# Hunting Ban - ten years on



## Kittykins (17 November 2014)

The hunting ban was brought in on the 18th November 2004 - exactly ten years ago. 

The Countryside Alliance has blogged about it, saying "Those opposed to hunting thought that would be the end, that the hunting community would give in and tail off to take up other, less contentious pastimes. But they had seriously underestimated those who live and work in the countryside. 

"A decade on, practically every hunt that was operating when the Act was passed is still going strong and they are all still determined to overthrow this illogical, badly drafted and unfair law."

(see http://www.countryside-alliance.org...unting-community-is-still-fighting-for-repeal)

Do you think it will ever be repealed? Or are we just going to have to get used to it? I notice that hunting doesn't seem to be any less popular as a pastime, but in a way, doesn't that make the critics case for them?


----------



## Equi (17 November 2014)

s'never been ten years!! Hasn't that flown. 

Im not a fan of hunting for sport, and feeding animals to encourage them to come to an area used for hunting is to me sport, but i'm not opposed to it for vermin control as i think it is the fastest way and the most humane (if they are shot they may survive for weeks in pain and end up starving to death...thats worse to me than 30seconds of being killed by a dog) so i think the gov and the hunts need to come up with and stick to a middle ground.


----------



## shannonandtay (18 November 2014)

ok just my point of view but I don't agree with hunting, but daughter went to her first drag hunt on sunday and had the most amazing time! if it wasn't for the ban then no she wouldn't have gone, so in a way do you think that maybe the ban has opened up the sport to people who would never usually go?


----------



## Alec Swan (18 November 2014)

shannonandtay said:



			ok just my point of view but I don't agree with hunting, but daughter went to her first drag hunt on sunday and had the most amazing time! if it wasn't for the ban then no she wouldn't have gone, so in a way do you think that maybe the ban has opened up the sport to people who would never usually go?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who Hunted,  pre-ban,  and then stopped to better comply with the Law.  Indeed,  there were many who when told that they 'Couldn't' hunt,  defied the Law,  and started.  Unjust Laws need to be challenged,  and many with a sense of justice,  did just that,  having never hunted previously!!

I'm pleased that your daughter enjoyed her day,  but those who would subsequently stop hunting,  were there a repeal,  would honestly be considered an irrelevance by the rest of the field and would be unlikely to influence those with a mind already made up.  Many would consider Drag Hunting to be a very poor substitute for the real thing,  but for those who enjoy it,  then that's fine.

There's a road sign on the A148 and just before Holt in Norfolk,  and it still has one of those green 'Keep Hunting' stickers on it and it's still as clear and sharp as the day that it was put there!  That must be getting on for 10 years!

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

I think hunting is certainly more popular now, because people have realised that the countryside is under threat and want to support it. People who before didn't think hunting was for them have wanted to stick two fingers up to the ban, and so have tried out hunting-and found that they loved it. 

I think that whether or not we see a repeal-in fact whether or not any sort of hunting survives for us to enjoy in 10 years time or so-depends entirely on whether we have a Conservative or Labour government in 2015.

With a Conservative majority, we will get repeal and hopefully some sort of animal welfare legislation which puts hunting off the political agenda so it won't be tampered with by future politicians. Additionally we can hope for "English (and Welsh) Votes for English (and Welsh) Laws" -which would make introducing a ban again much harder for our enemies.

The prospect of a Labour government-with regards to our sport-is absolutely terrifying.


----------



## shannonandtay (18 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I don't know of anyone who Hunted,  pre-ban,  and then stopped to better comply with the Law.  Indeed,  there were many who when told that they 'Couldn't' hunt,  defied the Law,  and started.  Unjust Laws need to be challenged,  and many with a sense of justice,  did just that,  having never hunted previously!!

I'm pleased that your daughter enjoyed her day,  but those who would subsequently stop hunting,  were there a repeal,  would honestly be considered an irrelevance by the rest of the field and would be unlikely to influence those with a mind already made up.  Many would consider Drag Hunting to be a very poor substitute for the real thing,  but for those who enjoy it,  then that's fine.

There's a road sign on the A148 and just before Holt in Norfolk,  and it still has one of those green 'Keep Hunting' stickers on it and it's still as clear and sharp as the day that it was put there!  That must be getting on for 10 years!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that drag hunting would be considered a poor substitute and I would never dream of even trying to influence any ones views as that wouldn't even be possible on either side.  As for being an irrelevance I couldn't care a less, we had a good day, the people couldn't have been nicer and I felt I left my daughter in good hands as they rode off.  Of course it wouldn't bother them if we were there or not but it has opened a whole new side of riding to my daughter and Im sure others who wouldn't have gone pre ban.  If the ban was lifted then once she is old enough to take herself then she can make her own decisions on how she feels about fox hunting.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

shannonandtay said:



			I have no doubt that drag hunting would be considered a poor substitute and I would never dream of even trying to influence any ones views as that wouldn't even be possible on either side.  As for being an irrelevance I couldn't care a less, we had a good day, the people couldn't have been nicer and I felt I left my daughter in good hands as they rode off.  Of course it wouldn't bother them if we were there or not but it has opened a whole new side of riding to my daughter and Im sure others who wouldn't have gone pre ban.  If the ban was lifted then once she is old enough to take herself then she can make her own decisions on how she feels about fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible that people like your daughter will go out with packs that-before the ban-hunted live quarry and enjoy their day. This is good I think, because hopefully if the ban is repealed she will continue to hunt with them because she will have seen first hand how welcoming and nice the people are, thereby dispelling any propaganda about "stuck up bloodthirsty savages" etc, and see how much all those involved with hunting care for animals and the countryside.


----------



## ester (18 November 2014)

I do wonder how widely accepted people who are not pro hunt are in packs that before the ban were hunting fox?


----------



## shannonandtay (18 November 2014)

Countryman said:



			It is certainly possible that people like your daughter will go out with packs that-before the ban-hunted live quarry and enjoy their day. This is good I think, because hopefully if the ban is repealed she will continue to hunt with them because she will have seen first hand how welcoming and nice the people are, thereby dispelling any propaganda about "stuck up bloodthirsty savages" etc, and see how much all those involved with hunting care for animals and the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

The people could not have been nicer and I felt, really looked after the kids there on the day, I was very impressed and felt reassured that she would be fine with these exceptional riders.  I personally will never change my opinion but that doesn't mean I go around voicing those opinions or that I couldn't be polite and friendly to those people on the day.  We are probably worlds apart in our views, upbringing etc etc. but it didn't stop us having a very enjoyable time.


----------



## Isbister (18 November 2014)

Countryman said:



			...
I think that whether or not we see a repeal-in fact whether or not any sort of hunting survives for us to enjoy in 10 years time or so-depends entirely on whether we have a Conservative or Labour government in 2015.

With a Conservative majority, we will get repeal ...
The prospect of a Labour government-with regards to our sport-is absolutely terrifying.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Personally I doubt that the Conservatives would repeal the ban. I know they have the Lib-Dems clinging to them like a drowning man at present, but even without them, I detect no great interest in supporting rural traditions. Nor do I get the feeling that Cameron and his chums can always be relied on to keep their promises, which seem to be made for the sake of expedience rather than principle. Labour, on the other hand - well, I would agree with you there.

In some ways, hunts have learned to live with the ban, and possibly it took some heat out of the pre-ban situation when there was a lot of trouble with sabs in some areas. I know that still goes on to some extent, but I suspect it would agitate and stir things up pretty badly if the ban were to be lifted.

I took up hunting after the ban came in, and am not in a good position to make before and after comparisons. I hunt with a proper hunt, hunting within the law, and very much enjoy it. Foxes are killed with some regularity, but that is not the expressed purpose of the hunt and frankly I doubt whether it ever was - there is so much more to enjoy about the day out than a bit of vermin-control.


----------



## Kittykins (18 November 2014)

Isbister said:



			I'm not sure I can agree with that. Personally I doubt that the Conservatives would repeal the ban. I know they have the Lib-Dems clinging to them like a drowning man at present, but even without them, I detect no great interest in supporting rural traditions. Nor do I get the feeling that Cameron and his chums can always be relied on to keep their promises, which seem to be made for the sake of expedience rather than principle. Labour, on the other hand - well, I would agree with you there.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that the Tories would repeal the ban either. There are a fair few Tory MPs who oppose hunting nowadays. A whole load of them signed a pledge at Tory Party conference a few years back to promise that they would not vote for a repeal. I remember seeing it and being shocked that there were around a hundred names on the board at least. 

Which is why I was surprised that the Countryside Alliance was still gung ho about getting a repeal. They must know which way the land lies as well as anyone.


----------



## wench (18 November 2014)

There will be labour mp's who do not support the ban as well as some lib dems


----------



## Orangehorse (18 November 2014)

I  hope that MPs feel that they have spent enough time and trouble on the subject and don't ever want to touch it again, and let everyone get on and enjoy their sport, whatever it is - drag hunting, trail hunting, hunting within the law, etc. etc.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

The point about repealing the ban is that it should be coupled with some sort of animal welfare bill to outlaw cruelty or some sort of regulatory body for hunting. This would take the heat out of the debate and hopefully keep public opinion on side.


----------



## Herne (18 November 2014)

ester said:



			I do wonder how widely accepted people who are not pro hunt are in packs that before the ban were hunting fox?
		
Click to expand...

Good question. There is not, as far as I am aware, a single pack in the country that previous hunted foxes that does not collectively believe that the Hunting Act was wrong. Most of them are still involved in fox control in one form or another, for the purposes of keeping the hunt linked to fox control in the minds of the local landowners, so that hunting can resume when the ban is repealed.

So, someone who is actively anti-live-quarry-hunting would find themselves in a pretty small minority in most hunts.

Chances are, however, that the hunt would make them welcome - because we do all love to convert the uninformed...


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

I am convinced that the Conservatives - if they had a full majority-would repeal the ban. This is for a number of reasons. Primarily, most Tory seats are rural constituencies in England, where the hunting lobby is powerful and if they ant to hold on to their seats it is in their interests to vote for repeal.

Secondly, the majority of Tory MP's are naturally pro-countryside and pro-freedom, and see the ban for what it is -New Labour's class war.
In addition to this, many Conservatives are hunters themselves. Cameron goes deer stalking every summer. He hunted with several foxhound packs even while he was an MP. His father in law is chairman of his local hunt. Nick Herbert, a junior minister, set up and hunted his own pack of Beagles during the 90's. Edward Garnier the former Solicitor General helped the MFHA work out how to fight the ban legally. Owen Paterson-DEFRA minister until recently, and some say future leader-not only hunts regularly but also lets his local hunt draw the coverts on his farm. 

Lastly, there are very very few anti-hunting Tory MP's. I believe that there are less than 15 Conservative's who would vote against repeal -15 out of 300, just 5%. Interestingly, one of these-Mark Reckless-recently defected to UKIP. 

The most important thing is not to let Labour in.They are very sympathetic to the groups such as LACS, the Hunt Sabs and the Hunt Monitors all of whom have been begging Labour to introduce a draconian 'tightening up' which would essentially criminalise everything packs do nowadays and even mean the end of drag hunting. 

We now just have to wait for the publication of the Conservative Manifesto for 2015, and it should contain a commitment to a vote on repeal.


----------



## Aperchristmastree (18 November 2014)

To be honest the ban has had very little real affect on our local hunts.  They still hunt regularly, and they still hunt and kill foxes.  It's about as useless a ban as a ban can get.  So I certainly wouldn't let any desire for a repeal affect my vote in any way, as the ban is not outright.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

Apercrumbie said:



			To be honest the ban has had very little real affect on our local hunts.  They still hunt regularly, and they still hunt and kill foxes.  It's about as useless a ban as a ban can get.  So I certainly wouldn't let any desire for a repeal affect my vote in any way, as the ban is not outright.
		
Click to expand...

If you want hunting continue as it is now, you should let hunting at least influence your vote.
Because on one hand-you may be fine now but many hunts are being harassed by vigilantes and spurious prosecutions-which will eventually include your hunt.
On the other hand, if Labour get in, I fear virtually all hunting with hounds is going to come to an end.


----------



## Aperchristmastree (18 November 2014)

Countryman said:



			If you want hunting continue as it is now, you should let hunting at least influence your vote.
Because on one hand-you may be fine now but many hunts are being harassed by vigilantes and spurious prosecutions-which will eventually include your hunt.
On the other hand, if Labour get in, I fear virtually all hunting with hounds is going to come to an end.
		
Click to expand...

I don't.  The issue is rarely raised amongst MPs anymore.  Problems with the Sabs hugely pre-date the ban and are, IMO, a separate issue.  A change of approach by the police is needed there.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

Apercrumbie said:



			I don't.  The issue is rarely raised amongst MPs anymore.  Problems with the Sabs hugely pre-date the ban and are, IMO, a separate issue.  A change of approach by the police is needed there.
		
Click to expand...

You would be very suprised at the support the antis get from Labour. Labour will I think strengthen the act. Just look here at these Labour Cabinet ministers meeting with known hunt monitors http://campaigntostrengthenthehuntingact.com/special-visitors-to-powas-stand.php


----------



## Kittykins (18 November 2014)

I'm less convinced that a free vote under a Tory government would result in a repeal. Take a look at this website for the 'Blue Fox Brigade' - Conservatives who support the ban, including, remarkably, Dominic Raab, who's more commonly thought of as freedom-loving. 

http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/about/

According to that site 257 of our current MPs would vote for a repeal. That will include Labour politician Kate Hoey. I'm not aware of any other Labour or Lib Dem hunt supports, although i'm sure there must be some. 

There were 307 Tories elected in 2010, so there are a good 50 or so at least, roughly 15% of the Parliamentary party, who would not vote for a repeal, not 5%. Others such as Cameron would abstain as it would be impolitic for him (them) to openly support hunting.


----------



## madmav (18 November 2014)

Newsnight BBC2 doing a piece about it right now, just after 11pm, Tues, if you want to iplayer it. Do think the hunting fraternity don't do themselves a favour the way they sell it. And I am absolutely not an anti, quite the opposite.


----------



## Countryman (18 November 2014)

I'm confident they won't hold a free vote unless they are sure they can win it. 
You will notice that that website you quote names just 6 Conservative MP's who would vote against repeal - Conservative MPs Caroline Dinenage, Tracey Crouch, Mike Weatherley, David Amess, Dominic Raab and Sir Roger Gale. To that can be added Simon Kirby of Brighton, David Amess, and possibly Sarah Woolaston.

However, the fact that the antis have 257 MP's who say they back repeal does not mean that all the others won't. The antis did this research so an awful lot of MP's simply will not have replied-including MP's such as Andrew Rosindell who certainly would vote for repeal. In any case, the Tory MP's against repeal will hopefully be persuaded to abstain.

Lastly, hopefully English/Welsh Votes for English/Welsh laws will come along soon, which would mean we would have a majority in favour of repeal already in this government.

Instead we should look for lists of MP's who would vote against repeal.


----------



## Kittykins (19 November 2014)

Countryman, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong in this case. I agree that English votes for English laws will help.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 November 2014)

The very thinnest end of the wedge arrived when The National Trust decided to ban hunting upon the land under its control.  A strange stance,  but is it?  The NT haven't banned shooting,  and I wonder why?  Do you suppose that it could be because those who shoot pay hefty rents?  Do you suppose that had the Hunting fraternity paid for the right to cross land owned by the NT and pay for the right to do so,  that they would have been stopped?  I very much doubt it!!

I wonder what the thoughts would be of those who set up the NT,  as a previously principled body which was focused upon the protection of our rural environs,  and if they now saw the appalling state of our decimated rural lives,  controlled by those who only have interest in 'Control'.  When we eat a sandwich,  we eat it crusts and all,  and if Hunting is unpalatable to some,  then it should be borne in mind that the sport of Hunting was an important part of the rural package.

Those who we vote in to Parliament,  and to represent us?  Should they reflect their supporters views,  or should they go along with their own principles?  Principles?  There's a question in itself,  when we consider that lot!! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (19 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The very thinnest end of the wedge arrived when The National Trust decided to ban hunting upon the land under its control.  A strange stance,  but is it?  The NT haven't banned shooting,  and I wonder why?  Do you suppose that it could be because those who shoot pay hefty rents?  Do you suppose that had the Hunting fraternity paid for the right to cross land owned by the NT and pay for the right to do so,  that they would have been stopped?  I very much doubt it!!

I wonder what the thoughts would be of those who set up the NT,  as a previously principled body which was focused upon the protection of our rural environs,  and if they now saw the appalling state of our decimated rural lives,  controlled by those who only have interest in 'Control'.  When we eat a sandwich,  we eat it crusts and all,  and if Hunting is unpalatable to some,  then it should be borne in mind that the sport of Hunting was an important part of the rural package.

Those who we vote in to Parliament,  and to represent us?  Should they reflect their supporters views,  or should they go along with their own principles?  Principles?  There's a question in itself,  when we consider that lot!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...



You write yet again as if there were not large areas of the country which have never had a fox hunt, Alec.   It is not necessary to hunt fox on horseback to have a rural balance, as these areas show.

I know you are passionate about rural affairs, but please stop pretending that fox hunting is somehow critically essential to the countryside and as if no countryman exists who is against hunting fox with dogs followed by riders.


----------



## cptrayes (19 November 2014)

Isbister said:



			. I hunt with a proper hunt, hunting within the law, and very much enjoy it. Foxes are killed with some regularity, but that is not the expressed purpose of the hunt and frankly I doubt whether it ever was - there is so much more to enjoy about the day out than a bit of vermin-control.
		
Click to expand...

If foxes are killed with regularity I very much doubt that you are hunting within the law.  Drag packs do not kill foxes with regularity,  Why should a trail hunting fox pack?  You have, after all, had ten years to teach your fox hounds to be as obedient to being called off the wrong scent as a drag pack of fox hounds.

And if it was never the expressed purpose of the hunt to kill foxes, doesn't that destroy almost every argument that has been put forward against the ban?


----------



## cptrayes (19 November 2014)

There is not much point in a repeal, the law is being held in contempt all over the country, by people who then have the nerve to complain about the police failing to control sabs.


----------



## ester (19 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You write yet again as if there were not large areas of the country which have never had a fox hunt, Alec.   It is not necessary to hunt fox on horseback to have a rural balance, as these areas show.

I know you are passionate about rural affairs, but please stop pretending that fox hunting is somehow critically essential to the countryside and as if no countryman exists who is against hunting fox with dogs followed by riders.
		
Click to expand...

I guess large areas of the country have limited livestock for foxes to cause a problem to though? Apart from pigs there are very few cattle/sheep around here compared to when I was in somerset and none at all in the large areas of arable land so no need for such a 'rural balance' to be established.


----------



## cptrayes (19 November 2014)

ester said:



			I guess large areas of the country have limited livestock for foxes to cause a problem to though? Apart from pigs there are very few cattle/sheep around here compared to when I was in somerset and none at all in the large areas of arable land so no need for such a 'rural balance' to be established.
		
Click to expand...

I am in heavily farmed hill sheep country, where every farm has chickens, where foxes have always been shot not hunted with hounds.


----------



## ester (19 November 2014)

Ah, I misunderstood you meant shooting v. hunting as opposed to hunting v. not hunting at all and letting them carry on their merry way.


----------



## JenHunt (19 November 2014)

Funnily enough we were discussing this on Saturday (whilst mounted, obviously!), and saying that actually, to the majority of us, what the hounds are following is irrelevant to our day - they could be following fox, socks or squirrel for all the difference it makes to us. We were treated to a lovely display of the hounds flushing a bunny from covert (quickly stopped by the Whip though) and you could have thrown a blanket over them they were so tight. Just beautiful to watch. What is important to us though was to see hounds working, and working well, on top of that the riding, the social side, the horses and the country we cross is why we go. 

That said, I'm a firm believer that there is no more efficient and humane way to control pest species, and for that reason, and the unworkability (is that even a word?) of the ban, I think we should still be working for repeal. 

