# Ban all hunts



## Thriller (17 February 2015)

http://m.westernmorningnews.co.uk/L...s-like-close/story-26034313-detail/story.html

Lacs want all hunts closed. Views?


----------



## millikins (17 February 2015)

Having had 10 years to "prove" hunts are acting illegally and failed, I suspect they are now hoping we will have a weak Labour Government after the election to further their cause.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 February 2015)

Were the lacs to have addressed their appalling management of the deer at Baronsdown Wood,  where through the gross neglect of their 'rescued' creatures (though in reality,  illegally trapped),  sponsored by those with no care for wildlife nor an acceptable level of knowledge,  then they may be taken seriously.  The lacs are a collection of clowns,  as I've just advised them. 

Alec.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

I don't doubt that the LACS have a point though in regards to many hunts circumventing the law.  The law is for everyone to uphold, and the hunts that do not think this law does applies to them just harms the cause for hunting within the law.  Hunts that do that just polarise the argument and this jcreates problems all round.

Alec some of your points on here are helpful, but I do wish you wouldn't get into mud slinging and insults -  the LACS might not be perfect but they do provide a very needed function - they do not deserve to be called clowns, and insulted etc. as per your post.  I'm aware that you are probably trying to be divisive but it just weakens your argument  - and I am not sure what that is ?

On second thoughts don't tell me - I would take a 2/9 on that it will be the following  -  hunting is great and should continue whatever as its good for foxes, the countryside and happiness, global warming , imports / exports, oh and the foxes actually like it too ...I could go on .... and everyone who opposes hunting ( and I draw a line here between illegal hunting and hunting within the law) is a complete idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about, has no experience of the countryside, lives in the city,  ad infinitum.......


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

duplicate


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

millikins said:



			Having had 10 years to "prove" hunts are acting illegally and failed, I suspect they are now hoping we will have a weak Labour Government after the election to further their cause.
		
Click to expand...

 Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ?  would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 
From Lacs website it seems that there is plenty of illegal stuff going on in terms of hunting, but that it is hard to get a conviction as intent is hard to prove, and it also relies on someone videoing the evidence as it were, and this would require luck or very skilled timing to actually catch an illegal act, but as I'm sure all hunts are different ?  it would be good to get some info


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

People break the law every day, driving over the speed limit, so should we all be banned from driving?


----------



## millikins (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ?  would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 
From Lacs website it seems that there is plenty of illegal stuff going on in terms of hunting, but that it is hard to get a conviction as intent is hard to prove, and it also relies on someone videoing the evidence as it were, and this would require luck or very skilled timing to actually catch an illegal act, but as I'm sure all hunts are different ?  it would be good to get some info
		
Click to expand...

It's not likely the LACS website would say otherwise, equally if you view any pro hunting sites they will reassure you that no illegal hunting takes place, neither view is un biased. The hunts do not have to prove a negative, and LACS and the RSPCA have had 10 years to produce evidence that will stand up in court and have largely failed to do so, which could be the difficulty of finding it, though multiple horses galloping across open fields with a pack of baying dogs whilst blowing a horn is hardly secretive, or it could be that there is no evidence to find.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Of course not, but people do get fined, and get points on the license etc. for breaking the law in their car.  If people break the law and hunt illegally it should be the same - but I think its much harder to prove and that is the issue - if hunts would just stay within the law then there wouldn't be an issue.  

It would ne really good to have some very honest opinions on here from people who hunt re the illegal / legal side of things


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

millikins said:



			It's not likely the LACS website would say otherwise, equally if you view any pro hunting sites they will reassure you that no illegal hunting takes place, neither view is un biased. The hunts do not have to prove a negative, and LACS and the RSPCA have had 10 years to produce evidence that will stand up in court and have largely failed to do so, which could be the difficulty of finding it, though multiple horses galloping across open fields with a pack of baying dogs whilst blowing a horn is hardly secretive, or it could be that there is no evidence to find.
		
Click to expand...

I think they have produced some though, and while a hunt "in action" is very hard to miss, I think its probably very difficult to get the precise evidence you need - which would be the actual kill, with evidenc  of the huntsmen willing the hounds on ?   - specially hard if you are on foot - its probably hard enough to witness the kill even if you are riding with the hunt. 

Do you have an personal experience you could share ?

I know in our areas since the Hunting Act came into force many more people hunt who maybe wouldn't have before, though some say their hunt is strictly legal, and others say that the hunting act changed nothing ??

Just to add, terrier men secretly placing foxes might also be hard to prove / find.    Digging out foxes also hard to prove as there would be no pack of baying hounds - though this would still be illegal


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

But a lot of people have always considered the Laws on Hunting to be an ill considered piece of legislation. Whether or not this is true, most people think it was a piece of political manoevering.
I have heard people [those who have no countryside understanding or interest] saying things like "people in red coats chasing foxes" that is why hunting should be banned, its not that they think its cruel, its because someone else says so, its some sort of left wing idea. 
What is being suggested is not that those who break the law should be punished, but that everyone should be punished, they got the law on hunting through parliament, if the police can't "police it", or have other things to do, then I can understand the antis being annoyed, but its ridiculous to think that the law will be changed.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ?  would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 
From Lacs website it seems that there is plenty of illegal stuff going on in terms of hunting, but that it is hard to get a conviction as intent is hard to prove, and it also relies on someone videoing the evidence as it were, and this would require luck or very skilled timing to actually catch an illegal act, but as I'm sure all hunts are different ?  it would be good to get some info
		
Click to expand...

Sorry S G but you sound very like Tom..whatever on Countryfile ......... "tell us your stories of illegal hunting" I don't know if many hunt followers are 100% clued up on the legalities, and even if they are, if they would actually be in a position to witness such.
As for looking at these activist websites, well I have other things to do with my life.
"Willing the hounds on" .......... its a weird thing to say  .........


----------



## Maesfen (17 February 2015)

Alec's spot on about the deer on their 'sanctuary', it is a criminal disgrace that deer are made to suffer so much, so yes, clowns fit the bill very well as nobody but an idiot would agree the conditions there are good for any animal which by nature is a free roamer.
It has always been a class war and nothing else, the animal welfare has no relevance when you add their intimidation, calling hounds across busy roads to be hit by traffic and causing accidents to others, spraying them in their faces and so on; that's just the tip of the iceberg so animal lovers they certainly are not and anyone who thinks they are need their heads seriously looked at.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			Sorry S G but you sound very like Tom..whatever on Countryfile ......... "tell us your stories of illegal hunting" I don't know if many hunt followers are 100% clued up on the legalities, and even if they are, if they would actually be in a position to witness such.
As for looking at these activist websites, well I have other things to do with my life.
"Willing the hounds on" .......... its a weird thing to say  .........
		
Click to expand...

Actually Bonkers I do agree with a lot of what you say, ( though not the left wing thing that's just an argument put forward by the Countryside Alliance which I think has no basis in fact) but unfortunately due to the partisan views on here, its impossible to get past petty bickering as to who is right  - if there could be an adult debate that would be great.  
As for Lacs asking for all hunting to be banned.  I doubt this would happen, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is being requested because of hunts who do hunt illegally - in my view they are spoiling this for others who want to hunt legally.

As for my comments being weird, you are of course entitled to your views but there is nothing weirder ( grammar )  than the aim of a sport being ripping an animal apart.

As for looking at activists websites - information is always good, and if you have an opposing view its always good to know what the other camp are saying??  you never know they may have a point some of the time.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Maesfen said:



			Alec's spot on about the deer on their 'sanctuary', it is a criminal disgrace that deer are made to suffer so much, so yes, clowns fit the bill very well as nobody but an idiot would agree the conditions there are good for any animal which by nature is a free roamer.
It has always been a class war and nothing else, the animal welfare has no relevance when you add their intimidation, calling hounds across busy roads to be hit by traffic and causing accidents to others, spraying them in their faces and so on; that's just the tip of the iceberg so animal lovers they certainly are not and anyone who thinks they are need their heads seriously looked at.
		
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's not the tactics of Animal Aid you are referring to ?  I thought that they had largely disbanded now, and LACS are more credible

I would ask though if you can give more information on some of your allegations, as a point of interest, and debate.

Do you have any photos of the deer at the sanctuary ( and address?)

Thanks


----------



## Fellewell (17 February 2015)

Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ? would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 

Why should she/he?

I know in our areas since the Hunting Act came into force many more people hunt who maybe wouldn't have before, though some say their hunt is strictly legal, and others say that the hunting act changed nothing

Especially when you appear to know already.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ? would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 

Why should she/he?

I know in our areas since the Hunting Act came into force many more people hunt who maybe wouldn't have before, though some say their hunt is strictly legal, and others say that the hunting act changed nothing

Especially when you appear to know already.
		
Click to expand...

The reason I'm asking for information is so we can have some sort of informed debate, and as Millikins has posted on here with info about hunting, and implications that illegal hunting does not really  happen, I'm interested in his / her views - and as I'm sure you are aware views based on first hand experience (assuming they are honest) are more informative (and credible)  than just repeating hearsay (which I am not saying she is doing).

As for me knowing what is going on - if you read my post again you can see that I have said that this applies to my area and am asking for information as to what goes on elsewhere for information puroses.

What is wrong with that ?? and what is your point ?


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Actually Bonkers I do agree with a lot of what you say, ( though not the left wing thing that's just an argument put forward by the Countryside Alliance which I think has no basis in fact) but unfortunately due to the partisan views on here, its impossible to get past petty bickering as to who is right  - if there could be an adult debate that would be great.  
As for Lacs asking for all hunting to be banned.  I doubt this would happen, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is being requested because of hunts who do hunt illegally - in my view they are spoiling this for others who want to hunt legally.

As for my comments being weird, you are of course entitled to your views but there is nothing weirder ( grammar )  than the aim of a sport being ripping an animal apart.

As for looking at activists websites - information is always good, and if you have an opposing view its always good to know what the other camp are saying??  you never know they may have a point some of the time.
		
Click to expand...

I wondered how long it would be , before  ......."being ripped apart" would appear. I just ate a cottage pie ......... I know that the poor thing was "put in a mincer and chopped into tiny pieces then heated to over 100 degrees centigrade"  As long as I continue to eat meat, I have to accept this is the fate of the animal.

The aim of the sport is not to rip a fox apart. 

I like to see foxes in the countryside, it would be a sad day when there were none.

Your phrase "willing the hounds on" is weird because it is not one any country person or knowledgeable hunt follower  would use. It is more the sort of thing one expects to hear in regards to  illegal pit bull dog fighting and bear baiting.


----------



## Fellewell (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			The reason I'm asking for information is so we can have some sort of informed debate, and as Millikins has posted on here with info about hunting, and implications that illegal hunting does not really  happen, I'm interested in her views - and as I'm sure you are aware views based on first hand experience are more informative (and credible)  than just repeating hearsay.

As for me knowing what is going on - if you read my post again you can see that I have said that this applies to my area and am asking for information as to what goes on.

What is wrong with that ??
		
Click to expand...

There are programmes on TV practically every night showing animals in their natural habitat 'ripping each other apart'. It's known as predator/prey behaviour and hounds are no different. Hunting within the law is not hunting IMO. Hunting was an effective means of animal husbandry. Hunting is not a 'cruel sport' either and should not be categorised as such.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			I wondered how long it would be , before  ......."being ripped apart" would appear. I just ate a cottage pie ......... I know that the poor thing was "put in a mincer and chopped into tiny pieces then heated to over 100 degrees centigrade"  as long as I continue to eat meat, I have to accept this is the fate of the animal.
The aim of the sport is not to rip a fox apart. 
I like to see foxes in the countryside, it would be a sad day when there were none.
Your phrase "willing the hounds on" is weird because it is not one any country person or knowledgeable hunt follower  would use.
		
Click to expand...

What would the terminology be for encouraging the hounds to give chase and follow the fox then ?  (did my phraseology explain what I had meant)

Also I'm interested to know what the aim of the sport is ? (if not to kill a fox)


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			What would the terminology be for encouraging the hounds to give chase and follow the fox then ?  (did my phraseology explain what I had meant)

Also I'm interested to know what the aim of the sport is ? (if not to kill a fox)
		
Click to expand...

I think we have answered your questions and frankly I don't like people who pretend they are open minded, when that is exactly what they are not.


----------



## A1fie (17 February 2015)

The 'aim' for me going hunting is to watch hounds work - by that I mean watching them go in to a covert and try to pick up the scent of a trail and then see them run when they pick it up.  It is beautiful to watch and it is beautiful to listen to them speak.  It is wonderful to watch the hounds grow each season, to begin to identify their personality.  It is like 101 dalmations - each hound has it's own character, be that naughty, brave, adventurous, shy etc.  

