# Hunting on National Trust Land



## Shay (2 September 2012)

Following the recent Meynell hunting convictions an anti team have set up a petition in an attempt to persuade the National Trust from preventing the Meynell from hunting on NT land. 

A counter petition has therefore been set up and would welcome your support and here's the link:   http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/allow-the-meynell-south-staffs-hunt-on-national-trust.html 

Please take the trouble to sign the petition and forward as a decision in favour of the antis will undoubtedly have implications for other hunts using National Trust land.


----------



## WestCoast (2 September 2012)

Really seriously do you think that they deserve to be able to continue after showing such flagrant disregard for a law supported by such a large majority of the population that the government can't even get a majority of conservative MPs to support repealing it? Or do laws only apply to poor people in this country?


----------



## happyhunter123 (2 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			Or do laws only apply to poor people in this country?
		
Click to expand...

Classic class hatred and ignorance coming out there. Many poor people hunt, you bigot!


----------



## happyhunter123 (2 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			A law supported by such a large majority of the population
		
Click to expand...

Actually, most members of the public have not one tiny clue about hunting with hounds, and don't care all that much. OK, maybe if asked they'll say they oppose it because it sounds 'nasty'. But I've met, and know, a unbelievable number of people who have either never heard of hunting with hounds or didn't know it was banned (you'll be surprised how many people don't watch the news or read the paper). Many people who have heard of the ban think that it prevents people from killing foxes in any way. Anyway, if they were all very strong antis, you'd think the LACS might have a few million more members than the couple of thousand it has now!

I think, in a survey, it was found that for over half of voters would not be more or less likely to vote Labour if they would ban hunting. The CA commissioned a survey which found that '59% say keep hunting'. The League found that '76% say ban it'. You'll find that those who commission these surveys always seem to find the answer they want. In 2005, it was found, in a Countryfile commissioned survey that 47% supported the ban. 73% thought that the government spend too long debating the Act. But when (I would say) the majority of the public don't really know what hunting is, these figures, whether they support or oppose, are meaningless.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			....... a law supported by such a large majority of the population .......

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

That's factually incorrect.  The vast majority of the population recognise a fraudulent and dishonest law which was engineered by groups with no interest in right or wrong,  OR,  the countryside.  

That you bring the argument of rich and poor,  which presumably would equate to a class structured statement,  into a debate,  leaves your argument without substance,  I'm sorry to tell you.

Another point for you to consider,  The NT let out their land to shooting syndicates,  and earn a considerable revenue from such lettings.  The NT is also a huge money making machine,  and if they were to ban hunting,  in any form,  and on the grounds of morality,  do you honestly think that they'd abandon their other sporting money making enterprises?  I don't. 

Alec.


----------



## WestCoast (2 September 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Classic class hatred and ignorance coming out there. Many poor people hunt, you bigot! 

Click to expand...

Oh yes of course - all those poor people that can afford to keep a horse and all the paraphernalia. Oh sorry - I forgot, the plebs happily follow the toffs on foot for a good bit of ripping apart of wildlife. 




			59% say keep hunting
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes that excellent statistic best know for the ASA serving a cease and desist notice on the CA for fraudulent advertising.  




			But when (I would say) the majority of the public don't really know what hunting is, these figures, whether they support or oppose, are meaningless
		
Click to expand...

Yes of course when the vaste majority disagree with what you do then they must be stupid not to see the noble selflessness of what you are doing. Ah hang on. . . 

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.


----------



## L&M (2 September 2012)

Petition signed.

Paulag - if you find our activities so abhorrent, why do you bother to frequent the hunting page of the Horse and HOUND forum (clue is in the name)?

Fyi I am not wealthy, and our hunt conducts it's activities within the law, so really do not appreciate being referred to as 'pondlife'.


----------



## WestCoast (2 September 2012)

It appeared on the latest post feed and  kinda assumed it was in support of throwing the lawbreakers off national trust land. 

You need to sent up your own private forum if you don't want to be criticised. 

Sorry I regard people who consider hunting a living creature for kicks acceptable pond life - live with it, it's not like you care what people think..