And I agree, the prospect of it all under a Labour government is indeed terrifying.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 November 2014)

JenHunt said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

And I agree, the prospect of it all under a Labour government is indeed terrifying.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that we entrust our lives,  our futures and our well beings,  to idiots,  and that's all of them,  regardless of party.

Alec.


----------



## JenHunt (20 November 2014)

there is that Alec! but then i guess that's the price we pay for living in a democracy? or even society in general?


----------



## Alec Swan (20 November 2014)

So what happens when a football club manager is found to be failing?  He's out!  He's then replaced.  If there was a vote of confidence for the average MP,  then we'd start to have a system where the wishes of the public were taken in to account.  That Guy Fawkes should be martyred!! 

Alec.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (22 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So what happens when a football club manager is found to be failing?  He's out!  He's then replaced.  If there was a vote of confidence for the average MP,  then we'd start to have a system where the wishes of the public were taken in to account.  That Guy Fawkes should be martyred!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but one mans failure is another man's hero.  Its all a matter of opinion.


----------



## shannonandtay (25 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So what happens when a football club manager is found to be failing?  He's out!  He's then replaced.  If there was a vote of confidence for the average MP,  then we'd start to have a system where the wishes of the public were taken in to account.  That Guy Fawkes should be martyred!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Just on a lighter note, guy Fawkes is martyred around here, we are still celebrating him even now


----------



## Smurf's Gran (25 November 2014)

Countryman said:



			I think hunting is certainly more popular now, because people have realised that the countryside is under threat and want to support it. People who before didn't think hunting was for them have wanted to stick two fingers up to the ban, and so have tried out hunting-and found that they loved it. 

I think that whether or not we see a repeal-in fact whether or not any sort of hunting survives for us to enjoy in 10 years time or so-depends entirely on whether we have a Conservative or Labour government in 2015.

With a Conservative majority, we will get repeal and hopefully some sort of animal welfare legislation which puts hunting off the political agenda so it won't be tampered with by future politicians. Additionally we can hope for "English (and Welsh) Votes for English (and Welsh) Laws" -which would make introducing a ban again much harder for our enemies.

The prospect of a Labour government-with regards to our sport-is absolutely terrifying.
		
Click to expand...

Or hunting maybe more popular now because there are more drag hunts, and people who previously would not dream of going fox hunting will now go.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (25 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The very thinnest end of the wedge arrived when The National Trust decided to ban hunting upon the land under its control.  A strange stance,  but is it?  The NT haven't banned shooting,  and I wonder why?  Do you suppose that it could be because those who shoot pay hefty rents?  Do you suppose that had the Hunting fraternity paid for the right to cross land owned by the NT and pay for the right to do so,  that they would have been stopped?  I very much doubt it!!

I wonder what the thoughts would be of those who set up the NT,  as a previously principled body which was focused upon the protection of our rural environs,  and if they now saw the appalling state of our decimated rural lives,  controlled by those who only have interest in 'Control'.  When we eat a sandwich,  we eat it crusts and all,  and if Hunting is unpalatable to some,  then it should be borne in mind that the sport of Hunting was an important part of the rural package.

Those who we vote in to Parliament,  and to represent us?  Should they reflect their supporters views,  or should they go along with their own principles?  Principles?  There's a question in itself,  when we consider that lot!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I am aware that feelings are strong on this site regarding hunting and this is a "Horse and Hound" Forum after all, but those in favour of bringing back hunting really are a minority.   This is what living in a democracy is like,  Hunting (legally!)  will not come back, and the National Trust are merely considering its members wishes.    Hunting legally has gone, so give it up.   If you are so worried about the rural economy diversify !  

Also I do think there is a difference between shooting and hunting.  Shooting involves a quick kill (with a dog to retrieve a shot bird quickly that may not have died from the first shot) and Hunting involves a chase that can be prolonged and is considered cruel by the majority.  Now I am aware that those who are pro hunting will now be apoplectic with rage,   That's just tough, its called living in a democracy, and if any one else mentions any more hunts who are hunting illegally I will happily report them to the police, write to my MP etc etc. breaking the law is nothing to be proud of. 

 Here is a little excerpt for from "Conservatives against Foxhunting"
Welcome to Conservatives Against Fox Hunting (The Blue Fox Group)  established by a Conservative Association Chairman ,( now the Association Vice President and his family in January 2010. This web site is here to represent the two thirds of Conservative supporters  and the 75% of the general population who think hunting should remain illegal as demonstrated in an Ipsos MORI poll carried out in 2009 for The League Against Cruel Sports.

I think whoever gets elected fox hunting is never coming back, no matter how much  a vocal minority complain and stick stickers on road signs.  Why not support drag hunting instead, its legal, and will support the countryside, and rural economy also.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 November 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I am aware that feelings are strong on this site regarding hunting and this is a "Horse and Hound" Forum after all, but those in favour of bringing back hunting really are a minority.   This is what living in a democracy is like,  Hunting (legally!)  will not come back, and the National Trust are merely considering its members wishes.    Hunting legally has gone, so give it up.   If you are so worried about the rural economy diversify !  

Also I do think there is a difference between shooting and hunting.  Shooting involves a quick kill (with a dog to retrieve a shot bird quickly that may not have died from the first shot) and Hunting involves a chase that can be prolonged and is considered cruel by the majority.  Now I am aware that those who are pro hunting will now be apoplectic with rage,   That's just tough, its called living in a democracy, and if any one else mentions any more hunts who are hunting illegally I will happily report them to the police, write to my MP etc etc. breaking the law is nothing to be proud of. 

 Here is a little excerpt for from "Conservatives against Foxhunting"
Welcome to Conservatives Against Fox Hunting (The Blue Fox Group)  established by a Conservative Association Chairman ,( now the Association Vice President and his family in January 2010. This web site is here to represent the two thirds of Conservative supporters  and the 75% of the general population who think hunting should remain illegal as demonstrated in an Ipsos MORI poll carried out in 2009 for The League Against Cruel Sports.

I think whoever gets elected fox hunting is never coming back, no matter how much  a vocal minority complain and stick stickers on road signs.  Why not support drag hunting instead, its legal, and will support the countryside, and rural economy also.  

Click to expand...

Para 1. So with your approval and support of the Majority,  are we to take it that the Minority have no rights and through the bore of democracy,  are to be swept aside and have their wishes ignored?  I have never claimed that Hunting is vital to the rural economy.  What i have said is that Hunting was and is a vital part of our rural structure and framework.

Para 2. Your knowledge of shooting is woefully lacking.  When a fox is hunted,  it lives to run another day,  or it doesn't.  When driven game birds are shot at,  especially considering that it is now a serious business and attracts clients who have yet to gain an acceptable standard of marksmanship,  i assure you that there is a proportion of wounded game which takes many days to die,  assuming that the fox doesn't bring their suffering to a respectable close.  I Hunt (on foot) and I shoot.  Yet again,  democracy is always the card offered by those who are opposed to those who hunt,  whilst offering their own assumed,  inexperienced and generally distorted points.  I Course and I Hunt,  so do feel free to report me to the Police.  I view my activities as 'testing' an unjust Law.

Para 3. Nothing like a Conservative viewpoint,  is there?!

Para 4.  I agree with you but only in that we have such a spineless,  support seeking and soporific bunch of self supporting and promoting politicians,  and that they,  none of them,  will ever have the courage to support a Minority.  Sad really,  but hey-ho,  it's the way that it is. 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (25 November 2014)

.




			Para 1. So with your approval and support of the Majority, are we to take it that the Minority have no rights and through the bore of democracy, are to be swept aside and have their wishes ignored?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's  how a democracy works. There are lots of perfectly harmless things that lots of people want to do but can't, because the Majority don't want them to be able to. Live with it or go live in a dictatorship.





			I have never claimed that Hunting is vital to the rural economy. What i have said is that Hunting was and is a vital part of our rural structure and framework.
		
Click to expand...

But you consistently fail to explain how that can be the case when there are very large parts of the UK which control fox by shooting and not hunting, and yet they seem to survive very well without this vital part of their rural structure and framework.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			.

&#8230;&#8230;.. there are very large parts of the UK which control fox by shooting and not hunting, and yet they seem to survive very well without this vital part of their rural structure and framework.
		
Click to expand...

Were that true,  then I'd agree with you.  The reality is that the fox population is greater now than it's ever been,  and the shooting of foxes,  which is mostly carried out at night and under spot lights,  is neither selective nor humane.  'Night shooting' is also considered by those who are so involved,  to be for the purpose of 'Sport',  not control.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Were that true,  then I'd agree with you.  The reality is that the fox population is greater now than it's ever been,  and the shooting of foxes,  which is mostly carried out at night anAleer spot lights,  is neither selective nor humane.  'Night shooting' is also considered by those who are so involved,  to be for the purpose of 'Sport',  not control.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Which is it, Alec?  There are more foxes than ever and they need culling, or shooters shoot purely for fun?  We do know, at least, that hunting riders ride purely for the entertainment. You also know that I would not condone any animal being killed purely for sport.

You know as well as I do that the study done at the time of the law change concluded that shooting was at least as humane as hunting with hounds.

Hunting discriminates? I can accept that it sometimes kills the weak and injured, but it chases any scent it finds and is completely indiscriminate about what fox is being chased.

And as for these mange ridden, injured, half shot foxes I'm supposed to be seeing around here because we don't have fox hunting in this area, I've never seen one.  Seen a few good healthy ones though.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Which is it, Alec?  There are more foxes than ever and they need culling, or shooters shoot purely for fun?  &#8230;&#8230;..

You know as well as I do that the study done at the time of the law change concluded that shooting was at least as humane as hunting with hounds.

Hunting discriminates? I can accept that it sometimes kills the weak and injured, but it chases any scent it finds and is completely indiscriminate about what fox is being chased.

And as for these mange ridden, injured, half shot foxes I'm supposed to be seeing around here because we don't have fox hunting in this area, I've never seen one.  Seen a few good healthy ones though.
		
Click to expand...

Line 1.  Both.

Line 2.  The 'study' done was flawed,  science based,  and inaccurate.

Line 3.  Being chased,  and being caught and killed by Hounds are two totally different points,  and one rarely follows the other.  The strong and the healthy will be the more likely to escape and so the more likely to reproduce and to rear those which are better able to represent their species.

line 4.  If you are seeing foxes during daylight hours,  then it would be more likely that they are not actually those which are the healthiest.  Your ability to discern the youthful and healthy from those which are neither,  would impress your local Huntsman!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

Alec, I do not consider it acceptable to chase an animal with a pack of hounds whether it is caught or not. The fact that the strong escape is not relevant.

How convenient, too, that those which survive to reproduce are able to produce animals which are more likely to give a more enjoyable days sport, and so it goes on .......  Fox conservation is actually synonymous with breeding foxes that can run further and faster before being caught. Lovely.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

cptrayes,

You've just made the case for Hunting!  You've also just explained,  neatly,  the rationale or perhaps the ethos behind the time served system which supported both Hunting and our Vulpine population.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			cptrayes,

You've just made the case for Hunting!  You've also just explained,  neatly,  the rationale or perhaps the ethos behind the time served system which supported both Hunting and our Vulpine population.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


I knew the case for hunting.

 In the past, kind posters have gone to great lengths to give me every detail I asked for in my quest to understand their sport.  I came to the conclusion long ago that the conservation of foxes practised by hunts served only to increase the strength of the individual fox in order to provide a better day's sport for the riders who follow the chase.

What puzzles me is why you think that's a good idea.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (27 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I knew the case for hunting.

 In the past, kind posters have gone to great lengths to give me every detail I asked for in my quest to understand their sport.  I came to the conclusion long ago that the conservation of foxes practised by hunts served only to increase the strength of the individual fox in order to provide a better day's sport for the riders who follow the chase.

What puzzles me is why you think that's a good idea.
		
Click to expand...

It's good for any quarry species and ensures the survival of the best.  A win win!!


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			It's good for any quarry species and ensures the survival of the best.  A win win!!
		
Click to expand...

You're waisting your efforts! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			It's good for any quarry species and ensures the survival of the best.  A win win!!
		
Click to expand...

Evolution ensures the survival of the best, it does not, in the case of the fox population, need any help from man. Do you think the fox population think that bigger, faster foxes is in some way 'good'?

That's an entirely artificial construct dreamed up by man.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (27 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			You're waisting your efforts! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. What I don't comprehend is why bother if you don't want to understand. Either make an effort or go and do (and comment on) something else. Each to their own and all that.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			Yes, I know. What I don't comprehend  is why bother if you don't want to understand. Either make an effort or go and do (and comment on) something else. Each to their own and all that.
		
Click to expand...


Oh that old one again!  If you don't agree with me it's only because you don't understand.

I understand perfectly. I just don't agree with you.


----------



## Isbister (27 November 2014)

Isbister said:



			II hunt with a proper hunt, hunting within the law, and very much enjoy it. Foxes are killed with some regularity, but that is not the expressed purpose of the hunt and frankly I doubt whether it ever was - there is so much more to enjoy about the day out than a bit of vermin-control.
		
Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			If foxes are killed with regularity I very much doubt that you are hunting within the law.  Drag packs do not kill foxes with regularity,  Why should a trail hunting fox pack?  You have, after all, had ten years to teach your fox hounds to be as obedient to being called off the wrong scent as a drag pack of fox hounds.

And if it was never the expressed purpose of the hunt to kill foxes, doesn't that destroy almost every argument that has been put forward against the ban?
		
Click to expand...

I assure you you are wrong - it's just that like many parts of the country, it's teeming with foxes and they will keep popping up suddenly in front of the hounds, and it's no use calling them off then.

Of course the purpose of the hunt before the ban - at least part of the purpose - was to kill foxes, but the point I was making was that there are other reasons to enjoy the hunt.

One point that I don't think has been made, and which the National trust appear to have overlooked, is that the very reason so much of the English countryside survives at all in its present form - with hedges, copses, ditches etc, rather than as an arable desert, is because of hunting. Of course not all farmers support hunting, but to their credit a great many do.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (27 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Oh that old one again!  If you don't agree with me it's only because you don't understand.

I understand perfectly. I just don't agree with you.
		
Click to expand...

Really happy to agree to disagree, just don't understand why so many posts on the hunting forum.  Why not go and do what you enjoy with like minded people?


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			Really happy to agree to disagree, just don't understand why so many posts on the hunting forum.  Why not go and do what you enjoy with like minded people?
		
Click to expand...


I like to correct the incorrect statements made in support of the people who are breaking the law week in week out.

If Alec stops insisting that the country can't exist without hunting, for example, I will stop replying to him.  Simples  

This is an open forum. If you want to talk about hunting without anyone putting a counter view, you need to do it on a hunting forum.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

ister said:



			I assure you you are wrong - it's just that like many parts of the country, it's teeming with foxes and they will keep popping up suddenly in front of the hounds, and it's no use calling them off then.

Of course the purpose of the hunt before the ban - at least part of the purpose - was to kill foxes, but the point I was making was that there are other reasons to enjoy the hunt.

One point that I don't think has been made, and which the National trust appear to have overlooked, is that the very reason so much of the English countryside survives at all in its present form - with hedges, copses, ditches etc, rather than as an arable desert, is because of hunting. Of course not all farmers support hunting, but to their credit a great many do.
		
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I forgot, fox hounds are uncontrollable when they scent a fox, unless they are fox hounds belonging to a drag pack, when they are routinely called off because drag packs won't get permission to hunt again if they deviate from the agreed trail.

Do you know what, in areas where there is no hunting, farmers grow hedges because they offer good shelter for livestock and because they like birds, and because they are given grants to do so.  It is  also clear that there is significant demand for drag hunting, so if there are more hedges because of hunting, they're still going to be there,  aren't they?

And I think you'll find that all the other reasons people hunt can be achieved without chasing or killing any foxes by trail and drag hunting.

You guys are creative in dreaming up reasons why those of us who fundamentally disagree with chasing an animal before you kill it should change our minds, I'll give you that


----------



## ExmoorHunter (27 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I like to correct the incorrect statements made in support of the people who are breaking the law week in week out.

If Alec stops insisting that the country can't exist without hunting, for example, I will stop replying to him.  Simples  

This is an open forum. If you want to talk about hunting without anyone putting a counter view, you need to do it on a hunting forum.
		
Click to expand...

I bet we could all "exist" without hunting but would it be any fun?  Perhaps we are all healthier as a result. I hope so!


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

cptrayes,  

you really haven't the first idea of what you're talking about,  have you?  

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			I bet we could all "exist" without hunting but wwould it be any fun?  Perhaps we are all healthier as a result. I hope so!
		
Click to expand...

If you are seriously suggesting that your life  is no fun if you are only allowed to trail hunt, not hunt fox,  then your problems are far deeper than me disagreeing with you on a forum  !


----------



## cptrayes (27 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			cptrayes,  

you really haven't the first idea of what you're talking about,  have you?  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Which bit have I got wrong Alec, please correct me.


----------



## marianne1981 (27 November 2014)

I admire you CP Trayes for your well written posts which always counter Alec's ridiculous statements! I wouldnt be surprised if he came from a hunting family where it has been so engrained into him from childhood that he cannot see anything outside of his very naive views. Not everyone thinks like you Alec, hunting is banned, why cant you people get over it and move on!! I met a shooter the other day who interestingly told me he would not have a problem in culling foxes/deer if really needed (where they would never even know they had been stalked) but he told me he could not see why an animal should have to be chased and terrified before being killed - he told me it was cruel and inhumane, and this is coming from a SHOOTER!!!


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

Thank you Marianne. A while back there was an angry shooter who posted saying that The Countryside Alliance had been all over them while the demonstrations were going on, but as soon as the law was passed, the fox hunters among them started saying that shooting fox was inhumane because many are left maimed and die slowly.  He was outraged at the suggestion that he could not shoot a fox cleanly.

I do try to be informed and reasonable, and I'm a seasoned drag hunter as you can see from my avatar. I would be happy to just agree to disagree with fox hunters who think the sport is acceptable, except that they come up with arguments which are simply incorrect, and use them to justify doing something which is illegal.

They aren't getting over it at all, many packs are just hunting fox like they did before.


----------



## Isbister (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It is  also clear that there is significant demand for drag hunting, so if there are more hedges because of hunting, they're still going to be there,  aren't they?

And I think you'll find that all the other reasons people hunt can be achieved without chasing or killing any foxes by trail and drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I've nothing against drag hunting - it may be fun but it seems to be a pale imitation of real hunting. 

Personally I think hunting has always been a good way of controlling the fox - it targets the sick and old, and unlike shooting them, there is no possibility of the fox dying a slow, lingering death because the marksman's aim was slightly off that day. A similar objection can be made to poisoning them, and look at the badger cull fiasco for an example of the wrong way to go about things.

I think this is possibly the wrong forum to preach against hunting - as the ban has shown, hunters are quite tenacious.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

Isbister said:



			I've nothing against drag hunting - it may be fun but it seems to be a pale imitation of real hunting. 

Personally I think hunting has always been a good way of controlling the fox - it targets the sick and old, and unlike shooting them, there is no possibility of the fox dying a slow, lingering death because the marksman's aim was slightly off that day. A similar objection can be made to poisoning them, and look at the badger cull fiasco for an example of the wrong way to go about things.

I think this is possibly the wrong forum to preach against hunting - as the ban has shown, hunters are quite tenacious.
		
Click to expand...

Who is preaching?  All I'm doing is answering what other people post. If no-one had posted anything inaccurate I would have been completely absent from this thread. 

Fox hunting may target the sick and ill for killing, but it is completely indiscriminate about what foxes it chases first. And since hunters glory in a long unbroken run, them the fitter and faster the fox they are chasing the more people seem to enjoy it.

In drag hunting, of course, you get runs like that every day  

I struggle to see what, other than the kill, I ever got from fox hunting that I have not had from drag hunting.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			If you are seriously suggesting that your life  is no fun if you are only allowed to trail hunt, not hunt fox,  then your problems are far deeper than me disagreeing with you on a forum  !
		