I also love being on a horse in the country.  It is wonderful watching the sun rise or fall, galloping over headlands, through woods, over ditches and hedges, through villages and up hills.

I hunt because I love wildlife including foxes.  I am an animal lover, which you may find hard to believe.  There is no joy in watching a fox being torn apart, but as a method of control, I believe it is fairer than shooting, trapping or leaving it to die slowly of disease or starvation.  No fox dies without suffering naturally.

I hope that answers your question a bit, Smurf's gran


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			There are programmes on TV practically every night showing animals in their natural habitat 'ripping each other apart'. It's known as predator/prey behaviour and hounds are no different. Hunting within the law is not hunting IMO. Hunting was an effective means of animal husbandry. Hunting is not a 'cruel sport' either and should not be categorised as such.
		
Click to expand...

Felliwell you can probably guess that I do not agree with your views , and that is fine as we are both entitled to opposing view points.  But you comment on one of my posts and have a bit of a go actually, then when I reply with an explanation you refuse to acknowledge this, you then quote me, missing off part of my comment which is relevant ??


----------



## jrp204 (17 February 2015)

Do you have any photos of the deer at the sanctuary ( and address?)

Thanks[/QUOTE]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...y-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-deer-culling.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-of-starving-deer-on-its-own-sanctuary.html


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			I think we have answered your questions and frankly I don't like people who pretend they are open minded, when that is exactly what they are not.
		
Click to expand...

mmmm bit of a cop out there ???

I would actually be interested in your views as to the aim of the sport,  and whether I agree or not is not relevant tbh.


----------



## Fellewell (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Felliwell you can probably guess that I do not agree with your views , and that is fine as we are both entitled to opposing view points.  But you comment on one of my posts and have a bit of a go actually, then when I reply with an explanation you refuse to acknowledge this, you then quote me, missing off part of my comment which is relevant ??
		
Click to expand...

Do you want to identify people who do not 'hunt' within the law or simply congratulate those who do?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

jrp204 said:



			Do you have any photos of the deer at the sanctuary ( and address?)

Thanks
		
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...y-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-deer-culling.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-of-starving-deer-on-its-own-sanctuary.html[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting the link JRP204, that's quite shocking. 

 I see the articles were  2002 and 2004.  Does anyone have anything up to date on what happened next, if there was any action, and how things are now?

Thanks

Thanks


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

A1fie said:



			The 'aim' for me going hunting is to watch hounds work - by that I mean watching them go in to a covert and try to pick up the scent of a trail and then see them run when they pick it up.  It is beautiful to watch and it is beautiful to listen to them speak.  It is wonderful to watch the hounds grow each season, to begin to identify their personality.  It is like 101 dalmations - each hound has it's own character, be that naughty, brave, adventurous, shy etc.  

I also love being on a horse in the country.  It is wonderful watching the sun rise or fall, galloping over headlands, through woods, over ditches and hedges, through villages and up hills.

I hunt because I love wildlife including foxes.  I am an animal lover, which you may find hard to believe.  There is no joy in watching a fox being torn apart, but as a method of control, I believe it is fairer than shooting, trapping or leaving it to die slowly of disease or starvation.  No fox dies without suffering naturally.

I hope that answers your question a bit, Smurf's gran
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for your very honest opinion, you can probably guess that I am against, but very useful to have some information that can be understood.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/file/Hunting_for_Kids.pdf
and 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting#United_Kingdom


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Do you want to identify people who do not 'hunt' within the law or simply congratulate those who do?
		
Click to expand...

Neither, I would like to engage in debate in an honest and open way.


----------



## A1fie (17 February 2015)

No problem Smurf's gran.  I can respect your point of view, even if mine is not the same.  I agree that it is good to ask questions and try and understand an opposing point of view.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Neither, I would like to engage in debate in an honest and open way.
		
Click to expand...

See my previous post regarding regarding your approach, which was neither honest nor open.
You don't want a debate, you want an argument.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			See my previous post regarding you regarding your approach.
You don't want a debate, you want an argument.
		
Click to expand...


Not true..this is your perception


----------



## Doormouse (17 February 2015)

When hunting was legal it had several aims, for the welfare of the fox population and for the rural population.

Foxes are prey animals and as such they will prey on lambs and chickens etc which means that their numbers need to be controlled or farmers would have alot of trouble allowing their lambs and chickens the free range lifestyle that is nowadays considered the best. Also any population of wild animals require a certain amount of regulation of numbers due to illness and disease, in foxes this is mainly mange which is a nasty problem that most domestic dog owners are not happy with their pets contracting.

Hunting is without doubt the fairest and most natural way of controlling the fox population. Whilst it was legal foxes were found and chased, healthy and young foxes got away, old or ill foxes were caught and quickly despatched. Because hunting is regulated by seasons, vixens with cubs are in far less danger of being killed than with shooting that can be done at any time of the year. Also, most huntsman are experienced and knowledgable and if by any chance they found a vixen who looked in cub or recently had them they would remove hounds from there immediately. I personally cannot think of anything crueller than someone going out in May and shooting a vixen at night who has cubs in her earth who will then die of starvation. That sport is however, legal.

Hunting also provides a community for the rural population, one where many people find employment, where the older generation meet several times a week, enjoy their day out and are noticed and monitored by others, where local pubs often benefit from an increase in trade on day when hounds meet nearby, where social events are organised regularly for hunt supporters and locals alike.

Hunting also manages local habitat for wildlife, for example laying covers, hedges, putting in bridges and gates, all of which are necessary to keep the countryside the way it is.

There is a great deal more to hunting from the inside than it is possible to explain to someone who has not experienced several years of it first hand, but to all who are against it or perhaps feel they don't understand it, then I would ask, before you pass judgement, that you spend at least a year as part of a hunting community learning about hounds, kennels, hunt horses and indeed foxes.


----------



## Maesfen (17 February 2015)

Very well put Doormouse, thank you.  People just don't understand (and most don't want to try) how integral to the countryside it all is.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Maesfen said:



			Very well put Doormouse, thank you.  People just don't understand (and most don't want to try) how integral to the countryside it all is.
		
Click to expand...

Bur the last Mori poll showed that 80% of the population want to retain a ban,. and that opinions are the same for town and countryside.  So 80% of the Countryside want to retain the ban.

Could the benefits you refer to for the countryside be achieved as well by hunting within the law?


----------



## nianya (17 February 2015)

I don't really understand it to be honest.  I come from a place where hunting of most kinds of wildlife is legal, in season and within certain regulations.  You can even use horses to do so, typically to get into the back country and carry the prey home.  And of course, certain hunting practices are controversial, mostly those which are considered inhumane like using hounds in bear hunting.  There is even fox "hunting" in some parts, but it's actually just chasing as the hounds don't kill, and are trained to leave it when it goes to ground (the fox is typically left alive).

So I fully understand needing to control wildlife populations, but I sincerely doubt that fox hunting with hounds is either an effective method of controlling populations or a humane one.  Unless you want to tell me that the fox is typically shot above ground and the hounds never touch him? 

As to the point of enjoying being out in the countryside with a group of like-minded people enjoying an activity together and providing something to the local rural community.  None of that requires the fox.  We also worked together to develop and maintain trails and habitats that were then used by many other people and spent time and money in the local community. I've ridden that way for going on 30 years without killing, or even chasing a single fox.  In the process I've seen a great deal of wildlife including foxes, bears, cougar, deer, coyote, eagles, and hawks.  

I think this is why people really don't understand.  It looks inhumane no matter how you cut it. There are other hunting methods that are more humane and likely more effective, and it is entirely possible to enjoy riding in the country, including galloping and jumping hedges, without the fox.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

It would be possible to go across country with like minded people if all the farmers and landowners permitted it, but they wouldn't. 
In most country the hunt build and maintain fences to allow subscribers and huntsmen to cross country, they also negotiate to gain access, there is no way any group of individuals could manage that starting from scratch. There are alternatives where riders can pay to jump and use cross country courses, but they are few and far between.  Some are hunt related, but they lack the element of adventure, the skill of the huntsmen and the whole countryside ethos.
The general consensus pre-ban was that the fox owed its continued existence to the hunt, as the coverts are planted and managed to provide a place for foxes to lay up and breed. 
Gassing with cyanide is one alternative which was also considered inhumane and ineffective,


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

I don't understand - one of the main pro hunting (with hounds) arguments is that hunting is pest control and that is why it is justified.
Its a shame I think the arguments have become so confused and tangled it seems very hard to extricate pro's and cons anymore for either side.


----------



## Doormouse (17 February 2015)

Humane, no, it isn't but then lions bringing down their prey isn't humane but it is natural. When they give chase they generally bring down the weakest and therefore they follow natures rule 'survival of the fittest'.  Hunting mimics the most natural selection of the weak and sick. Shooting is completle indiscriminate, and unless you are an excellent shot often wounds as opposed to kills. 

Yes, the fox is afraid as it is chased, but that fox, 30 minutes before was probably chasing a rabbit or destroying a hen run, was that humane? Was the rabbit unafraid, or the chickens? Probably not but the fox was doing what it does naturally as hounds are doing what they do naturally. Do you allow you your dogs to go ratting? Do you encourage them to chase mice? Many of you do, why is it different?

If we all decided to follow a lion bringing down a gazelle on horses for the sport, would you then say it was cruel? I can confidently assure you that once a fox is caught by a hound it is dead a great deal quicker than that poor gazelle.

I know that many of you prefer lethal injection for your horse so why do you champion shooting foxes? Why is being shot so much better? None of you have answered my point about vixens with Cubs, do you not think that is cruel?


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Bur the last Mori poll showed that 80% of the population want to retain a ban,. and that opinions are the same for town and countryside.  So 80% of the Countryside want to retain the ban.

Could the benefits you refer to for the countryside be achieved as well by hunting within the law?
		
Click to expand...

So you are now telling us that hunts are not operating within the law and yet you have already demonstrated that your information comes from an extremist site?
I think the RSCPA were told to stop trying to bring prosecutions, is that not enough?


----------



## millikins (17 February 2015)

Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them. These activities are currently illegal in Great Britain. For each one I read out, please tell me whether you think it should or should not be made legal again. Just read out the letter that applies in each case."  SHOWCARD 

 Fox Hunting; Deer Hunting; Hare Hunting and Coursing; Dog fighting; Badger baiting.

- Yes, should be made legal again

- No, should not be made legal again 

- Don&#8217;t Know 

This was the question that Ipsos Mori put to gain its "80%" "support" for continuing the ban, couldn't really be described as not leading the respondent could it?


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

millikins said:



			Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them. These activities are currently illegal in Great Britain. For each one I read out, please tell me whether you think it should or should not be made legal again. Just read out the letter that applies in each case."  SHOWCARD 

 Fox Hunting; Deer Hunting; Hare Hunting and Coursing; Dog fighting; Badger baiting.

- Yes, should be made legal again

- No, should not be made legal again 

- Don&#8217;t Know 

This was the question that Ipsos Mori put to gain its "80%" "support" for continuing the ban, couldn't really be described as not leading the respondent could it?
		
Click to expand...

That's almost unbelievable!


----------



## millikins (17 February 2015)

I copied and pasted from IM's website!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

You are right, much of the natural world is cruel.  I suppose that animals doing what they naturally do ( and a lot of the time for food) is one thing, but humans doing it for sport for me is the crucial difference.  I accept that dogs (when hunting) are doing what comes naturally, but they are not doing this in a natural arena,  Its a group of people who have organised them for the purposes of sport , and they are not hunting for their food  - for me that is where the difference lies.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 February 2015)

My OH is a born and bred townie. He was always pretty anti hunting, though not actually a practising 'anti'. After living out here in the sticks for a number of years, he came to realise just how much the countryside benefits from hunting. 

He still doesn't much like the hunting set, but he now realises how much better the fox is managed in a hunting country, in order to provide sport for the field.

(I used to hunt regularly in the West Country, long before the ban).


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			So you are now telling us that hunts are not operating within the law and yet you have already demonstrated that your information comes from an extremist site?
I think the RSCPA were told to stop trying to bring prosecutions, is that not enough?
		
Click to expand...


Bonkers I really wish you would stop assuming things ( quite wrongly) about what I read and what I don't.  I read a lot of things, so that I have an informed view.  I would like to know your views also, but every time I ask you a question about something you have posted on this thread you just get stroppy if you don't like what I have put and then you get personal - why is this  -  I am asking a question about if the suggested benefits to the countryside could be achieved with legal hunting?    What is wrong with that ?
Please can you just stick to what I am actually writing, rather than what you think I might mean.