Paula


----------



## Maesfen (2 September 2012)

Just how much land does the Meynell hunt over that actually IS NT land?


----------



## L&M (2 September 2012)

Sigh......


----------



## Alec Swan (2 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			.......

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

It often seems to me,  Paula,  that those who run out of reasoned argument,  seem to resort to insult.  Within my argument,  have I insulted you,  or been offensive?  

If I am,  as you say,  "pond life",  why do you bother to enter into a conversation with me?  Perhaps,  were you to save your energies,  you could do something useful with them. 

One final tip for you;  you're on a pro-hunting forum,  and you're waisting your thoughts.  Still,  if that's what brings you pleasure. 

Alec.


----------



## A1fie (2 September 2012)

Signed


----------



## WestCoast (2 September 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			It often seems to me,  Paula,  that those who run out of reasoned argument,  seem to resort to insult.  Within my argument,  have I insulted you,  or been offensive?  

If I am,  as you say,  "pond life",  why do you bother to enter into a conversation with me?  Perhaps,  were you to save your energies,  you could do something useful with them. 

One final tip for you;  you're on a pro-hunting forum,  and you're waisting your thoughts.  Still,  if that's what brings you pleasure. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It's not so much the pro hunting that is the problem, but the support for lawbreaking that needs to be challenged. This hunt's members, despite clearly having the resources to afford the best lawyers gave been proven in court to have broken the law. So why would anyone put up a petition to support them? 

Of course this is offensive - why wouldn't it be?


----------



## Shay (2 September 2012)

This is not about allowing "lawbreaking" on NT land.  Do the NT conduct a PNC check on every visitor to be sure they have no convinctions, unpaid parking fines etc?  No.  Do you want such a world?  Well personally  - no.  

(And I have never been convicted of anything - not even a parking ticket!)

There is a petition from those opposed and from those in support.  Just choose.  Don't descend to personal insults.

Although  - thank you to Paulag.  Your vocal opposition has probably got more signatures onto this petition in the last 2 hours than any amount of quiet diplomacy.


----------



## Keenjean (2 September 2012)

Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.  
Also, comments such as pond life are unnecessary.


----------



## acw295 (2 September 2012)

Signed


----------



## happyhunter123 (2 September 2012)

Pixiepoo said:



			Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.  
Also, comments such as pond life are unnecessary.
		
Click to expand...

Slightly going away from the topic.
Paulag, why waste your time? The people who read this forum are unlikely to listen to you if all you are is rude and abusive to them. If you wish to enter into calm, sensible, fact-based debate on the issue of hunting, please feel free too. I accept you have your own views, that's fine, and I would listen to you. You would have to do the same I have so much respect for antis that can do that (they are extremely rare). What you need is the maturity to accept that I might have a different view from you. 
The hunting debate is so tiring! It's just two sides mainly hurling abuse at each other, neither understanding each other in the slightest.


----------



## Hunters (3 September 2012)

Apart from religion, hunting has to be the one subject that the opposite sides will never agree on. There is almost little point in debate on these forums as each side rarely changes their views.


That said, according to my sister who is a journalist, more anti hunt people have swapped 'sides' that hunt supporters. For example, during the 400 plus hours spent debating the subject in parliament, radio presenters found it easier to find previous sabs that had turned 'pro' than the other way round. Given the normal strength of feeling and passion felt, this was nevertheless strange but true.,,


----------



## Hunters (3 September 2012)

Finally, to insult someone by calling them pond life, to my mind shows that the perpetrator has simply run out of reasoned argument. Not a particularly clever or effective way of attempting to exert influence over anyone.


----------



## Goldenstar (3 September 2012)

What's the issue with things that live in ponds anyway ? Lots of very nice interesting things live in ponds.
Wonder what happened to Paulag in the past perhaps she had a nasty fright with a newt.


----------



## Lizzie66 (3 September 2012)

Signed


----------



## MerrySherryRider (3 September 2012)

Pixiepoo said:



			Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, its a horse forum with a hunting section. It would be an interesting exercise to determine what proportion of members fall into the pro, anti and can't be arsed categories.