Click to expand...

You seem to have a fox fixation! Hunting is a much much wider subject and has much more scope than that.  For example, where I live we have 3 staghound packs, 2 beagles, minkhounds and buckhounds in addition to the foxhounds.  Not everyone wants to gallop around madly on a draghunt which is a completely different sport.  I've done it and thoroughly enjoyed myself but also love to see different types of hounds work and follow them across country.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			You seem to have a fox fixation! Hunting is a much much wider subject and has much more scope than that.  For example, where I live we have 3 staghound packs, 2 beagles, minkhounds and buckhounds in addition to the foxhounds.  Not everyone wants to gallop around madly on a draghunt which is a completely different sport.  I've done it and thoroughly enjoyed myself but also love to see different types of hounds work and follow them across country.
		
Click to expand...


Errr, the thread so far has concentrated on fox.

You stag hunt?  Utterly indefensible way to cull a sick, old or injured animal. Truly disgusts me. And yes I do know about deer control, there is a sizeable herd of wild red deer around my house which are culled when absolutely necessary by a skilled marksman.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Errr, the thread so far has concentrated on fox.

You stag hunt?  Utterly indefensible way to cull a sick, old or injured animal. Truly disgusts me. And yes I do know about deer control, there is a sizeable herd of wild red deer around my house which are culled when absolutely necessary by a skilled marksman.
		
Click to expand...

I assume from that comment that you have never done so.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			I assume from that comment that you have never done so.
		
Click to expand...

Correct. Utter depravity. There is no excuse whatsoever, in my opinion, to corner a large preyed-upon flight-orientated mammal with a pack of hounds before shooting it. The fact that it is justified by saying that it culls the sick, weak, injured and old simply makes it doubly bad. I would poke hot needles in my eyes before I did anything which supported hunting stag with hounds. It disgusts me.

I hope that makes my position on stag hunting with hounds clear to you?


----------



## Maesfen (28 November 2014)

ExmoorHunter said:



			You seem to have a fox fixation! Hunting is a much much wider subject and has much more scope than that.  For example, where I live we have 3 staghound packs, 2 beagles, minkhounds and buckhounds in addition to the foxhounds.  Not everyone wants to gallop around madly on a draghunt which is a completely different sport.  I've done it and thoroughly enjoyed myself but also love to see different types of hounds work and follow them across country.
		
Click to expand...

So glad someone has at last said about the thrill of watching hounds work,  whichever type they may be; it's totally absorbing and one draghunters don't seem to care about at all.  I well remember all the emergency callouts the staghounds get to dispatch both traffic victims and poachers bodged jobs and so on but it shows how little CPT actually knows of the working situation in a moorland countryside environment where you can't just creep up to the deer on foot, as the shooters, marksmen or not, know to their cost when they're left with an injured animal that legs it.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

Maesfen said:



			So glad someone has at last said about the thrill of watching hounds work,  whichever type they may be; it's totally absorbing and one draghunters don't seem to care about at all.  I well remember all the emergency callouts the staghounds get to dispatch both traffic victims and poachers bodged jobs and so on but it shows how little CPT actually knows of the working situation in a moorland countryside environment where you can't just creep up to the deer on foot, as the shooters, marksmen or not, know to their cost when they're left with an injured animal that legs it.
		
Click to expand...


Maesfen the marksman here who culls deer has no problem whatsoever following them and getting in a clean shot. 

I'm sure he deals equally well with a traffic victim or a bodged poacher case.

Oh and by the way, I have lived for well over twenty years in a moorland countryside environment!


----------



## firm (28 November 2014)

I have seen deer being shot and can't agree with your version. I have seen a deer fleeing the shooters by jumping into the river and swim across on an absolutely baltic day, come up over the flood bank and collapse in the ploughed field knackered and soaking.  I have seen deer running in pure panic.
I have also of course seen gamekeepers stalk and shoot cleanly with none of that carry on but it does not always happen like that.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

firm said:



			I have seen deer being shot and can't agree with your version. I have seen a deer fleeing the shooters by jumping into the river and swim across on an absolutely baltic day, come up over the flood bank and collapse in the ploughed field knackered and soaking.  I have seen deer running in pure panic.
I have also of course also seen gamekeepers stalk and shoot cleanly with none of that carry on but it does not always happen like that.
		
Click to expand...

So because it doesn't always go to plan, you plan always to chase them across country with a pack of hounds followed by a group of riders?  Your logic escapes me and you need to find some better marksmen with more powerful guns, better bullets and longer range sights on their rifles.


----------



## Maesfen (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			you need to find some better marksmen with more powerful guns, better bullets and longer range sights on their rifles.
		
Click to expand...


But you can't use those methods where there is a strong possibility of Joe Public being about on public land and it would be sheer stupidity to try.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

Maesfen said:



			But you can't use those methods where there is a strong possibility of Joe Public being about on public land and it would be sheer stupidity to try.
		
Click to expand...

It's done near me Maesfen, and I am getting pretty fed up with people telling me that what I see done can't be done. This area is riddled with foot paths. I believe that our marksmen understand how to hit a deer and avoid a hiker.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. and you need to find some better marksmen with more powerful guns, better bullets and longer range sights on their rifles.
		
Click to expand...

I was right,  wasn't I?  c dear,  you really haven't got the faintest grasp of the facts,  have you?  

Alec.

As a footnote,  and really to others,  it wouldn't surprise me if cpt lives in the centre of a housing estate,  and if asked to provide a pair of Wellies,  would need to refer to the urban dictionary!


----------



## NinjaPony (28 November 2014)

I have never been hunting/will never go hunting/have no interest in hunting- so I am not about to weigh in on fox hunting vs drag hunting- and I've been at logger heads with CPT on several occasions.... but as an outsider I find the patronising attitudes shown towards her- especially in the above post- to be pretty unacceptable to be honest.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 November 2014)

When cpt talks theorised twaddle,  and won't listen to clear and factual statements,  then sarcasm (an approach which the Lady concerned has been know to use,  herself),  is about all that's left.  When the Lady concerned is corrected,  then rather than accepting that she hasn't a clue what she's talking about,  she flies off on yet another tangent,  and is accusatory,  then exasperation sometimes gets the better of me!  I apologise if you are offended,  but I can assure you that the Lady under discussion is more than able to stand her ground,  and in a perverse sort of way,  I find that quite appealing!

Alec.


----------



## NinjaPony (28 November 2014)

I'm very much aware that she is able to stand her ground.... I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone. But I don't think making patronising statements about someone you disagree with is the way forward.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

NinjaPony said:



			I'm very much aware that she is able to stand her ground.... I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone. But I don't think making patronising statements about someone you disagree with is the way forward.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you NP. 

Alec, I have asked you to state which of my comments is incorrect and correct me.  I have not theorized on this thread in any way that I can remember. I have simply recounted what I understand to be the truth, some of which I have been educated in by pro hunting posters on this forum, and much of which is my own personal experience of fox hunting, drag hunting and living for twenty three years in a National Park which is farmed, has not been fox hunted on horseback and contains a substantial red deer population.

You are deliberately offensive,  on top of having deliberately breached my confidence on this forum. Your behaviour is far from gentlemanly and the fact that you find me appealing is in no way reciprocated.


----------



## Evie91 (28 November 2014)

Cptrayes - just want to say I agree with what you have written 100%. I consider myself a country bumpkin, have lost chickens to foxes and would love to go drag hunting - but I could/can never ever understand the drive to chase an animal to exhaustion then kill it. IMO shooting is much more humane - for fox and stag.


----------



## cptrayes (28 November 2014)

Evie91 said:



			Cptrayes - just want to say I agree with what you have written 100%. I consider myself a country bumpkin, have lost chickens to foxes and would love to go drag hunting - but I could/can never ever understand the drive to chase an animal to exhaustion then kill it. IMO shooting is much more humane - for fox and stag.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is the biggest problem I have with these threads. The more strident of the pro hunting lobby absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are country dwellers and workers who simply do not support what they do.


----------



## twiggy2 (28 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this is the biggest problem I have with these threads. The more strident of the pro hunting lobby absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are country dwellers and workers who simply do not support what they do.
		
Click to expand...

that's why I given up posting on the fox hunting threads on here, I married into a farming family and have always lived rurally but only a small minority of people I know support the idea of hunting fox with hounds, the vast majority support shooting the fox IF the individual fox is causing a problem


----------



## Evie91 (28 November 2014)

Exactly - it seems you are considered not country if you don't support hunting. I'm country born and bred and just don't agree. Long live the ban!!
Now shooting - I wouldn't want to partake but I get that. Neighbour shot the fox who killed the chickens - shame really as he was a beautiful dog fox, but around here nuisance foxes are shot.


----------



## Lizzie66 (29 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I do try to be informed and reasonable, and I'm a seasoned drag hunter as you can see from my avatar. I would be happy to just agree to disagree with fox hunters who think the sport is acceptable.except that they come up with arguments which are simply incorrect, and use them to justify doing something which is illegal........
		
Click to expand...

Conservation is  defined as "protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife". Wherever man impacts with nature then some level of  conservation is required. This might be any or all of the actions depending upon the species, habitat and location. 
Within the UK the fox needs to be managed as it has no natural predators in the wild and without management the numbers would become unmanageable. The Burns report considered many methods of shooting with a high powered rifle by an excellent shot was considered to be the most efficient method of ensuring the kill. Hunting with hounds was the next best option in that it either resulted in a clean kill or the fox escaped unharmed. The other advantage that hunting with hounds had was it allowed an element of natural selection in that the weak, diseased, infirm were at a greater risk of being killed whilst the healthy and fit were more likely to escape unharmed.
This is what made hunting with hounds acceptable and is why so many people who follow hounds strive to repeal the ban.
What in this argument is incorrect ? You might not like it and you personally might not wish to follow hounds however this does not make it or us wrong.



cptrayes said:



			They aren't getting over it at all, many packs are just hunting fox like they did before.
		
Click to expand...

Evidence please !! 
What you would like to believe or think you know is not borne out by the facts. 
Irrespective which side of the fence you are on the Hunting Act is an absolutely rubbish law. You can use dogs to hunt rabbits and mice but not hares and rats, you can use 2 dogs to flush a fox to a gun but not more than two. How on earth are 2 dogs meant to flush a 4 acre wood to a gun on one side of it ? 
The hunts advocated the middle way whereby animal welfare was put at the heart of the legislation and the control method most suitable for the circumstances was used.


----------



## firm (29 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this is the biggest problem I have with these threads. The more strident of the pro hunting lobby absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are country dwellers and workers who simply do not support what they do.
		
Click to expand...

You did exactly that. I posted once describing deer shooting I have seen which is the opposite to what you have seen, you replied dragging it off in  a completely different direction and ascribing me with views that were irrelevant to my post ??!!


----------



## Evie91 (29 November 2014)

Lizzie66- you make a good point. It's just for me that the hunting with dogs takes so long, pursuing quarry for miles and hours. In my mind the fox must be exhausted and terrified before dying. Don't really like the thought of it being killed by pack of dogs either, but then I suppose I don't like what a fox does when it gets in to a chicken coop.
I don't support any kind of inhumane slaughter, but do understand fox needs to be killed. Still feel sorry for the one here that was shot - he really was magnificent and took one chicken on Boxing Day and came back for another on New Years day!


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

firm said:



			You did exactly that. I posted once describing deer shooting I have seen which is the opposite to what you have seen, you replied dragging it off in  a completely different direction and ascribing me with views that were irrelevant to my post ??!!
		
Click to expand...

I did not say that you had not seen what you saw. I did not ascribe any views to you.

 And I fail to see what you have posted here has to do with the quote you picked up, did you use the wrong one?


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

The evidence that fox packs are widely ignoring the law is contained in the report which was written which heavily criticised the RSPCA for prosecuting one of them.

I have personally been invited to hunt with two, sat at my own hunt ball talking to a senior member of another, and been reliably informed by a member of a fourth, and those are all in the north west.

I thought we had stopped this charade of pretending it didn't happen since the report was published, Lizzie :'(


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			Conservation is  defined as "protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife". Wherever man impacts with nature then some level of  conservation is required. This might be any or all of the actions depending upon the species, habitat and location. 
Within the UK the fox needs to be managed as it has no natural predators in the wild and without management the numbers would become unmanageable. The Burns report considered many methods of shooting with a high powered rifle by an excellent shot was considered to be the most efficient method of ensuring the kill. Hunting with hounds was the next best option in that it either resulted in a clean kill or the fox escaped unharmed. The other advantage that hunting with hounds had was it allowed an element of natural selection in that the weak, diseased, infirm were at a greater risk of being killed whilst the healthy and fit were more likely to escape unharmed.
This is what made hunting with hounds acceptable and is why so many people who follow hounds strive to repeal the ban.
What in this argument is incorrect ? You might not like it and you personally might not wish to follow hounds however this does not make it or us wrong.
.
		
Click to expand...



Tell me what, in anything I have written on this thread, makes you think that I would say that any of what you have written here is wrong?

It isn't wrong, it is correct, and apart from the fact that you have said that I would disagree with it, I would not be commenting on it.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

firm said:



			You did exactly that. I posted once describing deer shooting I have seen which is the opposite to what you have seen, you replied dragging it off in  a completely different direction and ascribing me with views that were irrelevant to my post ??!!
		
Click to expand...

I can't help it, I'm peeing myself laughing at a vision of me dragging a thread that's kicking and screaming, out of reach of other posters so they can't put their own point of view.

Dang it, firm,  if the text entry box is jumping around in front of your eyes so much you can't put text in it, it certainly isn't anything I'm doing


----------



## Nancykitt (29 November 2014)

Lizzie66 - I agree with you entirely. And I'm not convinced that being a townie or lifelong country dweller has a great deal to do with it all; it looks to me as if there are country dwellers who disagree with foxhunting and people like me, born in the city and moved to a more rural area in my 40s, who support hunting wholeheartedly. 

I do have some experience of fox shooting - not holding the gun myself, but I've been there when it's happened. This idea of a clean shot that brings about an instant kill  and the fox knows nothing about it is all very nice, but even with the very best marksman it doesn't always happen. Foxes can move in the final split second and the bullet will not result in a clean kill at all. I've actually seen this happen on several occasions - and I've also seen attempts to shoot foxes with shotguns (not illegal but definitely not advisable unless the animal is literally right in front of you). It's not humane and it's not pretty. And the 'clean kill' rate is not as high as people would like to think. Whether people are pro-hunting or anti-hunting they really do need to recognise that shooting foxes is not the humane solution that it might seem. 

As for all these packs who are allegedly hunting illegally, I wouldn't accept chat at a hunt ball as hard evidence. I've heard a bit of alcohol-fuelled bravado but I cannot accept that these packs are going out and deliberately hunting foxes every week, there are so many sabs around. Also, if it's a dead cert that these packs are breaking the law, why not name and shame?


----------



## firm (29 November 2014)

CPT I posted exactly what I meant to. Read your reply to my first post. You said "your logic escapes me"  What logic?  I was only stating that deer shooting I have seen is not always the same as you describe it. No more no less.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			As for all these packs who are allegedly hunting illegally, I wouldn't accept chat at a hunt ball as hard evidence. I've heard a bit of alcohol-fuelled bravado but I cannot accept that these packs are going out and deliberately hunting foxes every week, there are so many sabs around. Also, if it's a dead cert that these packs are breaking the law, why not name and shame?
		
Click to expand...

Do you accept the report following the Heythrop prosecution that the law is to quote, being held in contempt by fox hunters and that they are routinely breaking it?

I can assure you that if you had been chatting to the man I was chatting to, you would have believed every word he said.  He was complaining to a group of us about being sabbed. I asked him why he was being sabbed and he almost fell off his chair with astonishment at the naivety of my question before replying 'because we hunt fox of course!'. His partner was a drag hunter and on the same day she went with the drag, he went with a fox hunt precisely because they were hunting fox. On days they weren't out, he often drag hunted.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

firm said:



			CPT I posted exactly what I meant to. Read your reply to my first post. You said "your logic escapes me"  What logic?  I was only stating that deer shooting I have seen is not always the same as you describe it. No more no less.
		
Click to expand...

Then what was your point? I had never said that everyone who shoots deer does it well.. That does not seem to me to be any reason to chase them with dogs first, and if that was not your point, then what was?

We've got another of the myths going on on this thread now, and I'm not referring to you firm. That is that fox hunting somehow stops foxes being badly shot. No farmer sees a fox after his hens and waits for the next time the hunt are around. He either shoots it himself, snares it, or gets someone else in to shoot it. Bad boys go lamping,  always have and always will.


----------



## Nancykitt (29 November 2014)

If someone disagrees with something - anything, and as it happens it is illegal anyway, then why not report it? Why not 'name and shame'?

Also, just to add, I really wouldn't 'believe every word' that someone said. I'm too old, cynical and - unfortunately - mistrusting for that now.


----------



## Nancykitt (29 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Bad boys go lamping,  always have and always will.
		
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely - and repeal or no repeal, shooting foxes will continue.
My point is that I speak to numerous people who believe that shooting has a clean kill rate of over 99% and is completely humane. That, I'm afraid, is nonsense.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

I do have some experience of fox shooting - &#8230;&#8230;..

. Whether people are pro-hunting or anti-hunting they really do need to recognise that shooting foxes is not the humane solution that it might seem. 

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...


Finally,  common sense and drawn from experience,  rather than hypothesised twaddle,  the rational of which has been grasped from the air,  rather than witnessed!  

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. . The Burns report considered many methods of shooting with a high powered rifle by an excellent shot was considered to be the most efficient method of ensuring the kill. Hunting with hounds was the next best option in that it either resulted in a clean kill or the fox escaped unharmed. The other advantage that hunting with hounds had was it allowed an element of natural selection in that the weak, diseased, infirm were at a greater risk of being killed whilst the healthy and fit were more likely to escape unharmed.
This is what made hunting with hounds acceptable and is why so many people who follow hounds strive to repeal the ban.
What in this argument is incorrect ? You might not like it and you personally might not wish to follow hounds however this does not make it or us wrong.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

A good post,  and though touched on,  the sport of night shooting foxes,  and it is a sport,  is in no way selective.  I've yet to really understand the 'control' argument of shooting foxes,  except that of course a dead fox,  is just that.  Night shooting is indiscriminate and for anyone to claim otherwise,  would be illogical.  Hunting was a sport,  and the aspect of the survival of the fittest being those that will produce the next generation,  was the reason why our vulpine population were previously as healthy as they were.  Healthy and fit foxes better their own kind,  and provide worthwhile sport.  Currently,  those foxes which fall before hounds,  accidentally,  are but shadows of the worthy quarry which we had,  pre-ban.

Right,  I'm now off to watch Ch 4 Racing.  I suppose that that's wrong too!  

Alec.


----------



## ester (29 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Then what was your point? I had never said that everyone who shoots deer does it well.. That does not seem to me to be any reason to chase them with dogs first, and if that was not your point, then what was?
		
Click to expand...

Out of interest CPT what is your opinion of using dogs to flush to guns? Am thinking of deer in wooded areas/foxes in cover you would need out in the open to get a good shot? Or is it extended chase you only have issue with?


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

ester said:



			Out of interest CPT what is your opinion of using dogs to flush to guns? Am thinking of deer in wooded areas/foxes in cover you would need out in the open to get a good shot? Or is it extended chase you only have issue with?
		
Click to expand...

It's the chase I disagree with. Flushing to guns I have no experience of. I've just got in from a walk around the reservoir where the deer tracks where they cross a road are very clear. If anyone wanted to cull  one of those all they have to do is wait for them to cross, no flushing necessary. And I would have thought that if the animal is not mobile enough to go with the herd it should be easy enough to deal with. But if someone experienced tells me that a short flush to a gun is necessary to deal with an injured, sick or old deer, then I would accept that explanation.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			are but shadows of the worthy quarry which we had,  pre-ban.
		