As a PS if the RSPCA has been asked to stop bringing prosecutions that may be of interest to posters on here who say there is little or no illegal hunting,


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			That's almost unbelievable!
		
Click to expand...


Why is it unbelievable ?


----------



## Doormouse (17 February 2015)

Because if I filled out that form I would not wish dog fighting or badger baiting to made legal!

Actually in many ways they are hunting for their food because many hunts run a 'flesh round' where they collect for a very small fee all the local farmers dead stock of calves, cows and lambs. Once skinned and gutted these dead animals provide food for the hounds. Farmers appreciate this because it cost considerably less than other dead stock collections and the hounds use the flesh as food instead of it simply being incinerated.


----------



## millikins (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Bonkers I really wish you would stop assuming things ( quite wrongly) about what I read and what I don't.  I read a lot of things, so that I have an informed view.  I would like to know your views also, but every time I ask you a question about something you have posted on this thread you just get stroppy if you don't like what I have put and then you get personal - why is this  -  I am asking a question about if the suggested benefits to the countryside could be achieved with legal hunting?    What is wrong with that ?
Please can you just stick to what I am actually writing, rather than what you think I might mean.
		
Click to expand...

I might say the same to you SG, I offered no opinion or information on hunting, merely pointed out that LACS have yet to produce credible evidence that illegal hunting is taking place, didn't stop you making assumptions about me.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			So you are now telling us that hunts are not operating within the law and yet you have already demonstrated that your information comes from an extremist site?
I think the RSCPA were told to stop trying to bring prosecutions, is that not enough?
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA were not told to stop bringing prosecutions about with regard hunting because the hunts act within the law.  They were advised to leave it to other organisations to bring about the prosecutions instead.


----------



## Clodagh (17 February 2015)

Smurfs Gran - I really like you, an anti who can debate! Although I am not anti (I am on the fence so securely I have splinters). All pros think if you are anti hunting you are ignorant, which is patently not true. I am not anti enough to state my case online but you have a lot of valid points.
I don't know about the deer sanctuary situation and I do think LACS are hopeless but hunting is not the be all and end all of the rural scene.
Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Bonkers I really wish you would stop assuming things ( quite wrongly) about what I read and what I don't.  I read a lot of things, so that I have an informed view.  I would like to know your views also, but every time I ask you a question about something you have posted on this thread you just get stroppy if you don't like what I have put and then you get personal - why is this  -  I am asking a question about if the suggested benefits to the countryside could be achieved with legal hunting?    What is wrong with that ?
Please can you just stick to what I am actually writing, rather than what you think I might mean.

As a PS if the RSPCA has been asked to stop bringing prosecutions that may be of interest to posters on here who say there is little or no illegal hunting,
		
Click to expand...

 Your earlier quote "- information is always good, and if you have an opposing view its always good to know what the other camp are saying??  you never know they may have a point some of the time"

Sorry, but you haven't demonstrated any understanding, you had certain fixed  ideas when you came on here and you still have them. I am not assuming anything, you told us where you got your information.

As I said before, you are assuming that "illegal" hunting is widespread, and some sort of "legal" hunting could take place within the current "countryside structure" , therefore you are telling us that current hunting is illegal.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (17 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Actually Bonkers I do agree with a lot of what you say, ( though not the left wing thing that's just an argument put forward by the Countryside Alliance which I think has no basis in fact) but unfortunately due to the partisan views on here, its impossible to get past petty bickering as to who is right  - if there could be an adult debate that would be great.  
As for Lacs asking for all hunting to be banned.  I doubt this would happen, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is being requested because of hunts who do hunt illegally - in my view they are spoiling this for others who want to hunt legally.

As for my comments being weird, you are of course entitled to your views but there is nothing weirder ( grammar )  than the aim of a sport being ripping an animal apart.

As for looking at activists websites - information is always good, and if you have an opposing view its always good to know what the other camp are saying??  you never know they may have a point some of the time.
		
Click to expand...

Evidence of it being a class war...easy..I just have to list the class related insults used online and hurled at me most saturdays.
"Inbred toff/scum/upper-class ****"
"Blood-thirsty/murdering toff"
"Bl00dy/effing Posh whore/ see-you-next-tuesday"

Inbred is a popular one with sabs.In fact I believe I am yet to recieve an insult that is neither class related nor about my parents being related...can't really blame their lack of originality when their insults are based on misinformation and a lack of fact. 

For clarity I am a farmer's daughter, not the landed gentry kind, my grandparents and Dad bought our farm about 40 years ago and have built it up with copious amounts of blood, sweat and tears.
 I hunt because I ove horses and I will confess to being an adrenaline junkie. Why do I want the ban repealed? a) hunting with hounds mimcs nature..so is nature cruel?  b) I have witnessed first hand the damage the vermin caused..ripping to shreds all ten chickens and takin half of one, killing lambs, we have had attacks on calves...yet there si an abundance of rabbits ruining our crops.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

millikins said:



			I might say the same to you SG, I offered no opinion or information on hunting, merely pointed out that LACS have yet to produce credible evidence that illegal hunting is taking place, didn't stop you making assumptions about me.
		
Click to expand...

Why don't you go back and re read my posts to you...I have asked you some questions based on what you posted, nothing more or less and no assumptions made ? 

I believe that your view about LACS and other organisations in regards to collecting evidence of illegal hunting is that there is no evidence to collect ...yet we have Bonkers who says that the RSPCA was asked to stop bringing convictions.  I would really like to know which one it is ??


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

Moomin1 said:



			The RSPCA were not told to stop bringing prosecutions about with regard hunting because the hunts act within the law.  They were advised to leave it to other organisations to bring about the prosecutions instead.
		
Click to expand...

And you know this how ???


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			Evidence of it being a class war...easy..I just have to list the class related insults used online and hurled at me most saturdays.
"Inbred toff/scum/upper-class ****"
"Blood-thirsty/murdering toff"
"Bl00dy/effing Posh whore/ see-you-next-tuesday"

Inbred is a popular one with sabs.In fact I believe I am yet to recieve an insult that is neither class related nor about my parents being related...can't really blame their lack of originality when their insults are based on misinformation and a lack of fact. 

For clarity I am a farmer's daughter, not the landed gentry kind, my grandparents and Dad bought our farm about 40 years ago and have built it up with copious amounts of blood, sweat and tears.
 I hunt because I ove horses and I will confess to being an adrenaline junkie. Why do I want the ban repealed? a) hunting with hounds mimcs nature..so is nature cruel?  b) I have witnessed first hand the damage the vermin caused..ripping to shreds all ten chickens and taking half of one, killing lambs, we have had attacks on calves...yet there si an abundance of rabbits ruining our crops.
		
Click to expand...

LRP - you are entitled to your views, and I appreciate you explaining them  - what I would say re whether this is a class war is that while it may appear to be so in the Hunting field, and I do accept your points re insults etc, which I am sure occurs on both sides and does no argument any good.  In the real world outside the hunting field 80% of the population really are against hunting  - I don't think 80% of our nation is Working class . and the poll has shown to be equally split between town / country.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

Clodagh said:



			Smurfs Gran - I really like you, an anti who can debate! Although I am not anti (I am on the fence so securely I have splinters). All pros think if you are anti hunting you are ignorant, which is patently not true. I am not anti enough to state my case online but you have a lot of valid points.
I don't know about the deer sanctuary situation and I do think LACS are hopeless but hunting is not the be all and end all of the rural scene.
Hope that makes sense!
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for you comments Clodagh.  TBH I've about had enough of this now, not the topic ...as I find this very interesting.    What I am getting fed up of is those on here who are pro hunting being unable to discuss in a rational way, without being insulting, calling people weird, using partial quotes so things are taken out of context, and then refusing to answer questions or provide info on that which they have posted.  There is only A1fie who actually provided anything helpful.  
This behaviour does those who are pro hunting no good at all, and it appears that the debate has become so polarised that this is no longer possible.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			And you know this how ???
		
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me.  The RSPCA were not told to stop bringing prosecutions about as an insinuation that the hunts purportedly act within the law - it has nothing to do with that. They were told to leave any prosecutions to other agencies to prevent any further criticism that they are politically motivated. Which the report also stated there was absolutely no evidence of.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

Doormouse said:



			Because if I filled out that form I would not wish dog fighting or badger baiting to made legal!

Actually in many ways they are hunting for their food because many hunts run a 'flesh round' where they collect for a very small fee all the local farmers dead stock of calves, cows and lambs. Once skinned and gutted these dead animals provide food for the hounds. Farmers appreciate this because it cost considerably less than other dead stock collections and the hounds use the flesh as food instead of it simply being incinerated.
		
Click to expand...

The questionnaire actually gives different options for each animal, so you can choose to support a ban on one and not another.  If you look up the results of the poll you will see that different "animals" have differing percentage based results.

Re the hounds hunting for their food.  I'm sure its helpful for the hounds to dispose of fallen stock etc, but I don't think its the same as a pack of wild dogs bringing down a bison etc which will be their food for the week etc.
The hounds don't need to eat the fox to survive  - the chase and kill is set up for humans for their sport and pleasure.  I know there are some arguments about hunting having a conservation role in terms of foxes, but equally pro hunting arguments have also used the opposite argument .


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

Moomin1 said:



			I think you misunderstood me.  The RSPCA were not told to stop bringing prosecutions about as an insinuation that the hunts purportedly act within the law - it has nothing to do with that. They were told to leave any prosecutions to other agencies to prevent any further criticism that they are politically motivated. Which the report also stated there was absolutely no evidence of.
		
Click to expand...


Thank you...this was not made clear at all in Bonkers posts - can you reference the report so I can have a look


----------



## Moomin1 (18 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Thank you...this was not made clear at all in Bonkers posts - can you reference the report so I can have a look
		
Click to expand...

From what I understood of bonkers posts she was trying to say that the RSPCA were told to stop bringing prosecutions which proves that the hunts act within the law - which is simple not the case. Hence why I corrected her. I'm afraid I don't know where you would find the report now - it was a while back it was published.


----------



## twiggy2 (18 February 2015)

Just wanted to say the term 'inbreds' is used in relation to real country folk,born and bred as in they are inbred because they is no new blood in the area-I have never heard it used in relation to those with money in fact probably the opposite would be more true as historically the wealthy were more able to travel and meet and marry someone from outside of their home village.


----------



## ester (18 February 2015)

Yup If you were to get my late gran started on relations in the neighbouring villages! It's not really the point of the thread but I really don't think you can argue hunting isn't elitist at all LRP- it is an expensive passtime on all levels.


----------



## millikins (18 February 2015)

I didn't specify whether I am pro or against hunting. I am however very pro one group of people providing credible evidence to support their argument if they wish to dictate the actions of another group. Since both LACS and the RSPCA have failed to do so despite having 10 years to do it, what justification is there for further restrictions on the activity of hunts. A pitifully small number of successful prosecutions in 10 years could be because the evidence is hard to find or it could be that it's not there to be found. Anti hunt activists never seem to consider the latter option.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (18 February 2015)

millikins said:



			I didn't specify whether I am pro or against hunting. I am however very pro one group of people providing credible evidence to support their argument if they wish to dictate the actions of another group. Since both LACS and the RSPCA have failed to do so despite having 10 years to do it, what justification is there for further restrictions on the activity of hunts. A pitifully small number of successful prosecutions in 10 years could be because the evidence is hard to find or it could be that it's not there to be found. .......... .
		
Click to expand...

That sums up my position.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (18 February 2015)

ester said:



			Yup If you were to get my late gran started on relations in the neighbouring villages! It's not really the point of the thread but I really don't think you can argue hunting isn't elitist at all LRP- it is an expensive passtime on all levels.
		
Click to expand...

Expensive yes..elitist no. Yes there are the very rich/posh etc but I'd hardly call a field of farmers, nurses, riding instructors, doctors, secretaries, office-workers, mechanics and farriers (to name a few) elite.

I am aware that inbred doesn't necessarily relate to being considered wealthy...my point was that along with class-related drivel this is commonlu used even though it is completely unrelated to the people that hunt or the sport itself.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (18 February 2015)

Just to add...on the recent countryfile an anti campaigner made it quite clear that they were not satisfied with the actual hunting of foxes etc bing stopped, they wanted hunts to disappear all together...how is that animal welfare??..its not its a prejudice if not hatred against a group of people they know nothing about other than what they want/think they know.