 As there is no requirement to be pro hunting on here and bearing in mind some of the extreme responses in the hunting section, I wonder if its a classic and interesting example of Group Polarization.

 Just because the pro hunting lobby sometimes scare the more middle of the road posters into silence, it doesn't mean everyone agrees all that you say.


----------



## Littlelegs (3 September 2012)

Signed.  And lots of thanks to paulag, as I don't regularly hunt anymore, I rarely come into this section through sheer jealousy cos I miss hunting. But the reference to this thread on one in new lounge prompted me. Slightly confused though. As I used to hunt, have taken small daughter & hope to again in future, am I pond life or just pond side life? Anyway, can't hang around to find out, in all these years I never realised only the rich hunt, so I'm off to check my bank balance, someone must have made a hefty deposit!


----------



## Kat (3 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

But Paula where will the drag hunts hunt if the NT bans hunting from its land? The NT are unlikely to ban just the meynell, especially as it could easily be argued that the majority should not be penalised for the actions of the few. The conclusion of highlighting this and campaigning to stop the meynell from hunting on NT land is likely to be a ban of all hunting on NT land, if the NT start to feel that allowing hunts on their land will be unpopular with their visitors and members they will ban the lot. 

A great many hunts now do not kill anything. Some never did. Some hunt live quarry within the law. Why should they and their members be penalised for the actions of a couple of law breakers who no doubt do not represent the majority.


----------



## happyhunter123 (3 September 2012)

Kat said:



			Why should they and their members be penalised for the actions of a couple of law breakers who no doubt do not represent the majority.
		
Click to expand...

But that's (I think) what very many antis want. They would be so much happier if every hunt packed it in now, whether they are hunting legally or not. That sounds ridiculous: why should they oppose drag or trail hunting? Well, in principle they don't oppose it (they don't morally oppose it), but in practice they want it gone. The reasons why are quite simple. If every trail or drag hunt disbanded there would never be any chance of repeal. Support for hunting would die out, and there would be no campaign for a resumption of 'proper' hunting if the sport was dead. Hunting's infrastructure would disappear. There would be no, or little, chance of revival ever. There would never be any chance for hunts to break the law under the guise of trail hunting. 
In addition, the end of hunting in any form would be a complete victory over the 'nasty' hunting people, and for those with a hatred more based on class prejudice, it would be another victory. the antis absolutely loathe us, whatever we're doing, it seems. Don't worry though, for we shall not allow them to win!


----------



## Alec Swan (3 September 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			.......  Within my argument,  have I insulted you,  or been offensive?  

.......

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




Paulag said:



			.......

Of course this is offensive - why wouldn't it be?
		
Click to expand...

I don't entirely understand your response.  I asked if I had offended you,  or been offensive towards you.  

I suspect paulag,  that you are a rather sad and vulgar person.  Just a pointer for you,  being sad and vulgar has nothing to do with class,  but everything to do with breeding,  and good breeding is a quality as easily found in a Council House,  as a Castle.

Your abusive and pointless posts do little to recommend you.  I can't think that there's anyone on this forum who I dislike,  but you're rapidly heading in that direction.  Not that that would bother you,  and there'd be a good reason for that,  wouldn't there? 

Alec.


----------



## Suelin (4 September 2012)

I know nothing of the problem with the NT and the Meynell, however it was my understanding that the NT had banned any form of hunting with hounds on it's property a good few years ago.  Is that not the case now?  Just interested if the goal posts had been moved.


----------



## Maesfen (4 September 2012)

That's what I thought Suelin.  It was a blanket ban for all of their properties and there was quite a stink about it from some who had donated property in the past as it was always their forebears wishes that hunting continued over their land and they'd never have left it to the NT if they knew that would happen.