Click to expand...

. . 

And even of it were true, what on earth is there to congratulate in breeding animals selectively so that they can be chased further before they die or get away?


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			Oh absolutely - and repeal or no repeal, shooting foxes will continue The point is that I speak to numerous people who believe that shooting has a clean kill rate of over 99% and is completely humane. That, I'm afraid, is nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, total nonsense. 

Farmers have always shot and sometimes maimed foxes with shotguns, in areas with hunts as well as those without. They will continue to do so, whether there is a hunt or not,   because if a fox is out for your hens, you don't wait until the hunt is next planning to be in your area.  I do, though, have farming friends who won't keep a gun, and they call a local marksman with a rifle.

That would be my preference for all shot foxes but I'm not daft enough to think that will ever happen 

I do, though, wish we could ban snares. How on earth is it legal to allow an animal to strangle itself to death with a bit of wire?


----------



## ester (29 November 2014)

I was just thinking you might be waiting for quite a while on the Quantocks (the only place I am very familiar with which has staghounds, never observed though) for one to come out into the open .


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

ester said:



			I was just thinking you might be waiting for quite a while on the Quantocks (the only place I am very familiar with which has staghounds, never observed though) for one to come out into the open .
		
Click to expand...

They have to graze some time and most grazers are creatures of habit.


----------



## ester (29 November 2014)

Oh yes, they do here too but it does seem to be mostly in the dark. Am only pondering.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

ester said:



			Oh yes, they do here too but it does seem to be mostly in the dark. Am only pondering.
		
Click to expand...


I don't know anything about the Quantock deer Ester, but the herds near me leave clear tracks showing the paths that they take in their wanderings. I normally see them within 100 metres of cover, where they rapidly retreat to if they realise I'm not just part of a horse.  My maximum sighting was 22 of mixed age, it was absolutely wonderful 

I've done a bit of research and it seems deer can be shot at night, so I guess if that when Quantock deer graze, that's when you'd shoot them.

I would be interested to know what happens to a sick or injured deer on National Trust land, anyone know?


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

Except under certain and carefully prescribed conditions,  it is illegal to shoot deer at night.  Amongst those with a practical knowledge and interest in deer,  night shooting is considered to be a crime,  both figurative and literal.

Just about all NT land of any suitable size is let out for the purpose of shooting (too good an income stream there,  to ignore),  and generally those deer which are in need of humane destruction would be despatched by the shooting tenant's employed staff,  which would invariably be their employed gamekeeper.

Alec.


----------



## kateandluelue (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			cptrayes,  

you really haven't the first idea of what you're talking about,  have you?  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Bit rude....


----------



## kateandluelue (29 November 2014)

I tend to feel foxes do need population control, like with many other species- including ourselves! However i am with cptrayes in i dont like the thought of any animal being chased for its life no matter how it ends, im sure it is frightening and exhausting for any animal to be chased by a pack of dogs.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Except under certain and carefully prescribed conditions,  it is illegal to shoot deer at night.  Amongst those with a practical knowledge and interest in deer,  night shooting is considered to be a crime,  both figurative and literal.

Just about all NT land of any suitable size is let out for the purpose of shooting (too good an income stream there,  to ignore),  and generally those deer which are in need of humane destruction would be despatched by the shooting tenant's employed staff,  which would invariably be their employed gamekeeper.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Than you Alec. We were looking for information about whether they were flushed with dogs.

Is this site ncorrect?   it says that it is legal to shoot deer at night for any of the reasons that we have been discussing here, conservation and to cull a sick or injured deer and to preserve an environment.

Thedeeriniative.co.uk 

and it quotes all the relevant legislation for England and Wales.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

I've tried to cut and paste,  and it won't work.  If you Google 'Shooting deer at night - The Law',  you will read that pursuant of the 1991 Deer Act amended 2007,  that without either State Authority (licence),  or for one of a couple of accepted but specific reasons,  and sport isn't amongst them though the humane destruction of a sick or injured animal is,  that the shooting of deer at night,  is illegal.

I have shot deer,  at night,  and without State Authority.  I'm not sure if it's considered acceptable grounds in Scotland,  but during the harshest of weather,  when deer are starving,  they will come down from high ground,  and raid root crops which are grown as winter feed for sheep,  and crops can be decimated overnight.  The numbers of Red Deer on high ground continue to expand beyond the numbers that the land can support,  and rather than having them die of starvation,  in their thousands,  so when they raid the valuable winter feed stocks which are being kept for winter sheep keep,  so they are shot.  Nobody enjoys it,  generally the carcasses are so poor as to be of little value,  and the slaughter takes place,  on humane grounds.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (29 November 2014)

Yes, quite. Exactly as I said. It is legal to shoot deer at night for all the reasons we have discussed on this thread except sport.


----------



## twiggy2 (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			A good post,  and though touched on,  the sport of night shooting foxes,  and it is a sport,  is in no way selective.  I've yet to really understand the 'control' argument of shooting foxes,  except that of course a dead fox,  is just that.  Night shooting is indiscriminate and for anyone to claim otherwise,  would be illogical.  Hunting was a sport,  and the aspect of the survival of the fittest being those that will produce the next generation,  was the reason why our vulpine population were previously as healthy as they were.  Healthy and fit foxes better their own kind,  and provide worthwhile sport.  Currently,  those foxes which fall before hounds,  accidentally,  are but shadows of the worthy quarry which we had,  pre-ban.

Right,  I'm now off to watch Ch 4 Racing.  I suppose that that's wrong too!  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I work on a small yard (3 horses and a shetland on 12 acres) at the bottom of my garden, my house is in a row of three, we currently have 3 foxes causing a problem, one is a vixen that had cubs out the back this year she is chewing the feed bowls and cr**pping in them, on the hay, taking and chewing anything left about on the yard, the others are possible her cubs-one has taken some of a neighbours chickens the other frequents my garden and carries campylobacter and one of my elderly dogs (he does not leave the garden) contracted it this year.

the end house of 6 is where the man that will shoot these three foxes comes from, one will be shot from my bedroom window when it is in the garden one night at about 10.15-10.30, the other will be shot at dawn one morning when it is tracing the edges of the field as it does every day, the other will be shot one evening as it arrives to dine on the same mans chickens.

tell me a more selective and effective way to dispatch these foxes.

I don't promote the idea of shooting fox for sport but more to control the individual fox that is causing a problem or indeed is seen to be ill and struggling.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

Twiggy,  there are no hard and fast rules,  and were I in your shoes,  your 'visitors' would have been dead long ago! 

Alec.


----------



## twiggy2 (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Twiggy,  there are no hard and fast rules,  and were I in your shoes,  your 'visitors' would have been dead long ago! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

If it was my call they would have been too Alec


----------



## marmalade76 (29 November 2014)

JenHunt said:



			Funnily enough we were discussing this on Saturday (whilst mounted, obviously!), and saying that actually, to the majority of us, what the hounds are following is irrelevant to our day - they could be following fox, socks or squirrel for all the difference it makes to us. We were treated to a lovely display of the hounds flushing a bunny from covert (quickly stopped by the Whip though) and you could have thrown a blanket over them they were so tight. Just beautiful to watch. What is important to us though was to see hounds working, and working well, on top of that the riding, the social side, the horses and the country we cross is why we go.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, this is how it has been for me, couldn't give a monkey's either way. Can't afford to hunt at all now anyway.


----------



## Leo Walker (29 November 2014)

I still haven't managed to get out hunting yet due to being a fat cripple who isnt physically up to it at the minute  But I have a working bred whippet. I dont work him as I'm not capable, but watching him work himself is an amazing experience! For me, living in the middle of a big city and being a "towny" there is nothing makes me happier than seeing my dog "work" He has had no training, its all instinct but to see him do it is amazing! I was really hoping to get out hunting this season and one of the biggest draws for me would have been seeing hounds working  

I am also struggling to see the difference between my dog working rabbits/hares and bigger dogs working foxes, and a hunt working foxes?? I appreciate lurchers taking fox isnt strictly legal but it happens every single day!


----------



## twiggy2 (30 November 2014)

FrankieCob said:



			I still haven't managed to get out hunting yet due to being a fat cripple who isnt physically up to it at the minute  But I have a working bred whippet. I dont work him as I'm not capable, but watching him work himself is an amazing experience! For me, living in the middle of a big city and being a "towny" there is nothing makes me happier than seeing my dog "work" He has had no training, its all instinct but to see him do it is amazing! I was really hoping to get out hunting this season and one of the biggest draws for me would have been seeing hounds working  

I am also struggling to see the difference between my dog working rabbits/hares and bigger dogs working foxes, and a hunt working foxes?? I appreciate lurchers taking fox isnt strictly legal but it happens every single day!
		
Click to expand...

for me it is the fact that a pack of hounds hunting a fox can be so relentless, indiscriminate and I suppose it is also personal experience of the fox going to ground and being flushed by terriers or dug out. Some of it is also the mess that the hunt leave behind them in the way of creating the muddiest tracks and riding for the rest of us, they just don't in my eyes put anything back. they also don't come when they say they will and do come when they are not supposed to  and I realise this may not apply to every hunt out there but the 2 that currently affect me and those around me have no manners or thought for others. a lurcher either catches it or does not it is one on one and when the quarry is tired so is the dog so the fit really do survive.


----------



## cptrayes (30 November 2014)

FrankieCob said:



			I am also struggling to see the difference between my dog working rabbits/hares and bigger dogs working foxes, and a hunt working foxes?? I appreciate lurchers taking fox isnt strictly legal but it happens every single day!
		
Click to expand...


How far do you follow your dog for and for how many minutes does its prey know that it is being chased? Do you dig the rabbit out and shoot it, or fetch a smaller dog to get it out it if it goes down its burrow? Do you train your young dog to catch rabbit by putting some young rabbits in a pen and putting the dog in with it, which is the equivalent of what they do when they go cubbing?

Burglary happens every day, do you have the same feeling about people choosing to ignore that law?


----------



## Alec Swan (30 November 2014)

twiggy2 said:



			for me it is the fact that a pack of hounds hunting a fox can be so relentless, indiscriminate &#8230;&#8230;... 

a lurcher either catches it or does not it is one on one and when the quarry is tired so is the dog so the fit really do survive.
		
Click to expand...

Hounds are indeed relentless,  but they are not indiscriminate.  Though not by intent,  I'll grant you,  but just as your lurcher which closes with a hare,  the intended quarry,  whatever it may be,  fails itself by it's inability to make good it's escape.  The 'failure' will be because of ill health,  age,  or simple bad-luck.  The system has previously provided us with a healthy and vibrant vulpine population.  Those who are more concerned with a class structured sport,  rather than animal welfare,  will see the facts in a different way,  but there we are,  that's how it is! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (30 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Hounds are indeed relentless,  but they are not indiscriminate.  Though not by intent,  I'll grant you,  but just as your lurcher which closes with a hare,  the intended quarry,  whatever it may be,  fails itself by it's inability to make good it's escape.  The 'failure' will be because of ill health,  age,  or simple bad-luck.  The system has previously provided us with a healthy and vibrant vulpine population.  Those who are more concerned with a class structured sport,  rather than animal welfare,  will see the facts in a different way,  but there we are,  that's how it is! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

We've been through this one already.

Fox hounds are completely indiscriminate about what fox they chase. They may kill only the slowest, but they chase whatever scent they find.


----------



## cptrayes (30 November 2014)

I don't see much that is selective of the sick, weak or old in digging out a fox that has been clever enough to go to ground, either.


----------



## twiggy2 (30 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I don't see much that is selective of the sick, weak or old in digging out a fox that has been clever enough to go to ground, either.
		
Click to expand...

I agree and Alec has quoted me out of context as that is what my post basically stated.

good manners have nothing to do with class Alec and nor does hunting anymore.


----------



## Leo Walker (30 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			How far do you follow your dog for and for how many minutes does its prey know that it is being chased? Do you dig the rabbit out and shoot it, or fetch a smaller dog to get it out it if it goes down its burrow? Do you train your young dog to catch rabbit by putting some young rabbits in a pen and putting the dog in with it, which is the equivalent of what they do when they go cubbing?

Burglary happens every day, do you have the same feeling about people choosing to ignore that law?
		
Click to expand...

I dont work mine, he does work himself sometimes, but I'm probably not the best person to ask! But AFAIK ferrets and terriers are used in conjunction with lurchers to work rabbits. And as a young dog he was never put in a pen with baby rabbits, but he was given rabbit skins to play with, I also used a flirt pole with a rabbit skin attached for him to chase, he until recently also lure raced. Not as an attempt to train him to work, but to allow him to use his instincts as I dont work him.


----------



## Lizzie66 (30 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The evidence that fox packs are widely ignoring the law is contained in the report which was written which heavily criticised the RSPCA for prosecuting one of them.

I have personally been invited to hunt with two, sat at my own hunt ball talking to a senior member of another, and been reliably informed by a member of a fourth, and those are all in the north west.

I thought we had stopped this charade of pretending it didn't happen since the report was published, Lizzie :'(
		
Click to expand...

I asked for evidence not hearsay. 

In 10 years there have only been a handful of successful prosecutions. Considering there are getting on for 200 packs of fox hounds, hunting at least twice a week for the better part of 30 weeks a year, this is 120,000 days of hunting.

This does not indicate that there is wide spread flouting of the law.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Do you accept the report following the Heythrop prosecution that the law is to quote, being held in contempt by fox hunters and that they are routinely breaking it?

I can assure you that if you had been chatting to the man I was chatting to, you would have believed every word he said.  He was complaining to a group of us about being sabbed. I asked him why he was being sabbed and he almost fell off his chair with astonishment at the naivety of my question before replying 'because we hunt fox of course!'. His partner was a drag hunter and on the same day she went with the drag, he went with a fox hunt precisely because they were hunting fox. On days they weren't out, he often drag hunted.
		
Click to expand...


So if you suspect illegal activity why not report them yourself - a message to their local police, with a message also to the local MP expressing your concerns that your complaint / issue   may not be taken seriously, or indeed acted upon.  If enough people who don't agree with hunting did this then people power would  win the day eventually,     It just requires effort and a relentlessness that matches that of the hunters.


----------



## marmalade76 (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I don't see much that is selective of the sick, weak or old in digging out a fox that has been clever enough to go to ground, either.
		
Click to expand...


Have to agree, not very sporting at all.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			I asked for evidence not hearsay. 

In 10 years there have only been a handful of successful prosecutions. Considering there are getting on for 200 packs of fox hounds, hunting at least twice a week for the better part of 30 weeks a year, this is 120,000 days of hunting.

This does not indicate that there is wide spread flouting of the law.
		
Click to expand...

The report has evidence for its conclusions. You are the only person on this forum I know still trying to insist that fox hunting is not widespread, Lizzie.  It is.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			It just requires effort and a relentlessness that matches that of the hunters.
		
Click to expand...


Not so. It would require the diversion of huge amounts of public funds from things which are more important, like catching and prosecuting paedophiles.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 December 2014)

Lizzie66,  you are not the only one,  and as you rightly say,  from the app. 120,000 of hunting days per year,  how many prosecutions have there been,  since the ban?  The figure of 120k days would probably transmute to well in excess of 1,000,000 people-hunting-days.  The facts and the rhetoric seem strangely at odds with each other,  unless of course warping the facts are what suit the arguments of some! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Lizzie66,  you are not the only one,  and as you rightly say,  from the app. 120,000 of hunting days per year,  how many prosecutions have there been,  since the ban?  The figure of 120k days would probably transmute to well in excess of 1,000,000 people-hunting-days.  The facts and the rhetoric seem strangely at odds with each other,  unless of course warping the facts are what suit the arguments of some! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Since the only people breaking the law are the ones in control of the hounds, Alec, your people days statistic is totally irrelevant.

And you cannot have it both ways, however hard you try. It costs a lot of money to bring a successful prosecution. You are particularly vociferous on other threads that the RSPCA wastes  money prosecuting hunts, in which case hunts will not be prosecuted even though they are breaking the law.

A woman who is being assaulted by her partner is typically physically abused thirty seven times before she reports him. The fact that the other thirty six assaults are not reported, and happen out of public view does not mean that they did not happen.  

Illegal fox hunting is very difficult to prosecute because it also happens out of easy public view. It does not mean that it is not taking place. It is.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Illegal fox hunting is very difficult to prosecute because it also happens out of easy public view. It does not mean that it is not taking place. It is.
		
Click to expand...

Again,  and as Lizzie66,  could you provide 'Evidence' rather than your 'well known facts'?

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Again,  and as Lizzie66,  could you provide 'Evidence' rather than your 'well known facts'?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the report published after the Heythrop investigation. That report was critical of the RSPCA.   Oh, don't tell me Alec, you believe everything bad that report contains about the RSPCA , but nothing that it contains about illegal hunting ?

I also have personal evidence of being invited to hunt fox with three packs in my area, but you dismiss that time and again, which I can do nothing about but register how offensive I find it that you accuse me of lying.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The evidence is in the report published after the Heythrop investigation. That report was critical of the RSPCA.  

I also have personal evidence of being invited to hunt fox with three packs in my area, but you dismiss that time and again, which I can do nothing about but register how offensive I find it that you accuse me of lying.
		
Click to expand...

I can't see that you have been accused of lying - if you say that you've been invited, then who are any of us to argue? 
But is it irrefutable evidence that 'many, many' hunts are hunting fox illegally?
At best, it is a possible indication that three are. 

And as you know who they are and you clearly object to this, then I assume that you have reported these hunts? If they really are going out and live hunting every week then it should be easy to get the evidence.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			I can't see that you have been accused of lying - if you say that you've been invited, then who are any of us to argue? 
But is it irrefutable evidence that 'many, many' hunts are hunting fox illegally?
At best, it is a possible indication that three are. 

And as you know who they are and you clearly object to this, then I assume that you have reported these hunts? If they really are going out and live hunting every week then it should be easy to get the evidence.
		
Click to expand...

It is not easy to get evidence of any hunt hunting illegally. It happens out of public view on private land. Why do you think it cost so much to prosecute the Heythrop -  because it's not easy.

And I'll repeat again. The evidence is in the report written after that prosecution. If you don't want to accept my hearsay, don't, but if you don't accept it, then at least have the sense to realise that means you are either accusing me of lying or of being such an idiot that I don't understand what people are saying to me when they invite me to go fox hunting.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Not so. It would require the diversion of huge amounts of public funds from things which are more important, like catching and prosecuting paedophiles.
		
Click to expand...

This is your opinion and it isn't fact  ????  I'm not saying that catching paedophiles is less important, but there shouldn't be a sliding scale of who the police divert resources to.,  Breaking the law  needs to be reported, and if you are aware of illegal activity then its your civil duty to report it.  It would be much more productive than arguing with half of the forum fraternity on points of principle, or pretty much anyone who disagrees with you, and it would be a lot quicker too.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			In your opinion perhaps ????
		
Click to expand...

Well I think the amount it cost to prosecute the Heythrop says that it is rather more than my opinion.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It is not easy to get evidence of any hunt hunting illegally. It happens out of public view on private land. Why do you think it cost so much to prosecute the Heythrop -  because it's not easy.

And I'll repeat again. The evidence is in the report written after that prosecution. If you don't want to accept my hearsay, don't, but if you don't accept it, then at least have the sense to realise that means you are either accusing me of lying or of being such an idiot that I don't understand what people are saying to me when they invite me to go fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...


I note in a previous post you say you have been invited to hunt foxes by three local hunts.  I hope that you have informed the police of this.  Regardless of how difficult to bring a prosecution it would be your duty to do so.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Well I think the amount it cost to prosecute the Heythrop says that it is rather more than my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I find it sad (but not surprising)  that you only choose to quote parts of my post.  You seem to know such a lot about all this illegal activity..    are you reporting it ??   or is it just a lot of hot air on here ??


