spin on the wording.

The SI allows the Secretary of State to make any amendment he or she wishes to table.

c, d and e are outstandingly clear, anything can be amended:

(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In my opinion, there are a bunch of movers and shakers who know perfectly well that the SI can be used but are still living in a world of Repeal or nothing!


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 January 2013)

Judgemental said:



			Janet, don't we all for a variety of reasons and specific connections.

>>>>

In my opinion, there are a bunch of movers and shakers who know perfectly well that the SI can be used but are still living in a world of Repeal or nothing!
		
Click to expand...

Well, JM - I don't know you - or your 'connections' - but on my own knowledge and experience of how Parliament works - I'd say Herne is FAR better qualified than you - and - frankly - talks a lot more sense!


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2013)

Judgemental said:



			Alec absolutely not. I am surprised by your comments .......

This is simply applicable to the Hunting Act 2004. ........
		
Click to expand...

J_M,  I surprise myself on occasion!!  

I do however,  fail to see how we can have a system whereby a Police officer needs to apply to a Court for a warrant,  for one type of offender or offence,  but not for another.  Warrants,  as far as I'm aware,  are not issued on the grounds of being crime specific.  

It still seems to me that you have the belief that the Law shouldn't,  or doesn't need to be,  even handed,  in that it should be dispensed in one direction,  but not in another.  I wouldn't want to see Hunting favoured by jurisdiction.  I want to see Hunting flourish and continue,  but without bias.  It aint going to happen,  sadly.

Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act,  just a question;  If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare,  am I breaking the Law?

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Well, JM - I don't know you - or your 'connections' - but on my own knowledge and experience of how Parliament works - I'd say Herne is FAR better qualified than you - and - frankly - talks a lot more sense!
		
Click to expand...

Merely quoting the Hunting Act 2004 does not remotely imply anything but the facts and therefore, it seems a sensible source of information.

As for your hero Herne, you have rather dropped him in it, have you not? If he is so marvellous, why has he not done more towards gaining just a little amendment? Simply to keep the 'chattering classes' happy.

Its all very well for all these chaps to bounce around seeking support for hunting as we knew it in days of yore, yet once they are comfortably ensconced in the H of C that's the end of poor poltroons such as myself - used yet again by the good and the great.....


----------



## Hunters (7 January 2013)

Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters.  Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C. 

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.


----------



## Countryman (7 January 2013)

JM in any case I'm not sure how your suggestions would work to prevent monitors filming illegal hunting - which is after all the greatest danger to hunts, much more so than the police.


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2013)

Hunters said:



			Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters.  Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C. 

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.
		
Click to expand...

Yes Hunters that's about the size of what is a massive con.

Of course I alway laught when I think about the whole scenario, the pleadings, the duress, the outright pressure put on the membership of all hunts to return the 'right' MP, who would most certainly support the repeal. 

No sooner did one particular lady MP get to the Commons but she declared she was bored and went off to dally with her boy friend, who promptly blew the whistle.

No it has become a huge waste of time and effort.


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

Judgemental said:



			Herne - rubbish, absolute rubbish

The Statutory Instrument under Section 14 states as follows:

Subordinate legislation. 
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act&#8212; 
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument, .
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, .
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and .
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In other words it can be used in any circumstance and Exempt Hunting is not specific. Where you dreamt that up from is a mystery?
		
Click to expand...

JM it is not a mystery - I told you where it came from in my message.

Part 1 deals with the offences:

Section 1 says that hunting mammals with dogs is an offence, unless exempt.

Section 2, sub-section 1 says that exempt hunting is in Schedule 1
Section 2, sub-section 2 says *"The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting"*

That is the part of the Act that sets out what the SoS may amend by order.

After Sections 3, 4 and 5, you then get Part 2 dealing with Enforcement, which, after Section 10, then leads on to Part 3, General, which deals with definitions and procedures.

Section 14, which you quote above, specifies the procedeures for making an order under Section 2, subsection 2. It does not give carte blanche for the SoS to do anything at all.

Think about it - if your interpretation was right, then S2, ss2 would be superfluous.

I am sorry, but you are wrong.


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act,  just a question;  If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare,  am I breaking the Law?
		
Click to expand...