----------



## Kat (4 September 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			But that's (I think) what very many antis want. They would be so much happier if every hunt packed it in now, whether they are hunting legally or not. That sounds ridiculous: why should they oppose drag or trail hunting? Well, in principle they don't oppose it (they don't morally oppose it), but in practice they want it gone. The reasons why are quite simple. If every trail or drag hunt disbanded there would never be any chance of repeal. Support for hunting would die out, and there would be no campaign for a resumption of 'proper' hunting if the sport was dead. Hunting's infrastructure would disappear. There would be no, or little, chance of revival ever. There would never be any chance for hunts to break the law under the guise of trail hunting. 
In addition, the end of hunting in any form would be a complete victory over the 'nasty' hunting people, and for those with a hatred more based on class prejudice, it would be another victory. the antis absolutely loathe us, whatever we're doing, it seems. Don't worry though, for we shall not allow them to win!  

Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of antis would like to see all hunting banned, even drag hunting and bloodhounding. I was responding speacifically to paulag who has said in other posts that she has drag hunted in the past. 

Many people who aren't involved in hunting don't seem to be aware that much hunting doesn't involve killing anything, either because they never have done or because they are respecting the ban. It suits the antis that people think that people on horses in red jackets = killing stuff and breaking the law. This suits many of the antis as it is all about class warfare and the perception that those who hunt are toffs and revenge for closing the pits rather than having anything to do with animal welfare.


----------



## combat_claire (4 September 2012)

Suelin said:



			I know nothing of the problem with the NT and the Meynell, however it was my understanding that the NT had banned any form of hunting with hounds on it's property a good few years ago.  Is that not the case now?  Just interested if the goal posts had been moved.
		
Click to expand...

This is NT policy and always has been:

_The National Trust is very much aware of the importance of countryside traditions. We allow field sports to take place on our property where traditionally practised, providing they are within the law and are compatible with the Trust's purposes, which include public access and the protection of rare animals and birds and fragile_ habitats.

_The Trust is a charitable body, and as such cannot take a political position either for or against field sports.

The Trust's general position on field sports remains unchanged by its decision in 1997 not to renew licences for the hunting of red deer. This decision was taken following the publication  of the Bateson report, from which the Trust's Council concluded that hunting red deer with hounds caused suffering incompatible with the Trust's responsibility for the welfare of red deer on its property. These findings relate to red deer only.

The Trust therefore continues to permit other forms of hunting as well as shooting and fishing where appropriate, subject to controls and licences._


----------



## PaddyMonty (4 September 2012)

Shay said:



			Following the recent Meynell hunting convictions an anti team have set up a petition in an attempt to persuade the National Trust from preventing the Meynell from hunting on NT land.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this?


----------



## Maesfen (4 September 2012)

Thanks Claire, made things a lot clearer now.


----------



## Suelin (4 September 2012)

combat_claire said:



			This is NT policy and always has been:

_The National Trust is very much aware of the importance of countryside traditions. We allow field sports to take place on our property where traditionally practised, providing they are within the law and are compatible with the Trust's purposes, which include public access and the protection of rare animals and birds and fragile_ habitats.

_The Trust is a charitable body, and as such cannot take a political position either for or against field sports.

The Trust's general position on field sports remains unchanged by its decision in 1997 not to renew licences for the hunting of red deer. This decision was taken following the publication  of the Bateson report, from which the Trust's Council concluded that hunting red deer with hounds caused suffering incompatible with the Trust's responsibility for the welfare of red deer on its property. These findings relate to red deer only.

The Trust therefore continues to permit other forms of hunting as well as shooting and fishing where appropriate, subject to controls and licences._

Click to expand...

Many thanks for this.  It clears up my previous misconception.


----------



## Gingerbolt (6 September 2012)

Signed.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (6 September 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			Do you have a link to this?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, in the interests of balance, for those interested-

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/188/...-staffordshire-hunt-from-national-trust-land/


----------



## WestCoast (6 September 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I don't entirely understand your response.  I asked if I had offended you,  or been offensive towards you.  

I suspect paulag,  that you are a rather sad and vulgar person.  Just a pointer for you,  being sad and vulgar has nothing to do with class,  but everything to do with breeding,  and good breeding is a quality as easily found in a Council House,  as a Castle

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I posted an opinion that to support those who break the law, especially one designed to prevent cruelty to animals wasn't a good thing to do. You attacked me for it. Not desperately offended as I am aware that there are people out there who think that way. 