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			This is your opinion and it isn't fact  ????  I'm not saying that catching paedophiles is less important, but there shouldn't be a sliding scale of who the police divert resources to.,  Breaking the law  needs to be reported, and if you are aware of illegal activity then its your civil duty to report it.  It would be much more productive than arguing with half of the forum fraternity on points of principle, or pretty much anyone who disagrees with you, and it would be a lot quicker too.
		
Click to expand...


If I was arguing with half the forum, it would be a huge thread, but I'm not, I'm arguing with three people who refuse to accept what the rest of the hunting profession know for a fact, that fox are being hunted illegally in many places.  And who, in order to distract from this have chosen to try to sideline things by suggesting that it is somehow my personal responsibility to stop it.   Red herring, folks, you're looking in the wrong place.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I find it sad (but not surprising)  that you only choose to quote parts of my post.  You seem to know such a lot about all this illegal activity..    are you reporting it ??   or is it just a lot of hot air on here ??
		
Click to expand...

You'd like it to be, wouldn't you? Unfortunately it's not hot air, and not even about me, it's on record in that report.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			If I was arguing with half the forum, it would be a huge thread, but I'm not, I'm arguing with three people who refuse to accept what the rest of the hunting profession know for a fact, that fox are being hunted illegally in many places.  And who, in order to distract from this have chosen to try to sideline things by suggesting that it is somehow my personal responsibility to stop it.   Red herring, folks, you're looking in the wrong place.
		
Click to expand...


CPT, I have seen many of your comments in other threads and you are rude and argumentative, and no one is allowed to challenge you.  You've plenty to say about hunting and people who hunt which to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with.  However, if you read my post again, and properly !  you will see that I am asking you if you follow up your convictions, and report your knowledge of illegal activity to the police?   You've a lot to say on here,, do you follow it up through the proper channels,   by your last response I guess that you don't ..just loads of hot air on here ! oh and evasiveness suggesting I am trying to side line the argument.  Pathetic, stop ranting on here and do your civic duty instead of making excuses.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			CPT, I have seen many of your comments in other threads and you are rude and argumentative, and no one is allowed to challenge you.  You've plenty to say about hunting and people who hunt which to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with.  However, if you read my post again, and properly !  you will see that I am asking you if you follow up your convictions, and report your knowledge of illegal activity to the police?   You've a lot to say on here,, do you follow it up through the proper channels,   by your last response I guess that you don't ..just loads of hot air on here ! oh and evasiveness suggesting I am trying to side line the argument.  Pathetic, stop ranting on here and do your civic duty instead of making excuses.
		
Click to expand...


Rude and argumentative?  Have you read your own posts to me on this thread? 

I've answered your point on my civic duty, and it is getting repetitive that you keep trying to make this into an issue about me. Please stop.

This thread is not about me. It is about the fact that illegal hunting is widespread ten years after the ban has been recorded in a report which was highly critical of the amount of money spent on the Heythrop prosecution by the RSPCA, which has successfully prosecuted a small number of cases so far.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			no one is allowed to challenge you.
		
Click to expand...

I'm rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that I ever managed to stop anyone on this forum from challenging me


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Duplicate


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			CPT, I have seen many of your comments in other threads and you are rude and argumentative,



...........



 and no one is allowed to challenge you.  Pathetic, stop ranting on here and do your civic duty instead of making excuses.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Rude and argumentative?  Have you read your own posts to me on this thread? 

I've answered you point on my civic duty, and it is getting repetitive that you keep trying to make this into an issue about me. Please stop.

This thread is not about me. It is about the fact that illegal hunting is widespread ten years after the ban has been recorded in a report which was highly critical of the amount of money spent on the Heythrop prosecution by the RSPCA, which has successfully prosecuted a small number of cases so far.
		
Click to expand...

No the thread is not about you, but it was a request to know if you actually follow up and "put your money where your mouth is" as it were, and it seems that you don't     Also where is the bit about doing your civic duty ??  

I may be being repetitive, but you are stoic in refusing to answer ( actually I know the answer )   so when you are aware of illegal hunting activity do you report this to the police...eeeerr that would be a no then.  I will leave it there.    I know the answer I was seeking... loads of hot air and opinions expressed but no action.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You'd like it to be, wouldn't you? Unfortunately it's not hot air, and not even about me, it's on record in that report.
		
Click to expand...

What the three invitations that you've had to go fox hunting ???  did you tell the police about that...oh that would be no.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			What the three invitations that you've had to go fox hunting ???  did you tell the police about that...oh that would be no.
		
Click to expand...


And your point is?  Do you go and tell the police every time a friend speeds in a car they are giving you a lift home in?

The fact that I will not report my friends does not mean that illegal hunting is not happening, so I have no idea what on earth your continuing campaign against me is all about, but I'm sure everyone else is just as bored with it as I am.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And your point is?  Do you go and tell the police every time a friend speeds in a car they are giving you a lift home in?

The fact that I will not report my friends does not mean that illegal hunting is not happening, so I have no idea what on earth your continuing campaign against me is all about, but I'm sure everyone else is just as bored with it as I am.
		
Click to expand...

 


Ahhh so they are your friends...I get it now


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You'd like it to be, wouldn't you? Unfortunately it's not hot air, and not even about me, it's on record in that report.
		
Click to expand...

I'm quite interested in your perspective on this report - please could you post the extract that you consider to be 'hard evidence' that there is so much illegal foxhunting going on?

Smurf's Gran makes a fair point regarding reporting it to the Police. I think the answer was the bit about it taking up too much Police time and it being very hard to show that foxes are being hunted illegally even if you are there on the day. 
(I wouldn't have thought it was that hard - if the hunt are following a trail, laid either by a runner or a horse and rider, it would be clear where they were heading? And all the hunts I've been out  - post ban- with have known exactly where they were going on any particular day?)

Very interesting that you won't report these people because they are your 'friends'. Do your friends know that you are appalled with their actions?

And actually, if one or more of my 'friends' was openly breaking the law I would probably take some sort of action, particularly if I felt they were putting others at risk. Friendship/principles - it's all fascinating territory.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

You people are laughable. You focus on me and my actions so that you don't have to acknowledge that hunts are hunting illegally and respond to the real questions.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

No doubt you all fully agree with the report when it criticises the RSPCA, but reject the parts where it talks about illegal hunting?

There are hunting people laughing their heads of that you are hunt supporters but you don't think that there is widespread hunting of fox


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:





You people are laughable. You focus on me and my actions so that you don't have to acknowledge that hunts are hunting illegally and respond to the real questions.
		
Click to expand...

blah blah blah  why don't you just answer the question asked.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			blah blah blah  why don't you just answer the question asked.
		
Click to expand...

NancyKitt asked for the extract, can we see it please.    BTW  I am sure there is illegal hunting....just think that when people are aware of it they should report this to the police, not rant away on here and then say you wont report to the police because its actually their own  friends who are doing it.  Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			NancyKitt asked for the extract, can we see it please.     I am sure there is illegal hunting....just think that when people are aware of it they should report this to the police, not rant away on here and then say you wont report to the police because its actually their own  friends who are doing it.  Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
		
Click to expand...

I did not write the report, ask the writer for his evidence if you want it.. I do not need to ask him for his evidence.

I have personally been invited to hunt with three hunts. When I asked if they hunted fox, I was told they did, and I replied that in that case I could not go out with them. I had a conversation with someone I know well who explicitly stated that they were being sabbed because they hunt fox. And I have been informed by someone else I know well, that she had been out with her local hunt and they caught several fox that day.

I KNOW that fox are widely being hunted and I have known it for about three years. That knowledge has been confirmed by the report into the Heythrop prosecution, which do I need to remind you led to a conviction.

When you report your friends/colleagues/aquaintances for speeding, criticise me for not reporting those people for telling me they are fox hunting. When the last child has been protected from the last paedophile, maybe I will, but until then, the Police have better things to do with their time.

But shame on the selective law breakers. That way lies anarchy.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

I'm not really familiar with the report, that's why I've asked for the relevant bit to be pointed out to me. But if not, could you post a link so I can read the whole thing myself?

One of your earliest posts on this thread, in response to a comment by Isbister, was 'If foxes are killed with regularity I very much doubt that you are hunting within the law'. You must acknowledge that foxes are hunted within the law by a number of hunts. Using a bird of prey or flushing to guns is not illegal. 

Your claim is that illegal hunting is widespread. I don't have any secure evidence of this myself. I've only ever been out with two 'live' hunts post-ban and I've seen the huntsman call off hounds (on the trail of live quarry) twice. Prosecutions are rare because it is a ridiculously difficult law, but no-one from a hunt would relish the thought of going through a court case and in those unusual cases where the RSPCA have been successful it has caused a great deal of damage to those hunts. 

Your statement that there is not much point in repeal as the law is 'being held in contempt all over the country' is powerful stuff. But your evidence for it seems to amount to a report (written by a single author?) and three invitations  - from your friends - to go out and hunt fox. I honestly don't see how this amounts to irrefutable evidence of the law being held in contempt all over the country. 

I'm not actually saying that illegal hunting does or doesn't happen - but when people make such strong statements on a public forum, seemingly without the evidence to back it up, I can't see much wrong in questioning this.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			When you report your friends and colleagues for speeding, criticise me for not reporting people for telling me they are fox hunting. When the last child has been protected from the last paedophile, maybe I will, but until then, the Police have better things to do with their time.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think my friends need me to report them for speeding as the police have highly efficient systems for identifying speeding motorists and dealing with them thereafter. 
I have, however, reported someone for an illegal action which had the potential to have far-reaching consequences. It was something I felt strongly about and my view was that if I wasn't part of the solution I was part of the problem. 
It's an unusual stance to take  - not reporting an illegal act that you feel very strongly about because you feel that the police have better things to do. I do not believe it is down to any of us to prioritise how the police spend their time. If you reported it, then how it was dealt with would be up to the police themselves. If you saw someone breaking into a house would you fail to report it because it was a crime that did not involve paedophilia? Surely selective whistleblowing is not a far cry from selective law breaking?


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

And of course the sabs pretty much disappeared in the aftermath of the ban when hunts abided by the law, and are back now in force just because they fancy a good bit of a scuffle on a Saturday?

Whilst they are making some mistakes with hunts they have sabbed, they have returned because hunting fox has returned.

NK, honestly, the reason you are unaware of illegal hunting is because you don't know enough people who are hunting or who have hunts over their land. There is a large land owner in Cheshire who have told the hunt that they may cross their land only if they are in pursuit of a fox.


----------



## Lizzie66 (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I did not write the report, ask the writer for his evidence if you want it.. I do not need to ask him for his evidence.

I have personally been invited to hunt with three hunts. When I asked if they hunted fox, I was told they did, and I replied that in that case I could not go out with them. I had a conversation with someone I know well who explicitly stated that they were being sabbed because they hunt fox. And I have been informed by someone else I know well, that she had been out with her local hunt and they caught several fox that day.
		
Click to expand...

Its not actually illegal to hunt foxes. You are allowed to use 2 hounds to flush fox to a gun or a bird of prey. So if someone says their pack hunts foxes this is not an admission that a crime is being committed.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			If you saw someone breaking into a house would you fail to report it because it was a crime that did not involve paedophilia?
		
Click to expand...

What a stupid question. 




			Surely selective whistleblowing is not a far cry from selective law breaking?
		
Click to expand...

No it's a mile away.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			Its not actually illegal to hunt foxes. You are allowed to use 2 hounds to flush fox to a gun or a bird of prey. So if someone says their pack hunts foxes this is not an admission that a crime is being committed.
		
Click to expand...

I was there in those conversations. In all cases, they were admissions that foxes were being illegally hunted with a full pack of hounds.

You guys really are desperate for me not to be right.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And of course the sabs pretty much disappeared in the aftermath of the ban when hunts abided by the law, and are back now in force just because they fancy a good bit of a scuffle on a Saturday
		
Click to expand...

In a word, yes. They really do. They turned up at a local meet one boxing day about eight years ago solely for the purpose of starting a fight. 

Thank you for explaining why I am unaware of illegal hunting and I'm intrigued that you're able to inform me that I 'don't know enough people who are hunting'. 
I actually live in the Northwest and currently I hunt mostly in Cheshire. 
But I will say that there were two occasions when I saw a huntsman call off hounds - once when I was out with the Holcombe and once when I was out with the Vale of Lune.


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You guys really are desperate for me not to be right.
		
Click to expand...

No, really, I'm not desperate at all. I have my own view based on my own experience. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. But as you've said that one of my questions is 'stupid', I will say that your logic comes over as utterly ridiculous. You feel very, very strongly about illegal foxhunting and feel that this is why the sabs are out. You know for a fact that your friends are taking part in this illegal activity, which you feel is totally unacceptable. But you won't take action yourself because the police should be catching paedophiles. Hmmm.


----------



## cptrayes (1 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			No, really, I'm not desperate at all. I have my own view based on my own experience. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. But as you've said that one of my questions is 'stupid', I will say that your logic comes over as utterly ridiculous. You feel very, very strongly about illegal foxhunting and feel that this is why the sabs are out. You know for a fact that your friends are taking part in this illegal activity, which you feel is totally unacceptable. But you won't take action yourself because the police should be catching paedophiles. Hmmm.
		
Click to expand...


You need to remember that the only people committing a crime when hounds hunt fox illegally are the people on control of the hounds. No-one who I personally know has ever committed that crime.

There's a lot of ridiculous stiff on this thread, probably the daftest being the question you asked me about reporting a burglar ,  but precious little of it has come from me


----------



## Nancykitt (1 December 2014)

Hang on - if no-one you personally know has ever committed that crime then why did you not mention it when explaining why you would not report your friends?  And it's interesting that you imply I am ignorant of facts because I am not as well-connected as you in hunting circles, yet you don't know any of the masters/hunt staff from the three hunts you were invited out with?

As for my comment about the burglary being ridiculous, maybe to you it is - but look back at the post when you say that you might consider reporting illegal foxhunting when paedophilia has been eradicated and you might see where I am coming from.


----------



## Nancykitt (2 December 2014)

OK, I have now had a look at the much-referenced report (assuming it's the Wooler report). I've not read the thing in detail as it goes much wider than foxhunting, but my perception of it is as follows:
 - there is evidence that hunts 'in many parts of the country' take the view that it is 'business as usual' when it comes to hunting (NB 'many parts of the country' is not quite synonymous with 'many, many hunts', but relatively it's not important to pursue that point)
 - that the RSPCA shouldn't have used the resources they did in trying to prosecute
 - that it's extremely difficult to prove that the law had been broken, due to the nature of the Act itself.

It seems to me, therefore, that the reason it is so difficult to secure a prosecution has little to do with hunting taking place in 'secret' locations and a lot more to do with the fact that it is very, very difficult to show, beyond doubt, that the law has been broken. 

In spite of our differences we must therefore surely agree that it is a ridiculous piece of legislation?

However, what is to be done about it is another issue. 
CPT, I'm not sure what you think the answer is here. You know exactly who is hunting illegally but you won't report them and you give several reasons for this, including your view that the police have better things to do with their time. You mentioned why you don't want to report 'your friends' but then it seems that your friends are in the field so are not guilty at all, and the people who are in control of the hounds are not your friends. Wouldn't this make it easier for you to report them if they are not your friends?
But you've clearly decided that the way to tackle it is to express your views on this forum, ridiculing those who take a different view by saying that hunt staff, and you, are laughing at us...this has very little impact on me I'm afraid. 

If people won't report illegal hunting, for whatever reason, then what is to be done about it? What exactly do you suggest?


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Nancykitt, I suggest that people stop hunting illegally.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I did not write the report, ask the writer for his evidence if you want it.. I do not need to ask him for his evidence.

I have personally been invited to hunt with three hunts. When I asked if they hunted fox, I was told they did, and I replied that in that case I could not go out with them. I had a conversation with someone I know well who explicitly stated that they were being sabbed because they hunt fox. And I have been informed by someone else I know well, that she had been out with her local hunt and they caught several fox that day.

I KNOW that fox are widely being hunted and I have known it for about three years. That knowledge has been confirmed by the report into the Heythrop prosecution, which do I need to remind you led to a conviction.

When you report your friends/colleagues/aquaintances for speeding, criticise me for not reporting those people for telling me they are fox hunting. When the last child has been protected from the last paedophile, maybe I will, but until then, the Police have better things to do with their time.

But shame on the selective law breakers. That way lies anarchy.
		
Click to expand...

You are a selective law breaker as you are complicit in turning a blind eye to your friends who break the law and you knowingly do not report this.  Then you concoct a bizarre argument re paedophilia.  Your comments are illogical and you contradict yourself regularly.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			No, really, I'm not desperate at all. I have my own view based on my own experience. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. But as you've said that one of my questions is 'stupid', I will say that your logic comes over as utterly ridiculous. You feel very, very strongly about illegal foxhunting and feel that this is why the sabs are out. You know for a fact that your friends are taking part in this illegal activity, which you feel is totally unacceptable. But you won't take action yourself because the police should be catching paedophiles. Hmmm.
		
Click to expand...


Couldn't have said it better.....


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Nancykitt, I suggest that people stop hunting illegally.
		
Click to expand...

So what do you think your role might be in this .....do nothing ??


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			You are a selective law breaker as you are complicit in turning a blind eye to your friends who break the law and you knowingly do not report this.  Then you concoct a bizarre argument re paedophilia.  Your comments are illogical and you contradict yourself regularly.
		
Click to expand...


My friends are not the ones breaking the law. They are not Huntsmen or Masters.

Your focus on me instead of on hunts breaking the law and hunting illegally is quite bizarre.

Though I am pleased to see that everyone on this thread does now accept that the law is being broken.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			So what do you think your role might be in this .....do nothing ??
		
Click to expand...

Why should it be anything else?  I am not a vigilante.

I'll repeat, your focus on me instead of on the law breakers is quite bizarre.


----------



## FairyLights (2 December 2014)

Havent read all the thread but would like to add to the discussion. I started hunting after the ban, I think there are more people hunting now than before the ban.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

twiggy2 said:



			for me it is the fact that a pack of hounds hunting a fox can be so relentless, indiscriminate and I suppose it is also personal experience of the fox going to ground and being flushed by terriers or dug out. Some of it is also the mess that the hunt leave behind them in the way of creating the muddiest tracks and riding for the rest of us, they just don't in my eyes put anything back. they also don't come when they say they will and do come when they are not supposed to  and I realise this may not apply to every hunt out there but the 2 that currently affect me and those around me have no manners or thought for others. a lurcher either catches it or does not it is one on one and when the quarry is tired so is the dog so the fit really do survive.
		
Click to expand...


most of the hunts round here do a lot...be it fallen stock, hedgelaying, repairing any fence that is broken by the hunt and they do a fir bit to support the local PC


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			But shame on the selective law breakers. That way lies anarchy.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't this what you are doing cptrayes, selecting one lawbreaker (that you have openly and vehemently criticised) and choosing not to report it based on it being your acqauintances and a waste of your/police  .
You have contradicted yourself many atime....we should report the law breakers but you will not?? surely you can report the relevant hunts/huntmasters if you feel that strongly about it.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And of course the sabs pretty much disappeared in the aftermath of the ban when hunts abided by the law, and are back now in force just because they fancy a good bit of a scuffle on a Saturday?

Um yes actually... they mostly focused on intimidating and attacking landowners, masters and preety much anybody involved with the hunt last saturday.

But don't worry we reported their harrassment, speeding etc the police turned up and also identified a stolen truck amongst their vehicles...so yes I would say they were just troublemakers
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Why should it be anything else?  I am not a vigilante.

I'll repeat, your focus on me instead of on the law breakers is quite bizarre.
		
Click to expand...