----------



## Fellewell (18 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			You are right, much of the natural world is cruel.  I suppose that animals doing what they naturally do ( and a lot of the time for food) is one thing, but humans doing it for sport for me is the crucial difference.  I accept that dogs (when hunting) are doing what comes naturally, but they are not doing this in a natural arena,  Its a group of people who have organised them for the purposes of sport , and they are not hunting for their food  - for me that is where the difference lies.[/QUOTE

When an overfed sighthound kills a cat he's not killing primarily for food. It's in his genes, that prey-drive is impossible to eradicate, though it can be tamed to man's advantage. The 'natural arena' you speak of does not exist. Animals create their own 'natural arena' wherever they happen to be unless we are there to stop them, that's where training comes in.

When a female polar bear finally bags a seal for her starving cubs we are all delighted. This is of no consolation to the seal.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## RunToEarth (18 February 2015)

ester said:



			Yup If you were to get my late gran started on relations in the neighbouring villages! It's not really the point of the thread but I really don't think you can argue hunting isn't elitist at all LRP- it is an expensive passtime on all levels.
		
Click to expand...

Expensive by all accounts - think of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money being used by CPS and likes trying to enforce this mad mad mad legislation.


----------



## Countryman (18 February 2015)

It is odd that people refer to hunting as elitist, because as anybody who has ever been hunting knows, it is perhaps the most meritocratic situation you will find in Britain, with people from every section of society mixing happily to do what they love best - hunting. Where else would you find mechanics, farmhands and hairdressers chatting to teachers, nurses, doctors and yes, some stockbrokers or large landowners.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (18 February 2015)

Countryman said:



			It is odd that people refer to hunting as elitist, because as anybody who has ever been hunting knows, it is perhaps the most meritocratic situation you will find in Britain, with people from every section of society mixing happily to do what they love best - hunting. Where else would you find mechanics, farmhands and hairdressers chatting to teachers, nurses, doctors and yes, some stockbrokers or large landowners.
		
Click to expand...

Precisely.


----------



## Rapidash (18 February 2015)

Until I see hard evidence of hunts routinely breaking the law, I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. All the evidence to the contrary seems mostly to be dark mutterings, malicious rumours and sly hints based on a smattering of convictions and relying on the measly excuse "oh but it's sooooo difficult to get evidence" to explain away the fragility of their case. It was pointed out at the time that it would be a difficult law to enforce but oh no, nothing would do but to introduce it. 

Also it would be impossible to ban trail hunting. How would you go about it? Ban all riding on groups with dogs? Ban scent hounds from smelling?

I also think the hardcore antis are primarily just doing it to cock a snoop at posh people. They were able to get their story out to the wider public before hunts knew what was happening. And bearing in mind all most people know about fox hunting is that you chase a little fox with several hounds who rip it apart, well I can understand how they recruited so many to their banner. 

It's a classic example of why the majority is not always right. Remember, if we put the death penalty to a vote that could well pass too! 

What I don't understand is how hunting is banned as being cruel and the raft of awful things we do to farm animals is allowed. Where is lacs then eh?


----------



## Nancykitt (18 February 2015)

ester said:



			Yup If you were to get my late gran started on relations in the neighbouring villages! It's not really the point of the thread but I really don't think you can argue hunting isn't elitist at all LRP- it is an expensive passtime on all levels.
		
Click to expand...

It really annoys me when people describe hunting as 'elitist'. I was born and raised on an inner city council estate and it's taken me many years to realise my dream of owning a horse. I work very long hours not because hunting is expensive but because keeping a horse is definitely not cheap. If I spent my money on lots of foreign holidays, brand new cars or whatever then presumably that would be OK - but because I have a horse and go hunting I get a lot of stick from people about being 'snobby' and 'elitist'. 
I actually spend £30 a week on hunting, during the season; I know people who spend a lot more than that, over a year, competing in dressage, showjumping, eventing or whatever, but by and large they are not subject to the same sort of ribbing as riders who go hunting. And they are perfectly at liberty to do so. I know someone who spent £90 a week on dressage lessons; what business of that is mine? Her money, her choice. But because I go hunting people - including other horsey people - have a go at me for being posh and elitist. It's laughable. 
I hunt with a bloodhound pack; I didn't start hunting until post-ban so I've no experience of live hunting at all. Why on earth should what I do be banned? It's utterly crazy.


----------



## ester (18 February 2015)

I suppose here I am used to going out with the sort of people that don't have to worry about taking days off work to hunt midweek and are the majority are pretty posh compared to the other people I know so I can sort of see where that comes from although they are all very nice and def not snobby! That was less the case when I was in Somerset- on the posh scale not the nice one! I have just come back from a day of 93 though (joint meet) and certainly all sorts there. I just think that to have the time, money and horse power to be a regular makes you one of few which would be my definition of elite- regardless of where those few started out - ie they don't have to have been born into it which is perhaps what others think of the word? I certainly couldn't manage to go more than I do now which is about once a month - I think will total 4/5 days this season in the end, it's our winter treat as we can hack as dont have transport for other jollies.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

Please see below - at recent post - would this be an example of illegal activity  - please advise me if I have misunderstood. Thanks 



Today, 09:18 PM	#1		

ladyaga	

ladyaga is online now	Yearling 
image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/reputation/reputation_off.png

image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon1.png
Default Digging up foxes 


Is this correct, I have to day seen a script of A4 telling a friend how this hunt digs up foxes, bags them and where they do it and why, is this allowed, I can tell you the hunt concerned, I was a little surprised that this was given to me, all the names are there, as to who has said this and that, and who was doing this deed, and which days they needed the foxes for. I was under the impression they used a rag to put up the scent. 

 	        	 .




Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?691923-Digging-up-foxes#zm7vcLKx7xMSPidD.99


----------



## LittleRooketRider (18 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Please see below - at recent post - would this be an example of illegal activity  - please advise me if I have misunderstood. Thanks 



Today, 09:18 PM	#1		

ladyaga	

ladyaga is online now	Yearling 
image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/reputation/reputation_off.png

image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon1.png
Default Digging up foxes 


Is this correct, I have to day seen a script of A4 telling a friend how this hunt digs up foxes, bags them and where they do it and why, is this allowed, I can tell you the hunt concerned, I was a little surprised that this was given to me, all the names are there, as to who has said this and that, and who was doing this deed, and which days they needed the foxes for. I was under the impression they used a rag to put up the scent. 

 	        	 .




Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?691923-Digging-up-foxes#zm7vcLKx7xMSPidD.99

Click to expand...

As a hunt supporter I do not condone blatant/arrogant flouting of the law..even if I do think it is a ridiculous one., but thsi does not mean that every hunt/ teh majority of hunts are doing this.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

I'm aware of that, but a number of people on this thread have been sure and quite insistent that illegal activity has not been found by LACS because it does not exist.


----------



## millikins (18 February 2015)

I would suggest that ladyaga takes her information to the police. A report by a person writing under a pseudonym supplying nothing other than hearsay is not evidence, if it contains verifiable detail then I'm sure the appropriate law enforcement agency will take action.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (18 February 2015)

I have already suggested this, and her MP also


----------



## Kat (18 February 2015)

Ban all hunts? Even Bloodhounds and drag packs? How are they cruel?


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (18 February 2015)

S G is a troublemaker through and through. We have tried to explain and be patient, she doesn't want to know. Open minded, she is not.
I don't know why they come on here. It is obvious people who hunt are not going to be in agreement with these extreme viewpoints.
In the end, it is best to ignore her.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Please see below - at recent post - would this be an example of illegal activity  - please advise me if I have misunderstood. Thanks 



Today, 09:18 PM	#1		

ladyaga	

ladyaga is online now	Yearling 
image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/reputation/reputation_off.png

image: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon1.png
Default Digging up foxes 


Is this correct, I have to day seen a script of A4 telling a friend how this hunt digs up foxes, bags them and where they do it and why, is this allowed, I can tell you the hunt concerned, I was a little surprised that this was given to me, all the names are there, as to who has said this and that, and who was doing this deed, and which days they needed the foxes for. I was under the impression they used a rag to put up the scent. 

 	        	 .




Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?691923-Digging-up-foxes#zm7vcLKx7xMSPidD.99

Click to expand...

And in the interest of debate,  here was my response,  and despite my offer,  you seem a little reticent to copy the reply.  I've saved you the trouble! 

*************

Is this correct, I have to day seen a script of A4 telling a friend how this hunt digs up foxes, bags them and where they do it and why, is this allowed, I can tell you the hunt concerned, I was a little surprised that this was given to me, all the names are there, as to who has said this and that, and who was doing this deed, and which days they needed the foxes for. I was under the impression they used a rag to put up the scent.

*************

Before you level accusations at others, you will need clear evidence of the offence. My own view is that your accusations, though possibly well intentioned by you, are scurrilous poppycock. If a fox were to be 'dug up' as you put it, and then taken to an area which was unfamiliar to it, turned out and then hounds set upon it, there would be no hunting, because the fox not familiar with the ground where it's released, simply wouldn't run. A wild fox, which has been dug out and released beside the earth, will make good its escape because it will be fully aware of its immediate environment. The same fox, taken miles from its home ground won't provide sport and so it would be a complete waste of time.

These frankly daft accusations which have no foundation in truth, are all so often banded about by those who are more intent on mischief than fact. I accept that you may well believe the story that you've been told, but I don't, not one word of it. Sorry.

Alec.

*************

Smurfs Gran,  we had another poster who had a similar approach to yours,  in that they asked questions,  they received well considered responses,  but continued to ask the same questions,  over and over again.  It became a little tedious.  The poster of whom I was very fond,  despite her rather peculiar debating technique,  and who's no longer a member,  and as you,  refused to consider factual argument.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 February 2015)

millikins said:



			Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them. These activities are currently illegal in Great Britain. For each one I read out, please tell me whether you think it should or should not be made legal again. Just read out the letter that applies in each case."  SHOWCARD 

 Fox Hunting; Deer Hunting; Hare Hunting and Coursing; Dog fighting; Badger baiting.

- Yes, should be made legal again

- No, should not be made legal again 

- Dont Know 

This was the question that Ipsos Mori put to gain its "80%" "support" for continuing the ban, couldn't really be described as not leading the respondent could it?
		
Click to expand...




Bonkers2 said:



			That's almost unbelievable!
		
Click to expand...

Quite,  but we should consider who it was who 'paid' for the 'research' in the first place.  

Alec.


----------



## jrp204 (19 February 2015)

They didn't include 'Coarse fishing' to that list, wonder why?


----------



## millikins (19 February 2015)

I would be willing to hazard a guess that the other 20% would've been "don't know's", thereby giving 0% support for repeal of foxhunting; sure even LACS would realise that would hardly be credible


----------



## Goldenstar (19 February 2015)

Countryman said:



			It is odd that people refer to hunting as elitist, because as anybody who has ever been hunting knows, it is perhaps the most meritocratic situation you will find in Britain, with people from every section of society mixing happily to do what they love best - hunting. Where else would you find mechanics, farmhands and hairdressers chatting to teachers, nurses, doctors and yes, some stockbrokers or large landowners.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly we never get blinkered people to see this .


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (19 February 2015)

I know very litle about LACS but from from their supporters who posted on here recently, one can only assume that credibility and reality are not on their agenda.


----------



## Maesfen (19 February 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			If a fox were to be 'dug up' as you put it, and then taken to an area which was unfamiliar to it, turned out and then hounds set upon it, there would be no hunting, because the fox not familiar with the ground where it's released, simply wouldn't run. A wild fox, which has been dug out and released beside the earth, will make good its escape because it will be fully aware of its immediate environment. The same fox, taken miles from its home ground won't provide sport and so it would be a complete waste of time.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Quite right.  The RSPCA in their wisdom would box up caught foxes from Cardiff and let them out in a bunch on the ranges; the poor foxes didn't have a clue and were sitting targets as they saw both people and hounds as 'normal', not to be run away from, they were chopped down where they stood.  That's what happens when you take an urban fox out into a rural environment but of course, the RSPCA knew best and caused that suffering themselves..


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Smurfs Gran, we had another poster who had a similar approach to yours, in that they asked questions, they received well considered responses, but continued to ask the same questions, over and over again. It became a little tedious. The poster of whom I was very fond, despite her rather peculiar debating technique, and who's no longer a member, and as you, refused to consider factual argument.