Er, yes.

I am confused as to why you even need to ask that?

EDIT: Unless you are going to claim that it was exempt under one of the classes in Sch 1, such as retrieval of a shot hare...?


----------



## Herne (7 January 2013)

Countryman said:



			I agree it'll only happen after the referendum. But don't you think Cameron might try to push it through before 2015 if only to put himself in a better position in the election.
		
Click to expand...

He could try, I suppose. Wouldn't be a bad idea. Might even achieve it if he is ruthless enough...


----------



## Herne (8 January 2013)

Hunters said:



			Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters.  Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C. 

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.
		
Click to expand...

If Labour had won in 2010, would you be surprised that the Conservatives had not obtained repeal by now?

No. Because they would not be in power with a majority governement.

Well, they are not in power with a majority government now - and that is why we have not got repeal yet. 

It has got nothing to do with breaking promises - it has got everything to do with plain and simple political mathematics.

The Conservative Party might have sort of won the last election, but the pro-repeal party did not.

Therefore, we need to keep fighting until we do. 

Or give up - and, personally, I am not a quitter.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			.......

Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act,  just a question;  If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare,  am I breaking the Law?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




Herne said:



			Er, yes.

I am confused as to why you even need to ask that?

EDIT: Unless you are going to claim that it was exempt under one of the classes in Sch 1, such as retrieval of a shot hare...?
		
Click to expand...

To be perfectly truthful,  I didn't expect a reply from anyone.  To be equally truthful,  I wouldn't give a thought to the law,  or the consideration of others,  or their feelings.  If I want to course my dogs,  then that's what I shall do,  regardless of the consequences.

Alec.


----------



## Herne (8 January 2013)

Alec,

This is part of the reason why the Hunting Act is such a bad piece of legislation and why it must be removed from the Statute Books - I cannot think of any other piece of legislation that is viewed with such contempt by the people that it is supposed to govern.

The thing about Law is that it only works with the consent of the people being governed. Even burglars accept that burglary should be a crime.

Hunting people do not accept - and never will accept - that hunting *ought* to be illegal and therefore they view the law with contempt.

The Hunting Act 2004 is broken every single day of the year. And I am not talking about "registered hunts", here, I am talking about everyday people who let their dogs do what dogs do, be it you letting your dogs chase a hare, or a shepherd letting his sheepdogs see off a fox or a farmer using his terrier underground to protect his chickens. These people see what they do as plain common sense and would consider it completely absurd to be told that what they are doing is criminal  if they even thought about it.

However, under the Law, what these people do is every single little bit as illegal as the Heythrop Hunt in full fig hunting a fox with a pack of hounds.

Are the antis clamouring for the Police to be chasing farmers and shepherds and game keepers? No. because they dont really care about those people. They only care about stopping the registered Hunts.

But the Law cannot work like that. A government must not be allowed to pass a badly worded law that affects everyone and then say _Oh well, we only care about controlling the people that we dont like. The rest of you can just ignore it  thatll be fine!_

That is bigotry and it is wrong.

Simple question: Is hunting with dogs ethically and/or morally wrong under Law?

Simple answer: No. The Hunting Act 2004 lists not less than 9 circumstances under which hunting with dogs is permitted.

Either something is immoral or it is not. There are no exemptions to morality. You do not say of paedophilia: It is immoral  except in the case of red-headed kids on a Tuesday, in which case its fine.

The Hunting Act threfore defeats its own purpose because it enshrines in Law the principle that hunting with dogs is neither immoral or unethical.

It then goes on to say but well stop some people from doing it anyway, based purely on the arbitrary prejudices of the people who drafted it.

That is bigotry and it is wrong.

The Hunting Act 2004 is an appalling piece of legislation, based on prejudice and bigotry. It is a disgrace to our legal system and no hunting follower or supporter of plain justice should be satisfied with anything less than its complete repeal.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Hunting people are good people  so keep doing something!


----------



## Alec Swan (8 January 2013)

Herne,

a good post.  Better than that,  an excellent post.

Alec.


----------



## Herne (8 January 2013)

Thank you.


----------



## Hunters (9 January 2013)

Herne

Succinct, comprehensive & one of detail & clearness all in one.,


----------