I am not asking you to be a vigilante (your description not mine) I am suggesting that, as you are well aware that illegal activity is going on, that you let your local police know so that they can choose whether to follow this up or not (depending of course on how many paedophiles they are tracking that week !!) yet you consistently refuse, and have deflected, changed the subject, etc etc, and ignored some comments.  If illegal hunting is happening (and I'm sure it is) the only way to tighten up on this is to inform your local police when you suspect illegal activity, and they it is up to them whether or not they follow up.  If you are not happy with illegal hunting (and your comments on here certainly  indicate that)  what is wrong with picking up the phone and having a conversation with your local police when you suspect something ? Surely if you can do something...no matter how small... and it is for the common good.... then you should do it. And before you reintroduce the paedophilia argument (which by the way is ridiculous)  as already mentioned this would be for the police to decide the priorities.

I really don't know why you wont do this ?.  Maybe you  hunting friends are on here and are actually reading ??   You are happy enough to spout off on this forum on a daily basis, arguing the point with all and sundry, but you wont do a simple thing which might help the cause you are espousing.  It is called personal responsibility, standing up for your beliefs, and being a responsible adult within society.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

You are utterly peculiar SG, with your fixation on me. Could you perhaps focus on the law breaking going on by hunts, instead?  Or does my behaviour really bother you so much more than law breakers? Perhaps you should report me?  Feel free.

Since you continue this discussion, can you explain to me why I have never been on a drag hunt where a fox has been chased more than 100 metres, never mind caught, and yet in ten years, with a completely new set of hounds by now, some fox hunts are still unable to stop their hounds chasing and catching foxes?

Can they not get advice from the drag packs how they do it?  That way, there would be no confusion about whether they are breaking the law or not.

It is clearly perfectly possibly to lay a trail and follow it without accidentally hunting a fox. Stronger scent and better hound recall training, maybe?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I am not asking you to be a vigilante (your description not mine) I am suggesting that, as you are well aware that illegal activity is going on, that you let your local police know so that they can choose whether to follow this up or not (depending of course on how many paedophiles they are tracking that week !!) yet you consistently refuse, and have deflected, changed the subject, etc etc, and ignored some comments.  If illegal hunting is happening (and I'm sure it is) the only way to tighten up on this is to inform your local police when you suspect illegal activity, and they it is up to them whether or not they follow up.  If you are not happy with illegal hunting (and your comments on here certainly  indicate that)  what is wrong with picking up the phone and having a conversation with your local police when you suspect something ? Surely if you can do something...no matter how small... and it is for the common good.... then you should do it. And before you reintroduce the paedophilia argument (which by the way is ridiculous)  as already mentioned this would be for the police to decide the priorities.

I really don't know why you wont do this ?.  Maybe you  hunting friends are on here and are actually reading ??   You are happy enough to spout off on this forum on a daily basis, arguing the point with all and sundry, but you wont do a simple thing which might help the cause you are espousing.  It is called personal responsibility, standing up for your beliefs, and being a responsible adult within society.
		
Click to expand...

The reason I focus on you is because people like you and I can bring about change, but it takes determination, and being willing to report illegal activity, or a suspicion of it.  If enough people did this it would be possible to effect change, but you make every excuse under the sun as to why you cant do this.   Given the amount of energy you've expended on here, you clearly do care about this, yet you do nothing.

I suppose the reason why I am continuing this is because I dislike hypocrites.  Whatever belief you have is fine by me, but to have the opportunity to pass info onto the police, and then not do it (with every excuse you can think of!)  is not something to be proud of.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

SG I do love your suggestion that it is me keeping this thread going and banging on about illegal hunting. Without you and NK getting hooked on saying it's my responsibility to try to stop illegal hunting,  it would have died days ago 

The responsibility for stopping illegal hunting lies firmly with those doing it.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You are utterly peculiar SG, with your fixation on me. Could you perhaps focus on the law breaking going on by hunts, instead?  Or does my behaviour really bother you so much more than law breakers? Perhaps you should report me?  Feel free.

Since you continue this discussion, can you explain to me why I have never been on a drag hunt where a fox has been chased more than 100 metres, never mind caught, and yet in ten years, with a completely new set of hounds by now, some fox hunts are still unable to stop their hounds chasing and catching foxes?

Can they not get advice from the drag packs how they do it?  That way, there would be no confusion about whether they are breaking the law or not.

It is clearly perfectly possibly to lay a trail and follow it without accidentally hunting a fox. Stronger scent and better hound recall training, maybe?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think educating hunts would be effective though, they will do what they want to do, some have admitted as much on here.  The effective way to manage this is for individuals to take collective responsibility, and report all suspicions to the police, which of course you don't want to do  (for whatever reasons you don't want to say on here ??)


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			SG I do love your suggestion that it is me keeping this thread going and banging on about illegal hunting. Without you and NK getting hooked on saying it's my responsibility to try to stop illegal hunting,  it would have died days ago 

The responsibility for stopping illegal hunting lies firmly with those doing it.
		
Click to expand...

yes it does, but many hunts (hunting fox) don't  want to, and wont unless pressure is applied.  That pressure should come from the law, but we all need to do our bit, and that's the bit you don't understand.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

SG, if you think that contacting the police about this thread was a good use of your time, that's fine by me, but will you please stop preaching to me about how I should spend mine?  I do not actually have to justify myself to a complete stranger on the internet. You seem utterly fixated on me and it's getting a little tiresome. You have absolutely no idea how much time, effort, and soul I have put into supporting the upholding of the law in this country, and it is none of your business, but I doubt very much whether you are in any position to lecture me.  Let it go, Louis, let it go


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			SG I do love your suggestion that it is me keeping this thread going and banging on about illegal hunting. Without you and NK getting hooked on saying it's my responsibility to try to stop illegal hunting,  it would have died days ago 

The responsibility for stopping illegal hunting lies firmly with those doing it.
		
Click to expand...

Neither of us have said that its your sole responsibility for stopping hunting  (as you well know) but there is a collective responsibility which comes from being an adult in our society.  In another thread weren't you suggesting that you are something (or were) in the legal field - JP was it ??  that's just great, and you wont report illegal activity to the police


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			we are not saying its your sole responsibility for stopping hunting  (as you well know) just dislike hypopcrites
		
Click to expand...

For someone who repeatedly calls me argumentative and rude, you take the biscuit!

It is not my responsibility AT ALL to stop hunting.



(I see you edited your post after calling me a hypocrite)


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			For someone who repeatedly calls me argumentative and rude, you take the biscuit!

It is not my responsibility AT ALL to stop hunting.
		
Click to expand...

No but it is your responsibility to report your suspicions of illegal activity to the police.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			No but it is your responsibility to report your suspicions of illegal activity to the police.
		
Click to expand...

How can you possibly think that we have not all understood that is your point of view? Why on earth do you keep on and on and on and on and on repeating yourself?. The question is rhetorical, please for heaven's sake don't answer it


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			SG, if you think that contacting the police about this thread was a good use of your time, that's fine by me, but will you please stop preaching to me about how I should spend mine?  I do not actually have to justify myself to a complete stranger on the internet. You seem utterly fixated on me and it's getting a little tiresome. You have absolutely no idea how much time, effort, and soul I have put into supporting the upholding of the law in this country, and it is none of your business, but I doubt very much whether you are in any position to lecture me.  Let it go, Louis, let it go 

Click to expand...


You are right you don't have to justify yourself to me, but when you post on a forum such as this and you post strong views, then it would be naïve to expect that you wont be firmly challenged, and held to account if you contradict yourself, and are inconsistent in your views and challenge others very strongly...


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			How can you possibly think that we have not all understood that is your point of view? Why on earth do you keep on and on and on and on and on repeating yourself?. The question is rhetorical, please for heaven's sake don't answer it 

Click to expand...


Because you consistently refuse to answer.  Yet you post strong views and criticise others, I don't think you can remember what you've written half the time.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			You are right you don't have to justify yourself to me, but when you post on a forum such as this and you post strong views, then it would be naïve to expect that you wont be firmly challenged, and pd to account if you contradict yourself, and are inconsistent in your views and challenge others very strongly...
		
Click to expand...


And how can you possibly think, with my experience on this forum, that I post anything without expecting to be challenged?    .  Again, the question is rhetorical,

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about me. I hope you can get over it soon, it must be boring the forum half to death :'(


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Because you consistently refuse to answer.  Yet you post strong views and criticise others, I don't think you can remember what you've written half the time.
		
Click to expand...

I have answered, you just don't like my answer.  It isn't going to change no matter how often you tell me you don't like it.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And how can you possibly think, with my experience on this forum, that I post anything without expecting to be challenged?    .  Again, the question is rhetorical,

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about me. I hope you can get over it soon, it must be boring the forum half to death :'(
		
Click to expand...

I dislike hypocrites, and as you are some sort of Justice of the Peace (which you have alluded to before in other posts - seem to remember a massive argument between you and Dry Rot) )  I actually think that  you have an increased personal responsibility to report illegal activity.   I will leave it there,  you are clearly not going to answer, cannot remember what you have posted, and contradict yourself regularly, and are sometimes indiscreet.   As for what the forum think.. I'm sure views will be mixed as usual.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I dislike hypocrites, and as you are some sort of Justice of the Peace (which you have alluded to before in other posts - seem to remember a massive argument between you and Dry Rot) )  I actually think that  you have an increased personal responsibility to report illegal activity. *  I will leave it there,  *you are clearly not going to answer, cannot remember what you have posted, and contradict yourself regularly, and are sometimes indiscreet.   As for what the forum think.. I'm sure views will be mixed as usual.
		
Click to expand...

Thank God for that!


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I have answered, you just don't like my answer.  It isn't going to change no matter how often you tell me you don't like it.
		
Click to expand...

No you haven't given us an answer..what we dislike is your taking of the moral high ground for disapproving of illegal hunting and criticing others for not reporting it..then saying that you do not feel it is necessary for you to report. Whatever any persons opinions on hunting are- and I'm certainly not expecting you to change yours- that is hypocrisy.


----------



## Nancykitt (2 December 2014)

LittleRocketRider said:



			No you haven't given us an answer..what we dislike is your taking of the moral high ground for disapproving of illegal hunting and criticing others for not reporting it..then saying that you do not feel it is necessary for you to report. Whatever any persons opinions on hunting are- and I'm certainly not expecting you to change yours- that is hypocrisy.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, LRR.
As one of my line managers used to say, 'Don't bring me problems if you can't bring me solutions'. 
And in this case, a realistic solution is not 'all those involved in illegal hunting should just stop hunting'. Clearly that is not going to happen. If a person does not take exception to illegal foxhunting then no doubt they will do nothing. 
If a person does, however, and claims to feel strongly about it -  then he/she can either take action - (as you might by reporting any illegal activity) - or do nothing and stop complaining!
Doesn't get more simple than that.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

LittleRocketRider said:



			No you haven't given us an answer..what we dislike is your taking of the moral high ground for disapproving of illegal hunting and criticing others for not reporting it..then saying that you do not feel it is necessary for you to r. Whatever any persons opinions on hunting are- and I'm certainly not expecting you to change yours- that is hypocrisy.
		
Click to expand...


Yes I have given you an answer, you just don't like it.

I have not criticised anyone for not reporting it. I have only stated that people are doing it.

I find it very interesting how much more interested you are in me than in people who are breaking the law. 

I'm not sure what moral high ground you think I'm taking. I'm making a plain statement of fact that people are breaking the law. Would you object to me saying that people burgle houses? 

How tall is that high horse you're up there on ?


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			Absolutely, LRR.
As one of my line managers used to say, 'Don't bring me problems if you can't bring me solutions'. 
And in this case, a realistic solution is not 'all those involved in illegal hunting should just stop hunting'. Clearly that is not going to happen. If a person does not take exception to illegal foxhunting then no doubt they will do nothing. 
If a person does, however, and claims to feel strongly about it -  then he/she can either take action - (as you might by reporting any illegal activity) - or do nothing and stop complaining!
Doesn't get more simple than that.
		
Click to expand...

I have brought you the solution even though you aren't my line manager  

The people acting illegally should stop acting illegally.

I'm struggling to understand why three of you are finding that a difficult concept.


----------



## Nancykitt (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I have brought you the solution even though you aren't my line manager. 

The people acting illegally should stop acting illegally.

I'm struggling to understand why three of you are finding that a difficult concept.
		
Click to expand...

And by the same token, thieves should stop thieving, tax dodgers should stop tax dodging, drug dealers should stop drug dealing....

Not so much a solution as an unrealistic and ideological approach.

People who see their activity as acceptable are generally not going to stop breaking the law without some sort of action from others.


----------



## cptrayes (2 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			And by the same token, thieves should stop thieving, tax dodgers should stop tax dodging, drug dealers should stop drug dealing....

Not so much a solution as an unrealistic and ideological approach.

People who see their activity as acceptable are generally not going to stop breaking the law without some sort of action from others.
		
Click to expand...






NK, if you have the funds to pay a private investigator to infiltrate a hunt to get enough information to warrant a prosecution, please write me a cheque and I'll organise it.

The idealism is entirely on your side, I'm afraid, if you think in the current economic climate, and following the level of criticism of the Heythrop prosecution, that the Police or the RSPCA will be able to do anything with a report of a few conversations, unrecorded, that went

Why don't you come out with xyz on Monday/Wednesday/Thursday?
Do you hunt fox?
Yes.
Sorry, I can't.

And if you really want large amounts of public money spent on trying to obtain a prosecution, then I honestly think that you have your priorities badly skewed. I want it spent on policemen on the roads and streets, not in fields.


----------



## Nancykitt (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The idealism is entirely on your side, I'm afraid, if you think in the current economic climate, and following the level of criticism of the Heythrop prosecution, that the Police or the RSPCA will be able to do anything with a report of a few conversations, unrecorded, that went

Why don't you come out with xyz on Monday?
Do you hunt fox?
Yes.
Sorry, I can't.
		
Click to expand...

But in an earlier post you gave us all the impression that this conversation was irrefutable evidence of illegal foxhunting? You saw it as that but you don't think the police will see it as that?
I'm not sure you would need to furnish them with the details of how you know there is an illegal activity taking place. 

You give the impression that on one hand you are very concerned that there is illegal hunting taking place, but on the other hand you're not concerned enough for the authorities to tackle this and would rather funds are directed elsewhere. 

The real problem is that it is a stupid and ridiculous piece of legislation that serves no-one.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			How tall is that high horse you're up there on ?
		
Click to expand...

13'2


----------



## Nancykitt (2 December 2014)

LittleRocketRider said:



			13'2
		
Click to expand...

That is most definitely the funniest thing on this thread. Hilarious!
I'm a whole hand above you, LRR!


----------



## LittleRooketRider (2 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			That is most definitely the funniest thing on this thread. Hilarious!
I'm a whole hand above you, LRR!
		
Click to expand...

So is my little sister...I'm used to it


----------



## cptrayes (3 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			But in an earlier post you gave us all the impression that this conversation was irrefutable evidence of illegal foxhunting? You saw it as that but you don't think the police will see it as that?
I'm not sure you would need to furnish them with the details of how you know there is an illegal activity taking place. 

You give the impression that on one hand you are very concerned that there is illegal hunting taking place, but on the other hand you're not concerned enough for the authorities to tackle this and would rather funds acted elsewhere. 

The real problem is that it is a stupid and ridiculous piece of legislation that serves no-one.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, you support chasing and killing foxes with a pack of hounds. You don't actually want it reported at all, you just want me to shut up letting people know that it's happening.

I personally think that it's not an acceptable practice on this day and age but if it was legal I would accept that your view differs from mine. As it is illegal, then if you do it, you should stop.

The law was written in the expectation that people in a democracy abide, generally, by the wishes of the majority. It imagine that it was written in the expectation that fox hunts would initially have some problems  stopping packs used to hunting fox from accidentally doing so.  

It was not written, I don't think, in the expectation that ten years later, with completely new sets of hounds,  some hunts would deliberately be laying such weak trails that their hounds follow fox 'accidentally' on a routine basis, nor that it would prove somehow impossible for foxhounds to be called off the wrong scent when fox hounds used for drag hunting do it all the time.

The people who have worked to break the spirit of the law are the ones who have made it ridiculous Nancykitt.


----------



## Nancykitt (3 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Ah, you support chasing and killing foxes with a pack of hounds. You don't actually want it reported at all, you just want me to shut up letting people know that it's happening.

...
The people who have worked to break the spirit of the law are the ones who have made it ridiculous Nancykitt.
		
Click to expand...

CPT, I am past caring whether you report it or not. It's just that I and several others were a little puzzled that you seemed to take such a firm stance against it and yet you were not prepared to do anything about it yourself, (ie, reporting illegal activity) for a number of reasons, all of which have become rather confusing. First of all it was because you didn't want to report your friends, then it was because you didn't know the actual lawbreakers (ie, those in control of the hounds) personally, then it was because it would be difficult to prove because it takes place in secret, then it would be because it would cost too much and the police might not accept your conversation as 'evidence' (although it's their job to gather sufficient evidence, not yours). Report it if you want, don't bother if you don't want. You can, if you like, hang on to your hope that those breaking the law will simply stop doing so, perhaps after experiencing a moment of 'enlightenment', but I very much doubt that this will ever happen. 
I am pro-hunting but I hunt within the law, so any decision you take will have no impact on me personally whatsoever. 

I do maintain that the Hunting Act is a ridiculous piece of legislation - this is one of the reasons it takes so much time in court to decide whether or not the law has actually been broken. Those breaking the law didn't word the thing, they didn't even want it in the first place, so blaming them for the contents of the Act is futile. 

If I know illegal activity is happening and I feel strongly about it then I'll report it and I have done so in the past. 
The fact that you choose not to do so in this case is neither here nor there to me.


----------



## cptrayes (3 December 2014)

Nancykitt said:



			CPT, I am past caring whether you report it or not. It's just that I and several others were a little puzzled that you seemed to take such a firm stance against it and yet you were not prepared to do anything about it yourself, (ie, reporting illegal activity) for a number of reasons, all of which have become rather confusing. First of all it was because you didn't want to report your friends, then it was because you didn't know the actual lawbreakers (ie, those in control of the hounds) personally, then it was because it would be difficult to prove because it takes place in secret, then it would be because it would cost too much and the police might not accept your conversation as 'evidence' (although it's their job to gather sufficient evidence, not yours). Report it if you want, don't bother if you don't want. You can, if you like, hang on to your hope that those breaking the law will simply stop doing so, perhaps after experiencing a moment of 'enlightenment', but I very much doubt that this will ever happen. 
I am pro-hunting but I hunt within the law, so any decision you take will have no impact on me personally whatsoever. 

I do maintain that the Hunting Act is a ridiculous piece of legislation - this is one of the reasons it takes so much time in court to decide whether or not the law has actually been broken. Those breaking the law didn't word the thing, they didn't even want it in the first place, so blaming them for the contents of the Act is futile. 

If I know illegal activity is happening and I feel strongly about it then I'll report it and I have done so in the past. 
The fact that you choose not to do so in this case is neither here nor there to me.
		
Click to expand...

For someone who is 'past caring. and who says my actions are 'neither here nor there' to you, you've spent an awful lot of time and effort writing a very lengthy post NK.


----------



## Nancykitt (3 December 2014)

No, it only took me about 10 mins thinking and writing time actually. Waiting for an appointment so a bit of time to kill. Makes a change from reading ancient magazines.


----------



## Lizzie66 (3 December 2014)

Its amazing how peoples responses change when asked questions in different ways !!

On one hand they are making it clear they are breaking the law on the other not clear enough to report to the police
On one hand we are all breaking the law if we follow foxhounds on the other only the huntsman/fieldmaster are breaking the law (and if we aren't then why should we stop??)

This particular law is badly written and ill conceived. The original intent to improve animal welfare was lost in petty spite by the labour backbenchers who were wanting to put the toffs in their place. The hunts by and large are trying to follow the law as it is written.

If you feel that strongly that the law is being broken then report it, if not then stop whinging about it.


----------



## Nancykitt (3 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			This particular law is badly written and ill conceived. The original intent to improve animal welfare was lost in petty spite by the labour backbenchers who were wanting to put the toffs in their place. The hunts by and large are trying to follow the law as it is written.

If you feel that strongly that the law is being broken then report it, if not then stop whinging about it.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## cptrayes (3 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			The hunts by and large are trying to follow the law as it is written.
		