This isn't vulgar it is simply expressing an opinion. Although who on earth uses that word as an insult? There isn't much wrong with being considered vulgar by someone who enjoys killing animals for fun. And good breeding - I believe that generally refers to a certain degree of inbreeding so no, I'm pretty sure I don't have that.

Paula


----------



## WestCoast (6 September 2012)

horserider said:



			Yes, in the interests of balance, for those interested-

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/188/...-staffordshire-hunt-from-national-trust-land/

Click to expand...

Signed thank you.


----------



## happyhunter123 (6 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			I posted an opinion that to support those who break the law, especially one designed to prevent cruelty to animals wasn't a good thing to do. You attacked me for it. Not desperately offended as I am aware that there are people out there who think that way. 

This isn't vulgar it is simply expressing an opinion. Although who on earth uses that word as an insult? There isn't much wrong with being considered vulgar by someone who enjoys killing animals for fun. And good breeding - I believe that generally refers to a certain degree of inbreeding so no, I'm pretty sure I don't have that.

Paula
		
Click to expand...


Ah, the classic misunderstanding, that we go out to just to 'kill animals for fun'. Heard that old rubbish so many times, I can tell you. You drag hunt, don't you? The attraction is similar, but the hunting is more interesting, more exciting and more natural as well as serving a fairly useful purpose for our countryside (as opposed to drag hunting which serves no purpose at all). I've have been hunting hundreds of times in my life, and have never seen the kill up close. Well, I've seen it on the other side of the valley, and not even known it had happened until the huntsman blew his horn. 

Believe me, the idea that someone could take pleasure solely from taking an animals' life is not one I like much. With hunting, you don't. I alway see it like this: the tracking and pursuit of the quarry is the part we enjoy. The kill is the part that the hounds enjoy, and also pleases the farmers. I know it may be hard for you to grasp that, but can you at least try?


----------



## TTK (7 September 2012)

Petition signed and BTW, I gave up my membership of the NT years ago due to their attitude to horse riders & access to their land in general - they like walkers & cyclists but seem to abhor riders.


----------



## Serenity087 (7 September 2012)

The NT would land themselves in hot water if they banned the hunts!

I shoot on NT land.  And when we're not blasting poor defenseless little birdies out of the sky, we're doing all the maintenance a good shoot should.  So not only do the NT make money from us, but they don't have to lift a finger to look after the site either.

Now imagine the dent to the figures if the country sports folk just stopped turning up.  Not only would a massive source of income vanish (and there's little else you can charge for on land which has no specific interest other than being a nice walk!) and THEN they'd have to pay people to go manage it!

It's a no brainer.  The antis are the ones with their heads in the clouds on this one!


----------



## WestCoast (10 September 2012)

National Trust statement;

Since our last post, in light of the fact that members of the Meynell and South Staffordshire Hunt have recently been convicted of illegal fox hunting, the Trust has decided not to grant a licence for the 2012-2013 season over its land at Ilam, Kedleston and Calke. The National Trust is very much aware of the importance of countryside traditions. We allow field sports to take place on our property where traditionally practised, providing they are within the law and are compatible with the Trust's purposes, which include public access and the protection of rare animals and birds and fragile habitats. The Trust is a charitable body, and as such cannot take a political position either for or against field sports."

I know many did not feel that they wanted to post on this thread due to abuse received by those of us who pointed out that members of this hunt broke the law and did not deserve support. Hopefully this decision will convince all hunts that use NT land that drag or mock hunting, rather than considering themselves above the law, is the way to go. 

Paula


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 September 2012)

Presumably then, this NT policy will (has ?) affect other hunts that have been found guilty of illegal fox hunting ?
 I think they have to be careful, as isn't it the case that landowners allowing illegal hunting on their land are liable to prosecution too.


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			National Trust statement;

I know many did not feel that they wanted to post on this thread due to abuse received by those of us who pointed out that members of this hunt broke the law

Paula
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, the only person being abusive was you


----------



## paddi22 (10 September 2012)

it is infuriating on a forum when a member disagrees with a poster and then the poster says they are being 'attacked'. There is nothing wrong with a debate. it doesn't mean someone is being attacked!