 Alec.      
Read more at https://forums-secure.horseandhound...91759-Ban-all-hunts/page9#pTkFrOisZHsmU2OV.99

Alec, I do not appreciate you making personal comments about me that are superfluous to the argument.  However, the HH forum is likely to be pro fox hunting by its very origin.  As you are well aware I am against, I would add this does not mean I either am a sab, approve of what they do, neither does this mean I am a townie (I am not), or that I have a particular political inclination, or are from a particular class. 
The hunting landscape of HH does not mean there cannot be a civilised debate, and if you actually read my posts as opposed to just reacting (as many on here have), you will see that I ask people to supply info, qualify their statements etc.  I do not recall actually getting an answer to many of my questions.  I think a debate would have been interesting, but I can see that many who are pro hunting are not capable of this, any suggestion there could be another way is mainly met with self righteous indignation, and an aggressive inability to envision any other perspective - you do yourselves no favours - some of the comments here are uneducated, rigid and personal.  (some comments also break forum rules, ie  - Bonkers2's comments about me, and your comments to Ladyaga - who actually prefixed her post with "is this right?" yet all manner of vitriol was aimed at her - reminds me of Shakespeare's quote re protesting too much!) 

I would add that some of the discussions on here have been about if illegal hunting actually exists with pro hunters being sure it doesn't - however, I recall one of your posts where you stated clearly that you will  continue to hunt illegally until someone catches you  - as you will be testing what you consider to be an unfair law - this post would probably not be too hard to find ?!

There seem to be all sorts of conflicting arguments as to why Fox hunting should continue - they are good for foxes, they are needed to control foxed...ad infinitum....  I have tried to engage with some of you as to why you hunt, but when challenged the arguments put forward just fall apart.  The conclusion I've reached is that many of you should just admit that the sole reason you support fox hunting is because you find it fun, and are not actually bothered if an animal is killed so you can have that "fun"  Some people find that reprehensible, actually 80% of the population do.


----------



## Nancykitt (20 February 2015)

SG, this thread is about the LACS proposal to ban all hunting. I myself didn't see it as an arena for another debate on foxhunting, although there is always a possibility that this will happen on this forum. 
I go out with a bloodhound pack and in the past have hunted with drag packs. The drag pack once killed a grey squirrel in the pub car park before we set off (it was all over in a couple of seconds, pretty much before we'd realised what had happened). Other than that, I have never, personally, been involved in a hunt where anything has been killed. 
Under the LACS proposal draghunting and bloodhound packs would also be banned. I haven't explicitly seen your views on this as most of the argument seems to have gone back to the 'killing animals' argument. 
I'd like someone to explain - or at least try to explain - why it would be a good thing to ban the sort of hunting that I now take part in


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Nancykitt said:



			SG, this thread is about the LACS proposal to ban all hunting. I myself didn't see it as an arena for another debate on foxhunting, although there is always a possibility that this will happen on this forum. 
I go out with a bloodhound pack and in the past have hunted with drag packs. The drag pack once killed a grey squirrel in the pub car park before we set off (it was all over in a couple of seconds, pretty much before we'd realised what had happened). Other than that, I have never, personally, been involved in a hunt where anything has been killed. 
Under the LACS proposal draghunting and bloodhound packs would also be banned. I haven't explicitly seen your views on this as most of the argument seems to have gone back to the 'killing animals' argument. 
I'd like someone to explain - or at least try to explain - why it would be a good thing to ban the sort of hunting that I now take part in
		
Click to expand...

NancyKitt, I have no issues with Hunting within the law  - I think it is probably great fun! and had I been younger, fitter and with a suitable horse, I would probably be doing it myself.  I am assuming that LACS probably want all hunting banned as its incredibly difficult to police the law in regard to illegal hunting.    Pro hunters on here are defensive in the extreme in their belief that wrong doing in the hunting field does not exist  - really ?? I find that's naïve, what not ever ??. 
Also we have the info from Ladyaga and Alec's Swan's admission (on a previous thread) that he hunts illegally and will continue to do so.  Though you have not seen illegal activity yourself (and this is good)  it seems there is some evidence out there, albeit hard to prove in a court of law in order for a successful prosecution to be brought.

 You are right!  why should LACS challenge drag hunting !  I would say this is because there is a firm belief that something else is going on.
The most helpful thing would be for those who hunt to have enough respect for their sport to actually care what others think, and to keep it within the law and self police, yet on this forum we have an arrogant self righteousness and insults directed at anyone who dares to challenge.  This does the legal hunting fraternity no favours.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			NancyKitt, I have no issues with Hunting within the law  - I think it is probably great fun! and had I been younger, fitter and with a suitable horse, I would probably be doing it myself.  I am assuming that LACS probably want all hunting banned as its incredibly difficult to police the law in regard to illegal hunting.    Pro hunters on here are defensive in the extreme in their belief that wrong doing in the hunting field does not exist  - really ?? I find that's naïve, what not ever ??. 
Also we have the info from Ladyaga and Alec's Swan's admission (on a previous thread) that he hunts illegally and will continue to do so.  Though you have not seen illegal activity yourself (and this is good)  it seems there is some evidence out there, albeit hard to prove in a court of law in order for a successful prosecution to be brought.

 You are right!  why should LACS challenge drag hunting !  I would say this is because there is a firm belief that something else is going on.
The most helpful thing would be for those who hunt to have enough respect for their sport to actually care what others think, and to keep it within the law and self police, yet on this forum we have an arrogant self righteousness and insults directed at anyone who dares to challenge.  This does the legal hunting fraternity no favours.
		
Click to expand...

SG as I have said in my previous post I find it VERY hard to believe that those wanting a full ban of all hunts to be solely if at all concerened with animal welfare...having witnessed and heard reports of antis/sabs causing harm to animals "involved" in the hunt: driving into ponies being ridden, spraying hounds, drawing hound across busy roads, shining laserlights in horse's eyes are just a few things. The fact however, that they want to ban ALL hunts including drag/trail/clean-boot hunts, some of which have been operating pre-ban simply cofirms to me that they a) want to make a point..probably something along the lines of "Victory is ours" etc, and  b) it is very much a class war. and c) they haven't a clue what their rabbiting on about.

Ok..they may be misusung/misinterpreting their derogaory terms particularly "inbred" (a very popular term of theirs) I'd syill liek to know how the fact that I dress smartly/traditionally and ride a horse to hounds on a saturday (and sometimes midweek) makes me the product of inbreeding?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Duplicate


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			SG as I have said in my previous post I find it VERY hard to believe that those wanting a full ban of all hunts to be solely if at all concerened with animal welfare...having witnessed and heard reports of antis/sabs causing harm to animals "involved" in the hunt: driving into ponies being ridden, spraying hounds, drawing hound across busy roads, shining laserlights in horse's eyes are just a few things. The fact however, that they want to ban ALL hunts including drag/trail/clean-boot hunts, some of which have been operating pre-ban simply cofirms to me that they a) want to make a point..probably something along the lines of "Victory is ours" etc, and  b) it is very much a class war. and c) they haven't a clue what their rabbiting on about.

Ok..they may be misusung/misinterpreting their derogaory terms particularly "inbred" (a very popular term of theirs) I'd syill liek to know how the fact that I dress smartly/traditionally and ride a horse to hounds on a saturday (and sometimes midweek) makes me the product of inbreeding?
		
Click to expand...


LRR, I don't agree with this behaviour any more than you do.  Being against fox hunting does not make me on the side of the hunt sab either.  (and I think this is probably where the majority of the population sit) 
However, it does seem to have become a hardened battle, with neither side being rational tbh  - and I think some of the pro fox hunt set on here seem just as entrenched in their views as the hunt sabs you mention.


----------



## Maesfen (20 February 2015)

Can I just say, that regardless of whatever you were asking us, (whether about hunting or people who regularly whip their horse, tax dodgers, wife beaters or anything at all) to tell you about it along with names and places, just because you 'want to know'.  
Why on earth would we tell you, a complete stranger who seems intent on poo stirring, about something that might get someone else into trouble when it's nobody's business but their own or the authorities - but its certainly not your business to grill us on it?


----------



## Fellewell (20 February 2015)

Maesfen said:



			Can I just say, that regardless of whatever you were asking us, (whether about hunting or people who regularly whip their horse, tax dodgers, wife beaters or anything at all) to tell you about it along with names and places, just because you 'want to know'.  
Why on earth would we tell you, a complete stranger who seems intent on poo stirring, about something that might get someone else into trouble when it's nobody's business but their own or the authorities - but its certainly not your business to grill us on it?
		
Click to expand...

Well said.

Antis believe hype, not science. Thousands and thousands of foxes die slow lingering deaths on the roads every year. During the mating season the roads are littered with juveniles. Where are the antis then? Too busy conducting some kind of scurrilous class war whilst bandying about libellous stories designed to maintain their profile in the media.
They could take a leaf out of Luxembourg or Germany's book and look into protecting wild animals on roads but that wouldn't fit their agenda or indeed their policy of happily luring hounds on to roads. Animal lovers? Don't make me laugh!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Maesfen said:



			Can I just say, that regardless of whatever you were asking us, (whether about hunting or people who regularly whip their horse, tax dodgers, wife beaters or anything at all) to tell you about it along with names and places, just because you 'want to know'.  
Why on earth would we tell you, a complete stranger who seems intent on poo stirring, about something that might get someone else into trouble when it's nobody's business but their own or the authorities - but its certainly not your business to grill us on it?
		
Click to expand...

If you are unwilling to engage in a debate, don't post, its simple.  If you post on here people  have the right to ask questions, because this is a forum, debate is encouraged and we have freedom of speech ( I should add we also have forum rules!).  If you are not up to answering questions regarding what you are putting don't post. I would also add  that there has been so many statements made on her from the Pro fox hunt lot that don't hold up to investigation at all , if you have an opinion and express it then  be prepared to defend it.  this seems is a problem for many.   

As for getting people into trouble, what on earth are they doing that could get them into trouble ?? (wouldn't be something illegal would it ?) I would also appreciate it if you could avoid making personal assumptions re my motives etc of which there seems to be no other aim but to be insulting.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Well said.

Antis believe hype, not science. Thousands and thousands of foxes die slow lingering deaths on the roads every year. During the mating season the roads are littered with juveniles. Where are the antis then? Too busy conducting some kind of scurrilous class war whilst bandying about libellous stories designed to maintain their profile in the media.
They could take a leaf out of Luxembourg or Germany's book and look into protecting wild animals on roads but that wouldn't fit their agenda or indeed their policy of happily luring hounds on to roads. Animal lovers? Don't make me laugh!
		
Click to expand...

Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's.  The people you mention are sabs and are a very small minority (did you mean to say sabs ?) - anti's make up the 80%.  When you say anti's believe hype etc, its not helpful to make an assumption here as you actually denigrating a very large majority of the population.  I am an anti, not a sab.
I agree with you re other animals, and that more needs to be done - though this thread is about hunting, however, on a different topic we may agree


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Incidentally Maesfen, I have never asked for the details you refer to   - you seen to assume I have   - I would appreciate it if you could stick to what I have written ( and not what you think I might have written)


----------



## Maesfen (20 February 2015)

You have a way with words, I'll give you that but our points are as valid as your own, you just might be able to express yourself easier than many, myself included but I have no doubt in my mind that it's not just debate you are after but to poo stir and it's not a popular method to  always be belittling the ones you are trying to intimidate with your words.


----------



## Nancykitt (20 February 2015)

There are lots of antis who are not sabs or LACS members but nevertheless cause lots of trouble. Two years ago we were drag hunting and at one point we were about to cross a road; a fox and two deer ran into the woods. A few hounds went in that direction but were quickly called off and no harm was done. That evening lots of us were bombarded (via facebook) with the most vile insults because apparently we stood at the side of the road and 'laughed while a beautiful vixen was murdered.' Now not only did that definitely not happen but quite what I've done to deserve the sort of threats and abuse I got, I don't know. And yes, I'm an inbred bloodthirsty toff who doesn't know what it's like to have to work for a living. 

I honestly can't believe that 80% of the country subscribe to that view.


----------



## Nancykitt (20 February 2015)

Double posted


----------



## Fellewell (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's.  The people you mention are sabs and are a very small minority (did you mean to say sabs ?) - anti's make up the 80%.  When you say anti's believe hype etc, its not helpful to make an assumption here as you actually denigrating a very large majority of the population.  I am an anti, not a sab.
I agree with you re other animals, and that more needs to be done - though this thread is about hunting, however, on a different topic we may agree
		
Click to expand...

Oh, well said SG! Hunt saboteurs are indeed strange people who bounce around frightening horses and wearing balaclavas (no apostrophe needed)and of course endangering life. At last we agree on something. But you can't hide in semantics. You need to address the other points and the management of the fox is very much about hunting so not a different topic at all. Also glad to see you are against harming hounds.