Click to expand...

Then why are they still 'accidentally' chasing and catching fox?

Surely if they wanted to be absolutely certain of hunting within the law, all they have to do is do what the drag packs do, lay a good scent and train the hounds in recall ?


----------



## AdorableAlice (4 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Then why are they still 'accidentally' chasing and catching fox?

Surely if they wanted to be absolutely certain of hunting within the law, all they have to do is do what the drag packs do, lay a good scent and train the hounds in recall ?
		
Click to expand...

I see no reason why a landowner would want to allow a load of joy riders to trash acres of land for no good reason.


----------



## Isbister (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I see no reason why a landowner would want to allow a load of joy riders to trash acres of land for no good reason.
		
Click to expand...

Good answer. CPT strikes me as rather troll-like, obsessed by drag hunting.


----------



## AdorableAlice (4 December 2014)

Isbister said:



			Good answer. CPT strikes me as rather troll-like, obsessed by drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with debates surrounding hunting is so few people are fully aware of everything that surrounds hunting.  Land management, covert laying, hedging, fencing, fallen stock, PM facilities, employment across a massive spectrum etc etc.  

For instance hunting in Moorland and Fell areas provide a vital service to sheep farmers, what use is a drag hunt there !  A few days spent with a hill farmer would be a revelation for many.

I find it alarming and disappointing that so many 'horse' people have no concept, understanding or respect regarding farming, land management and wildlife conservation.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			The problem with debates surrounding hunting is so few people are fully aware of everything that surrounds hunting.  Land management, covert laying, hedging, fencing, fallen stock, PM facilities, employment across a massive spectrum etc etc.  

For instance hunting in Moorland and Fell areas provide a vital service to sheep farmers, what use is a drag hunt there !  A few days spent with a hill farmer would be a revelation for many.

I find it alarming and disappointing that so many 'horse' people have concept, understanding or respect regarding farming, land management and wildlife conservation.
		
Click to expand...

I live slap bang in the middle of hill farming country and several of my friends are sheep farmers. I'm not sure what services you think that a fox hunt provides that a drag hunt doesn't, AA, but both the ones I hunted with have a meat run and slaughter service.

Surely you aren't another poster who is going to pretend that the countryside cannot exist without fox hunting even though there are large areas of the countryside like mine which have never had it?


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I see no reason why a landowner would want to allow a load of joy riders to trash acres of land for no good reason.
		
Click to expand...

They like seeing hunts on their land,  as hunts hunting trails within the law and drag hunts and bloodhound packs show. But maybe those followers are more careful than fox hunts, because I'm sure if we 'trashed acres of land' we would not be welcome again.

I love your pejorative use of the term joy riders to describe legal hunters of all kinds.  Are you suggesting that the riders following a fox hunt are somehow essential to controlling fox, and therefore not joy riders?


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

Isbister said:



			Good answer. CPT strikes me as rather troll-like, obsessed by drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...


Love it, I'm an obsessed troll and the other people who keep posting are what, exactly  ?

Drag hunting and legal trail hunting are the same thing. There is no more reason for one to kill foxes than the other. My obsession lies in correcting the erroneous impression you pro hunting people like to give that trail hunts somehow can't help but 'accidentally' catch fox. And if people keep insisting that it's true, I'll keep insisting that it's not until you give me a really good reason why drag packs don't kill fox while trail hunters using the same type of hounds can't stop them.

We're all here for the discussion, I'm rather enjoying seeing the creative excuses for breaking the law and for wanting it repealed.


----------



## AdorableAlice (4 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I live slap bang in the middle of hill farming country and several of my friends are sheep farmers. I'm not sure what services you think that a fox hunt provides that a drag hunt doesn't, AA, but both the ones I hunted with have a meat run and slaughter service.

Surely you aren't another poster who is going to pretend that the countryside cannot exist without fox hunting even though there are large areas of the countryside like mine which have never had it?
		
Click to expand...

There is a very distinct service that a drag hunt does not provide and living in a hill farming community I would have thought you can see that.

Please tell me why a landowner should welcome a drag hunt ? what benefit is there to the landowner ?


----------



## twiggy2 (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			The problem with debates surrounding hunting is so few people are fully aware of everything that surrounds hunting.  Land management, covert laying, hedging, fencing, fallen stock, PM facilities, employment across a massive spectrum etc etc.  

For instance hunting in Moorland and Fell areas provide a vital service to sheep farmers, what use is a drag hunt there !  A few days spent with a hill farmer would be a revelation for many.

I find it alarming and disappointing that so many 'horse' people have no concept, understanding or respect regarding farming, land management and wildlife conservation.
		
Click to expand...

why do you think fox hunting provides more of the above than drag hunting?

the 2 hunts near me do not provide any service other than shooting a horse and removing the body for hound meat-I have no criticism of them for this they provide a fantastic service and they are kind, caring and very professional-that said wether the hounds hunt fox or follow a sent they still need to eat


----------



## Lizzie66 (4 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Drag hunting and legal trail hunting are the same thing. There is no more reason for one to kill foxes than the other. My obsession lies in correcting the erroneous impression you pro hunting people like to give that trail hunts somehow can't help but 'accidentally' catch fox. And if people keep insisting that it's true, I'll keep insisting that it's not until you give me a really good reason why drag packs don't kill fox while trail hunters using the same type of hounds can't stop them.

We're all here for the discussion, I'm rather enjoying seeing the creative excuses for breaking the law and for wanting it repealed.
		
Click to expand...

Drag hunting use hounds that are not bred to follow a fox scent but generally from what I understand an aniseed based one. Fox hounds follow a scent based on the fox (generally urine) which is what they have been bred to follow. It is therefore more likely that fox hounds will find it more difficult to distinguish the scent they are following from that of a genuine fox. 

We are not breaking the law, the law allows us to follow an artificially laid scent. If accidents happen then this is obviously regrettable but it is not against the law.

No excuses, no creativity, none needed.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

[Q uoTE=Lizzie66;12718152]Drag hunting use hounds that are not bred to follow a fox scent but generally from what I understand an aniseed based one. Fox hounds follow a scent based on the fox (generally urine) which is what they have been bred to follow. It is therefore more likely that fox hounds will find it more difficult to distinguish the scent they are following from that of a genuine fox. 

We are not breaking the law, the law allows us to follow an artificially laid scent. If accidents happen then this is obviously regrettable but it is not against the law.

No excuses, no creativity, none needed.[/QUOTE]


Drag hunts use fox hounds. Drag hounds also find fox from time to time, set off in a direction where the trail has not been laid, and are called off.

If hunt fox hounds cannot stick to a fox scent trail laid artificially, then why, by now, ten years after the ban and with whole new sets of hounds, have hunts not switched to a scent  that will reliably prevent them from killing fox?  

And end forever any confusion whatsoever which hunts are and are not hunting within the law?

It seems to me that what is needed is not a repeal of the law, but an addition to the law to make it illegal to use a scent which is not easy to distinguish from a live fox.  I understood  the argument ten years ago that hunts expected a repeal and did not want the hounds to lose the skill, but there is no repeal in sight and they have now trained a whole new set of hounds. Time to live within the spirit of the law and stop making excuses for continuing to hunt fox with hounds, legally 'by accident'  or otherwise.


----------



## AdorableAlice (4 December 2014)

I was hoping someone had answered my question.  Why would a landowner want the hunt across when they are not providing a service.

Lots of experts discussing hunting, yet no one is able to tell me how the farmer benefits from drag hunting.


----------



## bakewell (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I was hoping someone had answered my question.  Why would a landowner want the hunt across when they are not providing a service.

Lots of experts discussing hunting, yet no one is able to tell me how the farmer benefits from drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the benefit is less tangible, more that it preserves (in a slightly modern form) a tradition. There's not much tradition left in the countryside (comparatively, through economic factors), yet many farms are passed down through families. It could be a relatively harmless way to maintain that link to the past.

(Asides from the services that the hunt provide eg taking aborted/ still born calves which is of economic benefit)


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I was hoping someone had answered my question.  Why would a landowner want the hunt across when they are not providing a service.

Lots of experts discussing hunting, yet no one is able to tell me how the farmer benefits from drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that the Cheshire Bloodhounds pay farmers for the privilege of crossing their land. I don't know if this is common practice or not.

http://m.cheshirebloodhounds.co.uk/Home.html


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I was hoping someone had answered my question.  Why would a landowner want the hunt across when they are not providing a service.

Lots of experts discussing hunting, yet no one is able to tell me how the farmer benefits from drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...


For the Cheshire, which was the Cheshire Farmer's and the North East Cheshire, both those drags offered the farmers exactly the same fallen stock service as a fox hunt does.  As I have already told you.

You would need to ask some land owners why they like to see riders on their land, but they do, as widespread legal trail hunting, drag hunting and blood hound hunting shows.


----------



## AdorableAlice (4 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You would need to ask some land owners why they like to see a riders on their land, but they do, as widespread legal trail hunting, drag hunting and blood hound hunting shows.
		
Click to expand...

If you believe that, you are best left in your own world.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			If you believe that, you are best left in your own world.
		
Click to expand...



I don't understand you Alice. I have drag hunted in at least five counties with four different hunts, and quite often land owners and their families come and stand in their yards as we all file past so that they can watch us. 

How would you interpret the fact the land owners allow drag hunts on their land than that they like to see us there?  After all, unlike fox hunts which not infrequently trespass if the hounds are on the scent of a fox, drag hunts only ever go where they are welcome. 

I'm completely confused why you think it odd that I believe that people who invite me to ride on their land actually want me to be there. Can you explain?


----------



## twiggy2 (4 December 2014)

AdorableAlice said:



			I was hoping someone had answered my question.  Why would a landowner want the hunt across when they are not providing a service.

Lots of experts discussing hunting, yet no one is able to tell me how the farmer benefits from drag hunting.
		
Click to expand...

tradition is what our yard owner says but she does not know one end of a horse from the other


----------



## Lizzie66 (4 December 2014)

You seem to have finally admitted that generally we are hunting within the law but that you aren't happy with the law as it stands.

Surprise, surprise neither are we !!

We want it repealing, you want it strengthening. Lets hope animal welfare prevails.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			You seem to have finally admitted that generally we are hunting within the law but that you aren't happy with the law as it stands.

Surprise, surprise neither are we !!

We want it repealing, you want it strengthening. Lets hope animal welfare prevails.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't changed my stance at all.

Some  hunts are hunting within the spirit of the law.

Some hunts are pushing the boundaries of the law and don't mind if they catch fox as long as the law does not catch them.

Some hunts, more than a few I believe, are completely ignoring the ban, or deliberately laying very weak trails so that they have an excuse to catch fox.

That was my position at the beginning and it is still my position now.


----------



## Lizzie66 (4 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I haven't changed my stance at all.

Some  hunts are hunting within the spirit of the law.

Some hunts are pushing the boundaries of the law and don't mind if they catch fox as long as the law does not catch them.

Some hunts, more than a few I believe, are completely ignoring the ban, or deliberately laying very weak trails so that they have an excuse to catch fox.

That was my position at the beginning and it is still my position now.
		
Click to expand...

Your stance at the beginning was that most hunts were hunting illegally. You have gradually with pushing admitted that we are laying trails and are therefore by default making an attempt to hunt within the law.

You keep going on about the spirit of the law, which is a flawed concept as the spirit of this law was spite. The original aim and therefore to my mind the spirit that should be behind it was animal welfare and until it becomes this I will continue to follow it to the letter as I really dislike spite.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2014)

No, my stance has not changed one iota.  If you read otherwise into what I wrote, it was not what I meant.


----------



## a7neu (7 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Evolution ensures the survival of the best, it does not, in the case of the fox population, need any help from man. Do you think the fox population think that bigger, faster foxes is in some way 'good'?

That's an entirely artificial construct dreamed up by man.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really fair to say. Predation is an important factor of natural selection in the vast majority of the natural world. I imagine it played a role in fox ecology until wolves were extirpated from Great Britain ~500 years ago. I know in Yellowstone Park in the USA, wolves were found to be an important factor in coyote mortality and density. I would think hunting with hounds mimics the selective pressures that foxes lost due to human intervention better than any other kind of population control.


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2014)

a7neu said:



			I don't think that's really fair to say. Predation is an important factor of natural selection in the vast majority of the natural world. I imagine it played a role in fox ecology until wolves were extirpated from Great Britain ~500 years ago. I know in Yellowstone Park in the USA, wolves were found to be an important factor in coyote mortality and density. I would think hunting with hounds mimics the selective pressures that foxes lost due to human intervention better than any other kind of population control.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes are among the most adaptive mammals alive. They do not need any help from man to ensure that the breed stays strong. Farmers need to cull them when they target livestock, some urban areas need to control them to stop them raiding dustbins, but to suggest that the species needs assistance in any evolutionary sense, especially by hunting with hounds, seems rather a weak argument to me, sorry.


----------



## respectedpony driver (7 December 2014)

It is wrong to chase one animal with another animal for fun.It is sick.


----------



## twiggy2 (7 December 2014)

respectedpony said:



			It is wrong to chase one animal with another animal for fun.It is sick.
		
Click to expand...

well that brings us back down to earth-nice and straight to the point.

what about using one animal to catch another for food?

and some posters are arguing fox hunting is in the interest of foxes (!) as a whole as they say it weeds out the weak and promotes survival of the fittest.


----------



## Countryman (7 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Foxes are among the most adaptive mammals alive. They do not need any help from man to ensure that the breed stays strong. Farmers need to cull them when they target livestock, some urban areas need to control them to stop them raiding dustbins, but to suggest that the species needs assistance in any evolutionary sense, especially by hunting with hounds, seems rather a weak argument to me, sorry.
		
Click to expand...

Do you not believe that in the artificial countryside man has created that we call the British Isles, as the managers of this land and having removed the higher predators and altered the countryside fundamentally, we have a duty to manage the fox population, both to prevent numbers from becoming unacceptably high (for foxes themselves, for other wildlife, and for farmers) and to remove the sick, the old, the wounded and the weak?


----------



## Alec Swan (7 December 2014)

Countryman said:



			Do you not believe that in the artificial countryside man has created that we call the British Isles, as the managers of this land and having removed the higher predators and altered the countryside fundamentally, we have a duty to manage the fox population, both to prevent numbers from becoming unacceptably high (for foxes themselves, for other wildlife, and for farmers) and to remove the sick, the old, the wounded and the weak?
		
Click to expand...

A good post.  The reason why we previously had a healthy vulpine population was because of Hunting.  We protected,  we nurtured and we promoted our quarry.  Now,  or so it seems to me,  no one cares and we shoot them,  regardless of 'season' or apparent need,  and we refer to it as 'management',  even though those who would shoot them see little but the glitter of eyes.  Those who oppose Hunting,  care little for the Fox.

Alec.


----------



## twiggy2 (7 December 2014)

santa's-a-scam said:



			those who oppose hunting,  care little for the fox.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

rubbish


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2014)

And yet again two posters try to make out that the only way to manage the fox population is to hunt it on horseback with a pack of hounds, ignoring the fact that there are large areas of the countryside like my own with healthy fox populations in spite of the fact that the area is not hunted with hounds.

How many more times is this one going to keep coming up,  Countryman and Alec?


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2014)

Countryman said:



			Do you not believe that in the artificial countryside man has created that we call the British Isles, as the managers of this land and having removed the higher predators and altered the countryside fundamentally, we have a duty to manage the fox population, both to prevent numbers from becoming unacceptably high (for foxes themselves, for other wildlife, and for farmers) and to remove the sick, the old, the wounded and the weak?
		
Click to expand...


I do see the point you are trying to make. The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak,  It targets the least physically able (which may simply be the slowest of a perfectly healthy  and fit  number of foxes)  for death, and any fox at all for the chase and for digging out once gone to ground.

On balance, it is  my opinion that it is not in the overall interest of the fox population to hunt with hounds on a week in week out basis. I understand that you will not agree with this, and we need to agree to differ.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.

How many more times is this one going to keep coming up,  Countryman and Alec?
		
Click to expand...

For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense,  which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense,  which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Class ridden biased bigot?  Good God Alec, how incredibly offensive you are


----------



## Palindrome (7 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			For as long as you trot out your promoted and class ridden nonsense,  which supports the biased view of the bigot.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

so ridiculous this class thing, clearly hunting doesn't make you a gentleman going by your post! You are trying too hard really.


----------



## Isbister (7 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak,  ...

On balance, it is  my opinion that it is not in the overall interest of the fox population to hunt with hounds on a week in week out basis.
		
Click to expand...

I have to disagree - I would say that traditional fox hunting targets the sick and weak to a higher degree than the other forms of control - these being shooting, setting snares, or poisoning, none of which is particularly or even at all selective.

One aspect of fox hunting, about which agreement will perhaps always be elusive, is that for those who enjoy it, it is damned good fun - and I suspect that it is that as much as anything else that seems to rile its opponents.


----------



## Mike007 (7 December 2014)

It was the one thing I always found so sad about the kill. How many foxes had shotgun injures or even gangrene.A swift end at least.


----------



## a7neu (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The problem I have is that fox hunting does not target the sick and weak,  It targets the least physically able (which may simply be the slowest of a perfectly healthy  and fit  number of foxes)  for death, and any fox at all for the chase and for digging out once gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...

It targets the foxes that were targeted just 500 years ago in Great Britain by the natural world. I don't see anything wrong with targeting the least physically able animals--they may be least physically able for a reason that can't be detected visually (eg weak heart valve). The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development, so it seems strange to me that you're arguing that foxes that would be selected against naturally in pristine wilderness should be exempt from culling.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

a7neu said:



			It targets the foxes that were targeted just 500 years ago in Great Britain by the natural world. I don't see anything wrong with targeting the least physically able animals--they may be least physically able for a reason that can't be detected visually (eg weak heart valve). The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development, so it seems strange to me that you're arguing that foxes that would be selected against naturally in pristine wilderness should be exempt from culling.
		
Click to expand...


I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the  breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Mike007 said:



			It was the one thing I always found so sad about the kill. How many foxes had shotgun injures or even gangrene.A swift end at least.
		
Click to expand...


I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

a7neu said:



			The goal of wildlife management is to try to retain the natural order in the face of human development.
		
Click to expand...

Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?  

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.


----------



## Countryman (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?  

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.
		
Click to expand...

cptrayes, the problem is it does not matter _to a fox_ whether or not the hounds that effectively check its health every few weeks are doing so for wildlife management, for sport, or for any other reason. What matters is that they do it. However, we are fortunate enough that enough people derive enjoyment enough from riding their horses to keep up with the hounds and see hounds work that we are able to fund the continued management of wild foxes in this way-the incomes of the subscribers and supporters pays for the hounds and huntsman.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the  breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close 

Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.
		
Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?  

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.
		
Click to expand...

The intention is noy just to breed faster, fitter foxes for a good days sport but also for the good of the species. Those with disadvantageous alleles (eg. weak heart, inhibiting conformation etc) are unlikely to survive and reproduce, any offspring of these are highly likely to possess the same disadvantageous allele. Those with advantageous alleles (eg.  stronger/bigger heart for pumping blood and oxygen around the body, stronger/longer legs etc.) are more likely to survive and reproduce offspring possessing similar alleles. This is regardless of hunting or not. Hunting removes the weaker form the population, potentially preventing them from starving to death as they are intraspecifically outcompeted by other foxes for prey and removes intraspecific competition from the healthier/better foxes so that there is not more foxes/predators than available food/prey which would ead to the population struggling or targetting suburban/urban areas for non-natural food "prey"- and I think we all remember how that ended with those twins that were attacked by a fox in their cots.