----------



## Littlelegs (10 September 2012)

Agree with happyhunter & paddi. Perhaps it would be good to maybe consider that nobody objects to a differing opinion, but the manner in which it is expressed.


----------



## WestCoast (10 September 2012)

Yes I agree - the people concerned should have thought carefully before calling me an anti, a deliberate trouble maker, sad and vulgar and (my particular favorite) having no breeding. The assertion that no one objects to a differing opinion is clearly ludicrous. 

I, on the other hand, only critisised those that break the law, those that support them, and those that enjoy killing/torturing animals for fun (as opposed to when it is necessary). If someone chooses to be offended I assume it is because they include themselves in these groups. 

As I've said repeatedly, my only contributions in hunting have been this thread, and the other one supporting the lawbreakers. 

And yes, I am sure the NT will apply the rules to other hunts caught breaking the law. What - did you think breaking rules had no consequences? 

Paula


----------



## Littlelegs (10 September 2012)

I think re reading the thread maybe a good idea. It comes across that whilst you think its ok to criticize those for hunting, you don't like the same by return. I can only speak for myself, whilst I respect the view of someone who agrees with the ban, I have little respect for a view based on hunting being only for the rich, or all hunting people enjoying needless torturing of wildlife. An informed but different view I can respect, a misinformed one that has to rely on phrases such as pond life, I cannot. Again, it is the wording, not the opinion that I for one dislike.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			Oh yes of course - all those poor people that can afford to keep a horse and all the paraphernalia. Oh sorry - I forgot, the plebs happily follow the toffs on foot for a good bit of ripping apart of wildlife. 



Ah yes that excellent statistic best know for the ASA serving a cease and desist notice on the CA for fraudulent advertising.  



Yes of course when the vaste majority disagree with what you do then they must be stupid not to see the noble selflessness of what you are doing. Ah hang on. . . 

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.
		
Click to expand...




Paulag said:



			It appeared on the latest post feed and  kinda assumed it was in support of throwing the lawbreakers off national trust land. 

You need to sent up your own private forum if you don't want to be criticised. 

Sorry I regard people who consider hunting a living creature for kicks acceptable pond life - live with it, it's not like you care what people think..

Paula
		
Click to expand...




Paulag said:



			.......

I, on the other hand, only critisised those that break the law, .........

Paula
		
Click to expand...

So considering your last offering,  and your previous statements,  you consider those who act within the law to be Pond-life,  do you?  

What was it?  "I,  on the other hand, only criticise those that break the law."  Clearly,  you don't restrict your vindictive bile to law breakers,  you share it out amongst law abiding citizens too,  it seems.

I suspect that 30 years of drag hunting may have had some effect. 

Alec.


----------



## sykokat (10 September 2012)

Oh dear!! here we go again! resorting to insults. us 'pond life' do not all have 'pots' of money and are not all 'toffs' (my phrase) but still value the hunting lifestyle and what it stands for. you wont win this argument on a forum that is predominantly pro hunt. maybe you should bat for the 'other side'. they must have a forum that you may be listened to Paulag.
you are just on a losing wicket here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## happyhunter123 (11 September 2012)

Paulag said:



			Those that enjoy killing/torturing animals for fun (as opposed to when it is necessary)

Paula
		
Click to expand...

But that, I'm afraid isn't factual . We don't, like I told you in one of my previous posts! the kill is *not the enjoyable part*. Honestly, if that's all we wanted to do, I'd be on your side. That's not to say the kill isn't important (it is in some ways), but I can tell you of hundreds of days I've had which have been 'good day's hunting' without a kill (some of the best days hunting I've had have been when we've lost the quarry at the end), and hundreds of poor days with a kill. The enjoyable part is the search for and hunt of the quarry (during which I think it is unlikely that the quarry animal suffers).
If people knew this fact, I think there would be far fewer people opposing hunting!


----------



## SophieAlice (19 September 2012)

Ive signed it! its redic that they have been banned!! people do much worse things in life!
The mynell look like they have more people signing there petition anyway


----------