----------



## Fellewell (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's.  The people you mention are sabs and are a very small minority (did you mean to say sabs ?) - anti's make up the 80%.  When you say anti's believe hype etc, its not helpful to make an assumption here as you actually denigrating a very large majority of the population.  I am an anti, not a sab.
I agree with you re other animals, and that more needs to be done - though this thread is about hunting, however, on a different topic we may agree
		
Click to expand...

And whatever you call yourself, you do believe the hype or else you wouldn't be on here asking a load of daft questions


----------



## JenHunt (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's. 
.....
		
Click to expand...

I was about to reply to this ^^



Fellewell said:



			Oh, well said SG! Hunt saboteurs are indeed strange people who bounce around frightening horses and wearing balaclavas (no apostrophe needed)and of course endangering life 
.....
		
Click to expand...

but Fellewell got there before me! 

IME, that's exactly what saboteurs (which are the only active anti's I've come across) do - my horse (pony at the time, technically - he was 13.2, I was aged 9 or 10) and I have been pushed and shoved by saboteurs, another occasion saw my friend's pony was attacked with a knife, and yet another occasion we had fireworks launched in our (and our horses) faces. 

I should also point out that the way i first read SG's statement was that the horses were the ones wearing the balaclavas!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Maesfen said:



			You have a way with words, I'll give you that but our points are as valid as your own, you just might be able to express yourself easier than many, myself included but I have no doubt in my mind that it's not just debate you are after but to poo stir and it's not a popular method to  always be belittling the ones you are trying to intimidate with your words.
		
Click to expand...


I will take your reference to articulacy as a compliment, also that you indicate I have any sort of point at all represents some positivity that was not there previously.  However, as regards your references to my motives you are quite wrong.  In regard to belittling others - have you seen some of the things posted about me ?  I do admit to being a little piqued at some of the personal attacks - this is supposed to be a forum for adults but has resembled a playground slanging match  at times - and not from my end either.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Oh, well said SG! Hunt saboteurs are indeed strange people who bounce around frightening horses and wearing balaclavas (no apostrophe needed)and of course endangering life. At last we agree on something. But you can't hide in semantics. You need to address the other points and the management of the fox is very much about hunting so not a different topic at all. Also glad to see you are against harming hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Is hunting about management of the fox or is it to control foxes.  I have seen both arguments used to justify hunting.  Are you able to elaborate ?  or will you just insult me instead ?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Nancykitt said:



			There are lots of antis who are not sabs or LACS members but nevertheless cause lots of trouble. Two years ago we were drag hunting and at one point we were about to cross a road; a fox and two deer ran into the woods. A few hounds went in that direction but were quickly called off and no harm was done. That evening lots of us were bombarded (via facebook) with the most vile insults because apparently we stood at the side of the road and 'laughed while a beautiful vixen was murdered.' Now not only did that definitely not happen but quite what I've done to deserve the sort of threats and abuse I got, I don't know. And yes, I'm an inbred bloodthirsty toff who doesn't know what it's like to have to work for a living. 

I honestly can't believe that 80% of the country subscribe to that view.
		
Click to expand...


But Facebook is notorious for gossip, and things go viral very quickly.  I don't think 80% of the public would approve of you being abused etc, or called names on the basis of class - that is appalling - but 80% do want fox hunting to remain banned, it does not mean they are going to take aggressive action - that is a small minority.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			And whatever you call yourself, you do believe the hype or else you wouldn't be on here asking a load of daft questions
		
Click to expand...

Why spoil it by being personally insulting ?


----------



## millikins (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Millikins - do you hunt and what are your experiences ?  would be interested to know if you have first hand experience and what this indicates ? 
From Lacs website it seems that there is plenty of illegal stuff going on in terms of hunting, but that it is hard to get a conviction as intent is hard to prove, and it also relies on someone videoing the evidence as it were, and this would require luck or very skilled timing to actually catch an illegal act, but as I'm sure all hunts are different ?  it would be good to get some info
		
Click to expand...

Not asking for personal information eh?


----------



## gunnergundog (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Is hunting about management of the fox or is it to control foxes.  I have seen both arguments used to justify hunting.  Are you able to elaborate ?  or will you just insult me instead ?
		
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be either or?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

millikins said:



			Not asking for personal information eh?
		
Click to expand...

No actually, I was asking for some indication re your personal experiences - nowhere have I asked for names of people, the hunt involved etc. etc. as that would not be appropriate use of the forum and would infringe the forum rules also.  In addition, as you were so sure that  there is no illegal activity going on you must have deduced this information from somewhere.


----------



## Fellewell (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Is hunting about management of the fox or is it to control foxes.  I have seen both arguments used to justify hunting.  Are you able to elaborate ?  or will you just insult me instead ?
		
Click to expand...

You never acknowledge people who have taken the time to try and explain things to you. You want all sorts of personal accounts/information to confirm all these wild accusations you and others have made. Then you claim that you are asking questions on the basis you know nothing about hunting. Which is it?

To answer another of your hair-splitting questions; management and control are the same thing.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

gunnergundog said:



			Why does it have to be either or?
		
Click to expand...

Because some arguments say that hunting has a conservation role re supporting / maintaining the fox population (and I have seen that raised on the HH forum before).  The other argument ( and I have heard this one raised by the Countryside Alliance) is that fox hunting is needed to control the numbers of foxes.  The two arguments seem contradictory to me. 

(BTW thank you for asking, it makes a refreshing change to being told that my questions are stupid)


----------



## popsdosh (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Is hunting about management of the fox or is it to control foxes.  I have seen both arguments used to justify hunting.  Are you able to elaborate ?  or will you just insult me instead ?
		
Click to expand...

To my mind it is about both what the ban has brought about is an inbalance in the natural selection that took place before the ban.
Where hounds are used to flush foxes to the gun all the foxes are shot young or old! Before the ban younger healthier foxes were more likely to get away and the older infirmed foxes ,or injured were caught.So it has upset the balance of the fox population around here and thats coming from somebody who has not hunted for 15 yrs or more. I have a vixen with cubs at the moent in a straw stack so we are using bales from the other end the hunt does not come here for various reasons and I enjoy seeing them around and they keep the rabbits down however feeling like that would not stop me hunting again as I know the healthy benefits the fox population enjoy from it. 
Our biggest concern with fox welfare in these parts is the RSPCA sending van loads of feral foxes up into rural cambridgeshire to be released at night . For one I thought this was illegal. For 2 none of them survive more than a few days as they do not know how to cope. Word soon gets around about the arrival and the keepers soon clear them up I have even seen them run towards guns lamping when they have whistled them as they think theres a meal on offer. Now SG do you think that is good practice on the part of the RSPCA? As I am sure you may be open to a few questions to you.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			You never acknowledge people who have taken the time to try and explain things to you. You want all sorts of personal accounts/information to confirm all these wild accusations you and others have made. Then you claim that you are asking questions on the basis you know nothing about hunting. Which is it?

To answer another of your hair-splitting questions; management and control are the same thing.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean that foxes are maintained, so their numbers are healthy etc, which then fosters a need to control said numbers, and the control of numbers is actually the hunt ??  so it is all for the fun of the hunt??   (btw insults are not obligatory)


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

popsdosh said:



			To my mind it is about both what the ban has brought about is an inbalance in the natural selection that took place before the ban.
Where hounds are used to flush foxes to the gun all the foxes are shot young or old! Before the ban younger healthier foxes were more likely to get away and the older infirmed foxes ,or injured were caught.So it has upset the balance of the fox population around here and thats coming from somebody who has not hunted for 15 yrs or more. 
Our biggest concern with fox welfare in these parts is the RSPCA sending van loads of feral foxes up into rural cambridgeshire to be released at night . For one I thought this was illegal. For 2 none of them survive more than a few days as they do not know how to cope. Word soon gets around about the arrival and the keepers soon clear them up I have even seen them run towards guns lamping when they have whistled them as they think theres a meal on offer. Now SG do you think that is good practice on the part of the RSPCA? As I am sure you may be open to a few questions to you.
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think its good Popdosh, and this is not something I would approve of at all - btw thank you for your explanation - very helpful, and I do see your point of view. While I may not agree, I do have some understanding of this now.


----------



## Nancykitt (20 February 2015)

I suppose one of the points I was trying to make is that if there's a lot of illegal activity being reported on the LACS site (or similar) then it doesn't mean a great deal. LACS and the RSPCA were convinced we'd 'murdered' a fox when we definitely hadn't and it was reported in a way that left no doubt. 
I'm sorry but I just can't believe the '80% of the public want the ban to stay.' So many factors will affect what people say. If someone from MORI came around my local area they are likely to find that 80% are very pro hunting. In another area they may find that things are different. So unless it was an absolutely massive sample (which the MORI sample wasn't - it was under 2000) I don't believe that  it is a reliable indicator. 

I've been thinking today about the whole business of banning all hunts. How would this be defined, I wonder? People would, presumably, be banned from being on a horse with dogs - of any kind- near them? Or perhaps it would be OK if the riders didn't dress up smartly and look like posh people who chase wild animals? It's barmy.


----------



## millikins (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			No actually, I was asking for some indication re your personal experiences - nowhere have I asked for names of people, the hunt involved etc. etc. as that would not be appropriate use of the forum and would infringe the forum rules also.  In addition, as you were so sure that  there is no illegal activity going on you must have deduced this information from somewhere.
		
Click to expand...

I did not say that illegal hunting was not going on perhaps you could read what I wrote without blinkers. I said if no credible evidence has been found after 10 years of trying, the other side of the argument has to be that it doesn't in fact exist. If a group of people wish to regulate the activities of another they have to make a valid case for so doing. LACS and the RSPCA have signally failed to do so.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

But in 2012 the polls showed also showed that 76% were against - the numbers seem quite consistent, and I think polls (the recent one) were also taken to be consistent in the countryside also.  (maybe rural dwellers who are against daren't speak out)  

I really don't think the majority of people are bothered if "posh" people hunt (and neither do I think that's the case)  but I don't think people can get over the fact of hunting an animal for sport, and that this could be a prolonged chase - it is this which seems cruel to many (myself included) 

I accept that shooting, gassing etc are not good ways either, but this does not make fox hunting any more palatable.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

millikins said:



			I did not say that illegal hunting was not going on perhaps you could read what I wrote without blinkers. I said if no credible evidence has been found after 10 years of trying, the other side of the argument has to be that it doesn't in fact exist. If a group of people wish to regulate the activities of another they have to make a valid case for so doing. LACS and the RSPCA have signally failed to do so.
		
Click to expand...

Ask Alec Swan - he knows its going on.. he has admitted on here that he takes part.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Ask Alec Swan - he knows its going on.. he has admitted on here that he takes part.
		
Click to expand...

Well I suggest you report this to the police, you wanted  evidence of illegal activities, well now you have it would you please go away.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			Well I suggest you report this to the police, you wanted  evidence of illegal activities, well now you have it would you please go away.
		
Click to expand...


Put me on ignore... this is where I have you.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Put me on ignore... this is where I have you.
		
Click to expand...

When you place someone on UI,  then you're unable to read their posts,  and yet you reply to them? 

Alec.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			LRR, I don't agree with this behaviour any more than you do.  Being against fox hunting does not make me on the side of the hunt sab either.  (and I think this is probably where the majority of the population sit) 
However, it does seem to have become a hardened battle, with neither side being rational tbh  - and I think some of the pro fox hunt set on here seem just as entrenched in their views as the hunt sabs you mention.
		
Click to expand...

Have no fears SG..I did not mean to imply that you supported the behaviour of sabs, what I was trying to point out was that what comes across as their argument is based on anthromorphism and misconceptions.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			When you place someone on UI,  then you're unable to read their posts,  and yet you reply to them? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You are able to look at individual posts if you wish, a fact of which I'm sure you are aware.  I am replying only to request that I am also put on ignore,  I wont be reading or referring to anything else from Bonkers2.  The posts are insulting and personal.  I also see that they break forum rules re 4.3.and 4.4.  

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 February 2015)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			Have no fears SG..I did not mean to imply that you supported the behaviour of sabs, what I was trying to point out was that what comes across as their argument is based on anthromorphism and misconceptions.
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou


----------



## Overread (20 February 2015)

An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result. 

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods). 


It's  complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures. 



On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			You are able to look at individual posts if you wish, a fact of which I'm sure you are aware.  I am replying only to request that I am also put on ignore,  I wont be reading or referring to anything else from Bonkers2.  The posts are insulting and personal.  I also see that they break forum rules re 4.3.and 4.4.  

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.
		
Click to expand...

You can always report me.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Alec.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			If you are unwilling to engage in a debate, don't post, its simple.  If you post on here people  have the right to ask questions, because this is a forum, debate is encouraged and we have freedom of speech ( I should add we also have forum rules!).  If you are not up to answering questions regarding what you are putting don't post. I would also add  that there has been so many statements made on her from the Pro fox hunt lot that don't hold up to investigation at all , if you have an opinion and express it then  be prepared to defend it.  this seems is a problem for many.   

As for getting people into trouble, what on earth are they doing that could get them into trouble ?? (wouldn't be something illegal would it ?) I would also appreciate it if you could avoid making personal assumptions re my motives etc of which there seems to be no other aim but to be insulting.
		
Click to expand...




Smurf's Gran said:



			Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's.  The people you mention are sabs and are a very small minority (did you mean to say sabs ?) - anti's make up the 80%.  When you say anti's believe hype etc, its not helpful to make an assumption here as you actually denigrating a very large majority of the population.  I am an anti, not a sab.
I agree with you re other animals, and that more needs to be done - though this thread is about hunting, however, on a different topic we may agree
		
Click to expand...

Firstly SG it would appear anybody who does not comply with your opinion is incapable of debate, yet you yourself will not take on any other opinion.

But also...the antis who make a big hoohar ie. sab hunts are a strange breed who jump about in balaclavas in front of horses every weekend, we had near 100 out doing precisely that a while back, and you can find endless "dedicated fb pages with them brandishing their balaclavas and various gizmos to take picture of somebody sat on a horse in a tweed jacket or red jacket. That figure of 80% is from a survey carried out by LACS and most surveys these days are available online, well if we are a nation in stage 4 heading for stage 5 of the demographic transition model ie. we are an ageing population with more retired elderly than young and working, many of thge population would not have access to the internet mostly by choice so a) the survey is immediately biased  and b) is taken from a sample of the population...nobody round here ever saw the survey and i suspect it was taken from both urban and rural communities but it was NOT a survey of the entire country so no it is not the majority of the population. On top of this another survey ahs found resulots showing a decline in support of the ban in the last ten years which now sits at roughy 46% against the ban and 54% supporting it...I would not be surprised if their are also similar flaws in this survey but one has to admit that is a very large discrepancy between two "official" surveys.


----------



## Countryman (20 February 2015)

When you ask leading questions, you get the answers you pay for. That's the reality of it. The vast majority of the British public really do not care about hunting. They're not necessarily for it, and if asked, some *might* say they supposed they were against it. But they certainly wouldn't care about it enough to cross the street to sign a petition against it, or protest against it. That is the preserve of a very small minority, who get an undue amount of attention.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (20 February 2015)

[




Alec Swan said:



			Wrong.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Here Here.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (20 February 2015)

I have tried to be reasonable and to provide S G with information about fox hunting in the UK, as have others.
To come on here and ask for information about illegal activities is beyond naive.
Many people have responded to S G and as one would expect on a hunting forum, not many agree with her, and though she has brought publicity to LACS, I don't think it shows them in a good light.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (20 February 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			I have tried to be reasonable and to provide S G with information about fox hunting in the UK, as have others.
To come on here and ask for information about illegal activities is beyond naive.
Many people have responded to S G and as one would expect on a hunting forum, not many agree with her, and though she has brought publicity to LACS, I don't think it shows them in a good light.
		
Click to expand...

And once again..here here.


----------



## Maesfen (20 February 2015)

This ^^^^^ with knobs on,


----------



## Alec Swan (20 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.
		
Click to expand...




Alec Swan said:



			Wrong.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

And as a further thought for you SG,  Bonkers wasn't insulting,  the poster simply doesn't agree with you and your ill informed claims,  as do very few others.

Alec.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 February 2015)

Overread said:



			An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result. 

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods). 


It's  complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures. 



On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).
		
Click to expand...


Thank you for the information


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			But in 2012 the polls showed also showed that 76% were against - the numbers seem quite consistent, and I think polls (the recent one) were also taken to be consistent in the countryside also.  (maybe rural dwellers who are against daren't speak out)  

I really don't think the majority of people are bothered if "posh" people hunt (and neither do I think that's the case)  but I don't think people can get over the fact of hunting an animal for sport, and that this could be a prolonged chase - it is this which seems cruel to many (myself included) 

I accept that shooting, gassing etc are not good ways either, but this does not make fox hunting any more palatable.
		
Click to expand...

Here is the latest survey results published by YouGov  https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/09/british-people-still-support-fox-hunting-ban/.  this was carried out on the 8th of Feb 2015.  This is interesting as it also separates "country" and "town" preferences. 
 LRP  the poll you refer to was commissioned by Lacs but was actually carried out by Mori, and they would have had to follow protocol (as I'm sure you are aware).  As for the poll where the numbers were much lower do you have details of that and can you post the link ? (or am I not allowed to ask that question? as you will be deemed to have given me the info already!!)

Countryman,  I think you have a point about a percentage of the people being lukewarm either way, but when push comes to shove they are still voting against, and in not significant numbers.  

Most of you (in fact all of you) seem convinced that all hunting is within the law, yet choose to ignore the fact that Alec Swan has been quite upfront in saying he will continue to hunt illegally  (which not surprisingly has drawn no comments from him  - nor others at all ?) 

In regards to this debate, while HH obviously started as a hunting forum, there will be a very significant number on here who do not support hunting, and probably dare not post due to the fear of personal attack such as that which has been aimed at me - however there is a very small minority who think that's okay - Alec Swan,  LPR, Maesfen and Fellewell.  It is disappointing,  I had hoped there would be some points on which we could all converse, but it seems that many of you are so lacking in perspective as to be unable.  Your insults and ramblings represent the dying gasp of an industry that society wont permit, and that has had its day.  Being rude to me will not change that, and as for the insults addressed to me, frankly if you think that's okay, then I don't think you are worth talking to, and it appears that many of you do not have the intellectual capabilities to enable you to converse in an adult way either, so I will waste no further time on you.

For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of.  I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 February 2015)

millikins said:



			I did not say that illegal hunting was not going on perhaps you could read what I wrote without blinkers. I said if no credible evidence has been found after 10 years of trying, the other side of the argument has to be that it doesn't in fact exist. If a group of people wish to regulate the activities of another they have to make a valid case for so doing. LACS and the RSPCA have signally failed to do so.
		
Click to expand...

Please refer to my previous comments on this.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2015)

Overread said:



			An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result. 

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods). 

It's  complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures. 

On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).
		
Click to expand...

You've raised interesting points which are so often overlooked by the arguments of both sides of the discussion.

Para 1.  The value of the conservation trusts,  no matter how well intentioned,  tends to cover only the smallest of areas and act only as 'reserves' (or at least they attempt to) and for there to be any significant influence to the good for our wildlife,  they need to be able to act in a far wider capacity.  That said,  the enviro/agri schemes are an attempt to widen that influence,  and must be considered to be of value.  That point leads us on to your next paragraph.

Para 2.  Excepting for the fact that our birds of prey populations seem to thankfully be improving,  I agree with you.  Without the influence of those Government schemes which encourage an improved habitat,  so British Agriculture would achieve,  quite neatly,  what those who are opposed to Hunting would have,  but the suffocating influence would have been all invasive.  The environment which we provide,  is the single and most influencing aspect of our wildlife management plans.  Sadly,  that in turn is influenced by the question of disturbance by man with our opening of the countryside to those who would have access.  The intrusion upon our countryside by those who would 'visit',  is all so often of an equally detrimental effect as is our modern farming demands.  It's sadly true that 'Nature Trails' whilst benefitting man from his awareness perspective,  have a hugely detrimental effect upon the one thing which we would have preserved,  our wildlife.  It was the invasion of our waterways and our countryside by man which brought about the monstrous decline in our otter population,  it certainly wasn't hunting.

Para 3.  Accepted.

Para 4.  Here I suspect,  we may not agree.  It's my belief that the spreading of our fox population in particular,  is as a result not of the species acceptance of man,  but the opposite.  Hunting with Hounds in itself has never influenced our vulpine numbers directly.  What has influenced those numbers and the expansion of a lived in environment,  is the protection which Hunting previously afforded.  Just as with all forms of created land-preserves so with an implied protection,  there will be a sustainable population.  The practice of cubbing (though it's now referred to as 'scattering'!) was to split up litters of cubs and have them learn to stand alone and support themselves.  It was also of course,  a way of introducing the young entry to their work without what would have been the wholesale destruction of whole litters of cubs had the entire pack which was laid on,  been made up of experienced Hounds.  Today,  with the constant pressures of those who's hand is now turned against the fox,  the same effect has been achieved.  

The simple fact that night shooting is so prevalent,  and there are few areas in this country which don't have their near dedicated followers,  has had exactly the same effect as has cubbing.  Foxes will simply not tolerate rifle bullets being bounced around them at night,  and with the constant pressure and harassment,  so the previous preserves no longer exist.

Previously,  there were many men who were employed as 'keepers,  who were quite clearly instructed that were it ever known that they killed a fox,  that they'd be seeking fresh employment.  Foxes were preserved for the sake of Hunting,  and there was a balanced and generally healthy population.  Today and with the hugely disruptive influence which the ban has brought about,  the expansion in vulpine numbers is now beyond the control of man.  The ban on Hunting has influenced our vulpine population NOT because of the numbers of foxes which were killed by Hounds,  but by the destruction of a safe environment in which they lived.

The other and hugely contributing factor in the meteoric rise in the numbers of foxes,  is the increase in commercial shooting.  During the '70s I worked as a gamekeeper.  Then it was considered that on the large Estates each man would have about 1000 acres and about 1000 pheasants (for instance) released in to his care.  Today,  we have local Shoot owners who with say 3000 acres,  will employ one man and will release between 30 and 40 THOUSAND head of game.  With such vastly increased numbers being released,  so a food supply is being provided and the 'keeper simply doesn't have the time to keep the numbers of foxes extant,  within bounds.  The logical overspill,  coupled with the numbers of those who's hand is turned against the species is the major contributing factor in our urban fox population,  I feel.

It's my view and I suspect of others,  that the disruption which the hunting ban has brought,  has in reality,  completely changed the environment in which the fox lives,  and not for the better of the fox.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

&#8230;&#8230;.. - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of.  &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

It would seem to your quoted 'minority',  that there is much that you are unaware of.  It would also seem that you have no wish to consider that those who have lived their lives in a fashion which allows for a balanced view,  have any opinions of worth,  such is your narrow approach to the subject.

Alec.


----------



## Maesfen (22 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of.  I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.
		
Click to expand...

With your thirst for information, it proves yet again that you are not interested in the fox at all if you haven't considered conservation and what that means to the fox.


----------



## Overread (22 February 2015)

Some very interesting and good points Alec. 
Otter hunting certainly wasn't a cause of their decline; though was likely a contributing factor in the latter years of their decline before the hunts voluntarily shut down (I also hear they shifted to hunting the invasive mink). But the waterways and the DDT and other chemicals was certainly the greater part in it. 

Indeed it is interesting that as one studies the subject the years during and since WWII have seen a huge shift in farming; and whilst the common almost romantic idea of farming as working with nature is still prevalent, modern farming is almost the full opposite. It's one of those things I worry about when people talk of leaving the EU because I wonder if without that we'd only need one bad run of government (and our current lot is very bad for nature and conservation) and we could see massive devastation, even in 4 years. Doing the damage takes very little time - repairing often decades or more. 

I also agree that nature trails and such are just as disruptive, if in a different way. Sadly its oft a question not of process, but of scale. 5 people a week isn't a problem 5 every minute at peek seasons is. Couple that to the shocking lack of nature studies in school (its, in my view, only really focused on in the first few years of school; once you hit the years before and after the GCSEs nature studies is basically totally ignored - its touched on in geography and biology; but the former mostly in process and the latter in things like photosynthesis. 


On the subject of fox spread and its relation to hunting I think we do agree that the ban might have had a detrimental effect in the long term; though the specific reasons for what has happened might be impossible to viably prove. I do recall seeing documentaries of foxes living on waste dumps and in towns before the ban, so it might be that the urban sprawl and vast increases in waste created a system where ban or no ban we would have ended up with an ever increasing urban fox population. Though I wonder if the hunts were still running if control over that might have been more swift; this keeping populations even in the urban area, down. (at present it seems to be done with relocation; which is a very nice idea in theory but not in practice because the countryside already has its foxes so releasing more foxes into other territories only results in fights; with urban foxes oft being quite a bit bigger and, whilst more mangy, somewhat stronger and much bolder around human habitation). 

The commercial pheasants is indeed another factor; and one I don't like at all. Traditional hunts which were quite local affairs and social events were fine; but the new system of daily hunts through the season and of bagging the "biggest" bags at the end is just terribly callous to my mind. Sadly I understand the estates positions; the land they have needs to earn and shooting is highly expensive, very popular and has a huge profit margin. It's no surprise its been encouraged, but I've a feeling that before long there will be a backfire on it.

Heck the estate local to us started in the last year or two and we've seen dozens of pheasants around now where as we might see only the odd few before. A drive in up in Yorkshire a year or two back for two hours and I saw something like 20 dear pheasants on the roadside. It's a clear sign there are just way too many birds down; but its hard to oppose. This is especially the case when rarer birds like the grey partridge and many other once common farmland birds directly benefit from the extra food and the habitat that the shoots promote (even if its overrun with pheasants). 



A part of me does wonder if fox hunting would have, in time, gone the same highly commercial way. Deer hun...no wait stalking (can't have my woodland teacher catch me saying hunting in the UK!) has already gone that way, though at least has some constraints upon it. Pheasants seems to be more rampant (even though there are restrictions). 





In the end its all complex system, made worse often by the extreme polarities of those at the most active ends of campaigning. So long as they see it as a war-zone with a total win/lose viewpoint chances are both side will just keep swiping at each other with the land in the middle suffering as a result.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2015)

Overread,

whilst we may engage in a bout of nick-picking,  we read from the same page.  ^^^^ A good and worthwhile post.

Alec.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (22 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Here is the latest survey results published by YouGov  https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/09/british-people-still-support-fox-hunting-ban/.  this was carried out on the 8th of Feb 2015.  This is interesting as it also separates "country" and "town" preferences. 
 LRP  the poll you refer to was commissioned by Lacs but was actually carried out by Mori, and they would have had to follow protocol (as I'm sure you are aware).  As for the poll where the numbers were much lower do you have details of that and can you post the link ? (or am I not allowed to ask that question? as you will be deemed to have given me the info already!!)

Countryman,  I think you have a point about a percentage of the people being lukewarm either way, but when push comes to shove they are still voting against, and in not significant numbers.  

Most of you (in fact all of you) seem convinced that all hunting is within the law, yet choose to ignore the fact that Alec Swan has been quite upfront in saying he will continue to hunt illegally  (which not surprisingly has drawn no comments from him  - nor others at all ?) 

In regards to this debate, while HH obviously started as a hunting forum, there will be a very significant number on here who do not support hunting, and probably dare not post due to the fear of personal attack such as that which has been aimed at me - however there is a very small minority who think that's okay - Alec Swan,  LPR, Maesfen and Fellewell.  It is disappointing,  I had hoped there would be some points on which we could all converse, but it seems that many of you are so lacking in perspective as to be unable.  Your insults and ramblings represent the dying gasp of an industry that society wont permit, and that has had its day.  Being rude to me will not change that, and as for the insults addressed to me, frankly if you think that's okay, then I don't think you are worth talking to, and it appears that many of you do not have the intellectual capabilities to enable you to converse in an adult way either, so I will waste no further time on you.

For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of.  I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.
		
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly I think i saw it in a BBC article online, but it was a couple of months ago and as I am useless on computers i am unable to find it. I'm sure they followed protocol, but the fact still remains it was  a very small sample of the population (I think it was about 2000 people) and thus neither a reprsentation of the whole country nor can one state that 80% of the entire population is anti.


----------



## Fellewell (22 February 2015)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Do you mean that foxes are maintained, so their numbers are healthy etc, which then fosters a need to control said numbers, and the control of numbers is actually the hunt ??  so it is all for the fun of the hunt??   (btw insults are not obligatory)
		
Click to expand...

There is an overpopulation of foxes, this leads to an imbalance in food and environment. Both these factors are detrimental to the fox and other wildlife. Would you like to see more foxes and no ground nesting birds? Numbers of dead, mangy foxes strewn across the roads would be greatly reduced if they were managed and monitored by people who live and work in the countryside.

Hunting with hounds is simply utilising natural selection, weeding out unhealthy specimens, as I have tried to explain to you. Do you really believe gassing, trapping and poisoning are more viable alternatives, indiscriminate as they are? 

So to answer your question; No, there is far more at stake here than the fun of the hunt.


----------



## Overread (22 February 2015)

I think its important to realise that over-abundance of foxes is not a totally natural occurrence. It is in part greatly fuelled by access to abundant food supplies as a result of human activity and waste. This means that the land can support more foxes than the natural populations of prey species would otherwise support. However just because a fox can get access to more food from people doesn't mean it will not also take natural supplies as well (indeed most species gorge upon food when they can get it because the next meal is uncertain and might not come for many days - this is why its so easy to over-feed pets like dogs because even though your dog expects its food at the same time each day it still has no guarantee that it will appear and thus relies upon its instinct to eat when it can - people also do the same thing). 

What happens then is you get a predator population which can eat more natural food than there is in the system. Now in a fully natural system this would result in a crash in food supply species which means predators would then starve, thus a crash in one population brings the other down as well. When you have human food supplies however your predator species doesn't crash; it might lower when natural supplies get significantly less, but it will still remain relatively high; thus putting at risk many prey species already on a decline. 



This introduces the idea of us needing to manage the natural system because of how we've unbalanced it. Foxes are also one of our apex predators whilst in a more natural system wolves, lynx, bear would also be present within the system (even though they might prey upon different specific species they all interact and still have some influence upon each other). 


A hunt can be part of this management process, as a further bonus it can act as an economic and social factor for human interests and by putting direct value into the land and management of an otherwise "pest" species it can do some significant good. However I think its important to realise that its not just the hunt but the support structure that is built up around that which contributes more significantly to the management.
A pest species that can be controlled, whilst also providing an economic bonus whilst remaining alive is an interesting system because it means that whilst you have an economic (and natural) desire to manage the species you also have a check against the simple, easy option of management, which is to wipe it out entirely. 


You could contrast foxes to the predatory birds where there is a similar conflict of interest (the taking of shoot birds), yet where the predatory bird has no financial gain for the land users. Under such a system it becomes difficult to then tell people not to remove that species; because it being there costs them in lost stock to keep it around and provides no bonus to them directly by being around. 



At some level economic considerations often trump many others and whilst we can argue that its all money for the rich, we can't deny that it also often supports a structure underneath it of other land users and earners . This is why things like "eco-tourism" are gaining more momentum because it provides income from land whilst protecting the environment. It give the land worth and provides an economic structure in a conservation setup. 

It's all in all a complex issue and can be made worse if the scale of implementation increases. Local level fox-hunts likely do little actual damage; whilst if they went full commercial the damage potential scales up (plus you could easily end up in a system where foxes are being bred and put down to ensure daily hunts can take place).


----------



## ExmoorHunter (22 February 2015)

Fellewell said:



			So to answer your question; No, there is far more at stake here than the fun of the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

This absolutely!!
In rural areas hunts provide a much greater service and are more important than many people from outside appreciate or understand.  They are out in the countryside and often find, rescue and/or despatch injured wildlife, help and let farmers know about trapped or sick livestock and provide an essential fallen stock service.  Anyone who has livestock will know how much they do to prevent suffering to animals.

In this area the hunts are vital to the community - we have loads of social events which support local businesses, village pubs and village halls.  Friendships and acquaintances are made and maintained and we have lots of fun!  The cross section of people is huge and many visit to hunt, shoot and meet friends.  It is a vital part of the local economy.

Management of the environment is an absolute necessity and hunting is a part of the infrastructure of our countryside.  It is also self-supporting. Currently, the only costs to the taxpayer are the costs for the failed prosecutions!  If you ban it, what takes it's place?


----------



## Nancykitt (22 February 2015)

My view is that even if 80% of the population were definitely anti-hunting (and I don't believe for one minute believe that this is the case, for all sorts of reasons), I can't see any way that they would be pro banning all hunts. At the time of the hunting act, one of the arguments used by the anti-hunt lobby was that it's possible for these riders to have a perfectly good day following a trail and nothing has to get killed. Lots of people were convinced by this argument, and whether illegal activity does or does not exist, the fact remains that many, many hunts do operate within the law. 
So having put forward the view that drag hunting and trail hunting are perfectly acceptable, it seems strange that ten years on, with no evidence of widespread law-breaking, the same bunch would like to trash that view and ban everything. The more I think about it, the more I realise that it's one of the daftest things I've ever heard.
Perhaps we could think of our own loaded question about this and then get Mori to ask it. 
Seriously, is anyone - including the antis on here - going to try and make a case for why I shouldn't go out with the Bloodhounds on a Sunday?


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2015)

Nancykitt said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Seriously, is anyone - including the antis on here - going to try and make a case for why I shouldn't go out with the Bloodhounds on a Sunday?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's the use of the word 'Blood' in the first part of the Hound's name!  It'd be something which was that daft!  On the other hand of course,  if the Bloodhounds were known as Trailhounds,  it would all tickle their sensibilities and we'd then all live in a manner which would fit in well with their cosy and ill-informed opinions!

Alec.


----------



## Overread (22 February 2015)

The way I see it Nancy is that some of the strongest opposition isn't unified; you've got groups including.

1) Those who dislike "the man" or "the rich" or "the upper classes" or whatever you want to insert. In short they see it more as a cultural and social statement rather than one upon animal rights or ecology. In short they want the hunt gone; because it is or reminds them of oppression or some element of society that they greatly dislike. 
That many real hunts involve local populations and are not all high class rich affairs isn't the point to this group.

2) That if you keep hunting going; even if no hunt were to EVER hunt a fox; there would still be the "threat" of it returning to its roots. In short they want it fully gone because they feel that they've not yet won. That a single change in government could bring it all back and their good work in getting it restricted would be undone. 

3) Those who think that unless you ban it fully you will still get those who hunt real foxes. And as such since they consider it impossible to police this activity they consider the next best to be banning the whole activity itself. 


The first group won't be happy till its gone and chances are little would change their point of view easily. 

The second group could be convinced of a lack of need to ban fully if more strength is put into alternatives (eg scent trails) to the point where hunts don't want to hunt foxes at all. Not because its against the law, but because they have more fun/more gain/less loss than hunting the fox. Ergo one strengthens the alternatives within the existing structure. 

The last group is much like the second and the solution is much the same; again you strengthen the alternatives to the point where its not just tolerated, but accepted and encouraged.



However all those approaches rely upon working with hunts. So we are back to that warzone of pure antis and pure pros again.


----------



## Nancykitt (22 February 2015)

Very good points from Alex and Overread!
I think that when we do the Mori poll question we should include a picture of a beautiful, softy kind-faced bloodhound (which all of ours are, of course) and say something like 'Are you in favour of this lovely cuddly dog having a wonderful time by going for a nice run with his doggie friends and some humans who may be walking, running or riding horses - and no other animal gets harmed?'


----------



## Cinnamontoast (1 March 2015)

51% want the ban to stay according to that last poll, 33% want it repealed. Huge difference from the 80% bandied about by antis.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 March 2015)

c-t,  whilst I agree that polls are perhaps a way to reflect public opinion,  when they focus on the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of life,  and from either side,  it seems to me that they're useless as the loaded questions will be biased in the direction of the person who writes out the cheque!  Those who are opposed to Hunting,  and considering that West Midlands group,  spout such emotive twaddle,  that even those who wouldn't know a Hound from a Hamster,  would see through the stupidity of their claims.

It's my view that the general public have more than enough going on in front of them,  which is plastered all over our news programmes as to not really give a fig about Hunting.  Similarly,  I'd doubt that many with the right to vote would consider one party or member of parliament over another,  simply because of their stance on Hunting.  Both sides of the argument claim public support,  ignoring the fact that in the main,  they're basing there pyramid upon a false and futile general apathy!  I suspect that the general public,  upon whom both sides rely,  view both arguments as coming from those who are an irrelevance to them.  

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (2 March 2015)

If I am totally honest I personally could not see the logic in trying to get the law repealed as I think it is never likely to happen in the future . I feel all it has done is wind things up again which may actually bring about a worse outcome for the hunts! The bill was never drafted to be watertight and I suspect that was done purposefully. Most hunts realistically have not seen a huge change to what they do however at least they still exist which if things are made tougher wont be the case.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (2 March 2015)

There is no chance that the law would be changed to ban hunting altogether, it is just an opportunity for the LACS to keep their agenda a live issue in the media.
It is relatively easy to repeal a law compared to making a new one, but the issue is a political hot potato. So sleeping dogs will be let lie.


----------



## JenHunt (2 March 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Wrong.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

hear hear


----------