Do you think the fox (or even badgers) give the same sympathy when they brutally massacre an entire shedfull of chickens? On 5 occasions I have gone out in the morning to find the windows broken and every single one of my chickens with their throats/chest/legs ripped out..and usually only one if any is actually taken to be eaten. I am not a commercial chicken farmer, these were "pets" kept for the fun of eating our own eggs..we don't bother anymore. Their shed was in a large run with an electrified mesh fence just shie of 2 metres high and going just over 2ft underground,

The reason hunting began and continued was/is management...just because people like to follow on horseback doesn't make it any worse.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Can I ask if you believe that the overriding goal of fox hunting is wildlife management?  

Serious question, I'm trying to understand why we can't find agreement.
		
Click to expand...

There is no single 'overriding' reason for Hunting.  It's a package by which those who participate derive pleasure from the many facets,  and they include;  Riding,  watching and appreciating hounds working,  providing a service to Land Owners,  the social gathering of like minded people,  some of whom really only meet in the field,  the correct management of a small but important element of our countryside,  a part of our rural fabric,  and lastly,  because those who ride to Hounds,  enjoy it.  

You will now be arguing,  I expect that all of the reasons for hunting,  in the above paragraph can be sourced whilst allowing the fox to live.  They can't.  If our vulpine population have no natural and selective form of predator,  then as has been very well and clearly pointed out by LRR,  the general well being of our foxes will suffer.  No one,  from a range of 100 yards can decide upon which fox is healthy,  and so is likely to promote their kind,  and the only certain test is that they run before Hounds.  The process of Natural Selection had us with a previously healthy vulpine population.  Now,  because of the changes in our Laws,  I suspect that there are conversely,  a far greater percentage of animals which are unhealthy,  and so reproducing.

You've asked for explanations,  and they've been given by those better qualified than I,  though I would be most surprised to read "Ah,  now I understand",  by way of a response!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Countryman said:



			cptrayes, the problem is it does not matter _to a fox_ whether or not the hounds that effectively check its health every few weeks are doing so for wildlife management, for sport, or for any other reason. What matters is that they do it. However, we are fortunate enough that enough people derive enjoyment enough from riding their horses to keep up with the hounds and see hounds work that we are able to fund the continued management of wild foxes in this way-the incomes of the subscribers and supporters pays for the hounds and huntsman.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but in my opinion it DOES matter. You are basing your sport on conserving one of the most successful, adaptable mammals in animal history. And as far as I am aware, your sport thinks nothing of digging out and killing fit and healthy foxes, which you would let go if you were wholeheartedly interested in conservation, let go.

I struggle to think of a wild animal in this country that has less need of your help., especially since there are very large areas of thIs country, never mind the rest of Europe, where it does not get it.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			The intention is noy just to breed faster, fitter foxes for a good days sport but also for the good of the species. Those with disadvantageous alleles (eg. weak heart, inhibiting conformation etc) are unlikely to survive and reproduce, any offspring of these are highly likely to possess the same disadvantageous allele. Those with advantageous alleles (eg.  stronger/bigger heart for pumping blood and oxygen around the body, stronger/longer legs etc.) are more likely to survive and reproduce offspring possessing similar alleles. This is regardless of hunting or not. Hunting removes the weaker form the population, potentially preventing them from starving to death as they are intraspecifically outcompeted by other foxes for prey and removes intraspecific competition from the healthier/better foxes so that there is not more foxes/predators than available food/prey which would ead to the population struggling or targetting suburban/urban areas for non-natural food "prey"- and I think we all remember how that ended with those twins that were attacked by a fox in their cots.

Do you think the fox (or even badgers) give the same sympathy when they brutally massacre an entire shedfull of chickens? On 5 occasions I have gone out in the morning to find the windows broken and every single one of my chickens with their throats/chest/legs ripped out..and usually only one if any is actually taken to be eaten. I am not a commercial chicken farmer, these were "pets" kept for the fun of eating our own eggs..we don't bother anymore. Their shed was in a large run with an electrified mesh fence just shie of 2 metres high and going just over 2ft underground,

The reason hunting began and continued was/is management...just because people like to follow on horseback doesn't make it any worse.
		
Click to expand...


I find that whole argument completely ridiculous, sorry :'( 

First, I do not and never will compare the morals of  my own behaviour to that of a wild animal. 

Second, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that anyone hunts with the primary intention of creating 'better' versions of one of the most successful mammals in the country.

Third, there are massive land areas where the fox as a species has no such 'help' and yet they survive perfectly well by themselves.

Bigger foxes, surely, are not necessarily an evolutionary advantage because they require more food in a bad winter when it is scarce, and more foxes will die?


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..You are basing your sport on conserving one of the most successful, adaptable mammals in animal history. &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry,  but *successful*,  from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition,  is the wrong word.  They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place,  and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			There is no single 'overriding' reason for Hunting.  It's a package by which those who participate derive pleasure from the many facets,  and they include;  Riding,  watching and appreciating hounds working,  providing a service to Land Owners,  the social gathering of like minded people,  some of whom really only meet in the field,  the correct management of a small but important element of our countryside,  a part of our rural fabric,  and lastly,  because those who ride to Hounds,  enjoy it.  

You will now be arguing,  I expect that all of the reasons for hunting,  in the above paragraph can be sourced whilst allowing the fox to live.  They can't.  If our vulpine population have no natural and selective form of predator,  then as has been very well and clearly pointed out by LRR,  the general well being of our foxes will suffer.  No one,  from a range of 100 yards can decide upon which fox is healthy,  and so is likely to promote their kind,  and the only certain test is that they run before Hounds.  The process of Natural Selection had us with a previously healthy vulpine population.  Now,  because of the changes in our Laws,  I suspect that there are conversely,  a far greater percentage of animals which are unhealthy,  and so reproducing.

You've asked for explanations,  and they've been given by those better qualified than I,  though I would be most surprised to read "Ah,  now I understand",  by way of a response!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well Alec, this argument hinges around whether foxes in the large non hunted areas of this country and Europe are genuinely less healthy than those in hunted areas. Living in one of those areas, I see no evidence for that, and I can find no scientific evidence for that. If you can point me to some where the welfare issue includes the chase in the equation, then I will gladly change my mind and tell you so.

Meanwhile you confuse yet again a lack of understanding with both a lack of evidence on the part of fox hunters, and a lack of agreement on mine. I understand your arguments perfectly. I do not agree with them being justification for hunting with hounds.

You can, and I suspect will, continue to make data-free assertions until the cows come home. When you provide proper evidence then I will support a change in the law, but I will never support a band of people simply choosing to ignore it because it does not suit them  :'(


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			I'm sorry,  but *successful*,  from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition,  is the wrong word.  They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place,  and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Alec, how many more times?  How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I am not against culling, but I am against deliberately causing the  breeding of stronger faster fitter foxes in order to provide a better day's sport for riders and hunt followers, and that is where I believe we are with fox hunting.

I am, however, happy to disagree with you should this thread ever grind to a close 

Click to expand...





cptrayes said:



			I would need to know the statistics on what proportion of kills those were, Mike. And know how far they were chased first. Then compare it to the number of healthy foxes chased and killed, sometimes after being dug out, none of which would I call 'a swift end'.
		
Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			I find that whole argument completely ridiculous, sorry :'( 

First, I do not and never will compare the morals of  my own behaviour to that of a wild animal. 

Second, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that anyone hunts with the primary intention of creating 'better' versions of one of the most successful mammals in the country.

Third, there are massive land areas where the fox as a species has no such 'help' and yet they survive perfectly well by themselves.

Bigger foxes, surely, are not necessarily an evolutionary advantage because they require more food in a bad winter when it is scarce, and more foxes will die?
		
Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			Well Alec, this argument hinges around whether foxes in the large non hunted areas of this country and Europe are genuinely less healthy than those in hunted areas. Living in one of those areas, I see no evidence for that, and I can find no scientific evidence for that. If you can point me to some where the welfare issue includes the chase in the equation, then I will gladly change my mind and tell you so.

Meanwhile you confuse yet again a lack of understanding with both a lack of evidence on the part of fox hunters, and a lack of agreement on mine. I understand your arguments perfectly. I do not agree with them being justification for hunting with hounds.

You can, and I suspect will, continue to make data-free assertions until the cows come home. When you provide proper evidence then I will support a change in the law, but I will never support a band of people simply choosing to ignore it because it does not suit them  :'(
		
Click to expand...




cptrayes said:



			Oh Alec, how many more times?  How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?
		
Click to expand...

Are we to understand that you can observe and analyse every single fox and cub in existence in your area; their size, health, diet, if they are hungry/feeding sufficiently etc etc?

I am not claiming that a bigger fox is necessarily a better fox it was just a an example of something that could be an advantage...besides being bigger may increase its potential as a hunter...possibly

Perhaps you could give us some "proper evidence" for your claims of successful fox populations in uncontrolled large land areas; given that this is your basis for rejecting our responses? 

My earlier argument is based on A-level biology that I have studied, and a discussion I had with a friend (who is neither pro nor anti hunting..they couldn't care less either way) who has a degree and masters in this area of biological science. Nothing adapts/evolves if there is no need. It is not necessarily bigger, fitter foxes that Hunts produce but a healthier population. From my experience Foxes are not often 'dug out' of dens/bolt holes, a healthier/fitter fox will have got a greater distance from hounds reducing the likelihoo of tracing it to its hole.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			I'm sorry,  but *successful*,  from the viewpoint of the ability of the animal to progress and by its own volition,  is the wrong word.  They have *succeeded* because of the management which has been in place,  and for all the reasons which have been previously explained to you.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

precisely


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			Perhaps you could give us some "proper evidence" for your claims of successful fox populations in uncontrolled large land areas; given that this is your basis for rejecting our responses?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not the one asking for a change in the law or breaking the law. If you want to change people's minds, you need evidence.

I have as much 'evidence' for my point of view as you do. I live in an area which is not hunted. Foxes are killed by being shot. I see healthy, fit looking foxes, and healthy looking road kill at close range, on a regular basis. I do not see the weakened, diseased ridden creatures that would be here if your claims of the necessity of conservation were correct.

One of your earlier posts was about the amount of damage a big, strong fox did to your  fortified hen coop. Do you see the irony in using increasing the strength of the species as a reason to hunt them?


----------



## Lizzie66 (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Oh Alec, how many more times?  How then, do they succeed, as they do, in areas which are not hunted?
		
Click to expand...

You haven't said the area in which you live so any suggestions we make will be possibilities. You have said they succeed but you have equally admitted that your idea of succeed may be different to ours. Equally we are only 10 years on and evolution doesn't happen over night so any effect of not hunting with hounds will not have manifested itself in the fox population yet. You have said you live in a relatively remote area with wide areas uninhabited, management of wildlife is most needed where man and animals interact as this is where domesticated animals are more plentiful and therefore at greater risk to predators that are not fit/healthy enough to hunt more natural prey. Therefore if you are in a remote area management of the fox population may not be as essential as it is in other areas

With regard to how many more times, I would imagine that Alec feels as though he is hitting his head against a brick wall. We keep trying and you keep putting forward emotional rhetoric rather than looking at the facts and making your decision based on logic. 

There two main options control or don't control, if you are in the camp of the latter then the debate is at an end. If in the former then there are further options and it then comes down to which option (s) are the best in terms of animal welfare

SHOOT WITH RIFLE
pros: if shot cleanly then will know nothing about it so no cruelty
cons: not selective so it will literally be any fox that the hunter comes across, if not shot cleanly then it could take days to die so this would potentially be quite cruel


WITH HOUNDS
pros: fox will either be caught or get away, definitely no lingering death, selective in that healthier and fitter foxes are likely to escape
cons: kill would not be wholly immediate although likely to be less than 20 seconds, the fox would be subject to a chase which may cause some distress (scientific evidence of this is unclear)

ALTERNATE
pros: ??
cons: shotgun - unlikely to be clean as it is highly unlikely you would be close enough for an outright kill, snare - painful lingering death also indiscriminate, poison - as per snare

My personal preference is for hunting with hounds, its outcome is more absolute and it is a more natural form of control. However that is not to say that other methods should not be used in conjunction. As with all wildlife management it would be a question of looking at the individual areas and deciding on the best method for that area.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			One of your earlier posts was about the amount of damage a big, strong fox did to your  fortified hen coop. Do you see the irony in using increasing the strength of the species as a reason to hunt them?
		
Click to expand...

I did not describe the fox in question  and was just pointing out that hunting is no different to what they do. I am not arguing for an increase in "strength" as you call ( by this I assume you mean how strong it is and how capable it is of breaking through wire mesh) but for the improvement in health of the wider fox population as a whole. A better fox is able to hunt natural prey eg. rabbits more successfully. And so on from this it protects livestock.  

But still you are unable to observe every fox in existence, you can account fr the foxes you have seen and by your account they are healthy (did you carry out a full examination or just see them as you went past? ...I expect the latter). I on the other hand have seen on our farm mostly mange and flea-ridden vermin who have resorted  to targetting new-born calves (mostly unsuccessfully) and deadstock, on this basis I will not assume they are capable of hunting sufficient, natural prey. Preban we only saw one or two (there are potentially more ou there), very fine specimens that one can only admire compared to the pathetic looking population that is at least trebled in size.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

Lizzie66 said:



			You haven't said the area in which you live so any suggestions we make will be possibilities. You have said they succeed but you have equally admitted that your idea of succeed may be different to ours. Equally we are only 10 years on and evolution doesn't happen over night so any effect of not hunting with hounds will not have manifested itself in the fox population yet. You have said you live in a relatively remote area with wide areas uninhabited, management of wildlife is most needed where man and animals interact as this is where domesticated animals are more plentiful and therefore at greater risk to predators that are not fit/healthy enough to hunt more natural prey. Therefore if you are in a remote area management of the fox population may not be as essential as it is in other areas

With regard to how many more times, I would imagine that Alec feels as though he is hitting his head against a brick wall. We keep trying and you keep putting forward emotional rhetoric rather than looking at the facts and making your decision based on logic. 

There two main options control or don't control, if you are in the camp of the latter then the debate is at an end. If in the former then there are further options and it then comes down to which option (s) are the best in terms of animal welfare

SHOOT WITH RIFLE
pros: if shot cleanly then will know nothing about it so no cruelty
cons: not selective so it will literally be any fox that the hunter comes across, if not shot cleanly then it could take days to die so this would potentially be quite cruel


WITH HOUNDS
pros: fox will either be caught or get away, definitely no lingering death, selective in that healthier and fitter foxes are likely to escape
cons: kill would not be wholly immediate although likely to be less than 20 seconds, the fox would be subject to a chase which may cause some distress (scientific evidence of this is unclear)

ALTERNATE
pros: ??
cons: shotgun - unlikely to be clean as it is highly unlikely you would be close enough for an outright kill, snare - painful lingering death also indiscriminate, poison - as per snare

My personal preference is for hunting with hounds, its outcome is more absolute and it is a more natural form of control. However that is not to say that other methods should not be used in conjunction. As with all wildlife management it would be a question of looking at the individual areas and deciding on the best method for that area.
		
Click to expand...


Lizzie you are far more eloquent than I, and I think this is an excellent summary.

Can I just say I'm sat next to Alec banging my head against the same brick wall


----------



## Maesfen (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			Lizzie you are far more eloquent than I, and I think this is an excellent summary.

Can I just say I'm sat next to Alec banging my head against the same brick wall 

Click to expand...

That brick wall had better be a long one as I'm cramming in too!


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

Maesfen said:



			That brick wall had better be a long one as I'm cramming in too!
		
Click to expand...

Oh sure Maesfen, theres always room for one more...budge up Alec!


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

This is a good summary Lizzie, but I have clearly stated that I live in an area of hill sheep farming where foxes are controlled by shooting. 

As a summary, it is incomplete.  I would need to see the analysis of how many foxes there are in an area which have been encouraged to be there in order to give hunts something to provide them with sport every week. If those numbers are artificially high,  (And I have seen hunting people write that there are more foxes in hunted areas than in other areas) then more foxes would be being killed than would otherwise be necessary. Cub hunting would suggest that this is the case, otherwise hunts would not wipe out entire families of cubs all in one go as they do.  Cub hunting, where fox cubs trapped inside a wood are killed, rather destroys your selection of the weakest argument as well.

I have not used emotional rhetoric. Alec, though, has at times been bordering on the poetic . And none of you have given verifiable facts, you have given your opinions, which is just what I am doing too.

I respect your preference for hunting with hounds but I do not respect anyone's right to do it by breaking the law.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			I did not describe the fox in question  and was just pointing out that hunting is no different to what they do. I am not arguing for an increase in "strength" as you call ( by this I assume you mean how strong it is and how capable it is of breaking through wire mesh) but for the improvement in health of the wider fox population as a whole. A better fox is able to hunt natural prey eg. rabbits more successfully. And so on from this it protects livestock.  

But still you are unable to observe every fox in existence, you can account fr the foxes you have seen and by your account they are healthy (did you carry out a full examination or just see them as you went past? ...I expect the latter). I on the other hand have seen on our farm mostly mange and flea-ridden vermin who have resorted  to targetting new-born calves (mostly unsuccessfully) and deadstock, on this basis I will not assume they are capable of hunting sufficient, natural prey. Preban we only saw one or two (there are potentially more ou there), very fine specimens that one can only admire compared to the pathetic population that is at least trebled in size.
		
Click to expand...


If this is true then your answer is really very simple. Pay for a truly independent study of the health of the fox population post ban, and use the result of that study to campaign on animal welfare grounds for hunting with hounds to be resumed in say, three trial areas, and redo the study at the end of a suitable period. It should then be perfectly obvious to everyone that hunting should be allowed, and I would be more than happy to support you in that.

Meanwhile, the law exists and should be obeyed. And I remain puzzled by the number of born and bred country folk who do not agree with you that the law should be repealed.

And I'd have a LOT more respect for your animal welfare claims if you were also campaigning against snares, which seem to me, as I've said before, to be the instrument of the devil.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

And I'd have a LOT more respect for your animal welfare claims if you were also campaigning against snares, which seem to me, as I've said before, to be the instrument of the devil.[/QUOTE]


When did I ever say I was in favour of snares???
I think they are horrific.(asides from mouse traps)
Now you are making assumptions about my character based on my opinion on one subject. 

We are fully aware that it is the law and the law is to be obeyed....we are arguing that it is a RIDICULOUS piece of legislation founded in spite.

I shall now return to my spot next to Alec and Maesfen, banging my head against a brick wall and contemplating the best way to monitor all Hackney Carriages (better known as Taxis) to ensure they are still carrying bales of hay....since this is still law and must be obeyed


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Class ridden biased bigot?  Good God Alec, how incredibly offensive you are 

Click to expand...

With your express permission,  I'll post a PM which you sent to me (I'll check first that I'm permitted so to do),  and your courteous and well mannered approach may well be in doubt!    I'll accept that on occasion I copulate,  and also that my parents weren't married,  but playing the part of the wounded reminds me of a line from Shakespeare,  'Me thinks she doth protest too much'! 

Your constant requests for affirmation of the experiences of those who Hunt,  receive well written and explained responses,  but you continue to argue with the puerile approach of a child.  Your claimed for experiences will raise more than an eyebrow or two,  your statements of fact are really quite ludicrous and in the main,  borne of ignorance.  Were you not using your own name,  then there would be some justification in wondering at your intent.  Your apparent and obvious lack of knowledge,  despite your claims to the contrary,  remind me of the child,  who when arguing,  rather than learning and assimilating any degree of understanding,  replies with a near constant stream of "Yeah,  Buts"!!  Your approach to this discussion is reaching the point where you stand every chance of becoming a target for the humour of those who you contradict,  and for that reason,  I shall now withdraw,  finally.  I suspect that you live in a world which is inhabited by very few others.

Not that you're in the mood to accept advice,  but in your shoes I'd stick to those clerical aspects of life about which you can speak with experience,  rather than hypothesised nonsense!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			With your express permission,  I'll post a PM which you sent to me (I'll check first that I'm permitted so to do),  and your courteous and well mannered approach may well be in doubt!    I'll accept that on occasion I copulate,  and also that my parents weren't married,  but playing the part of the wounded reminds me of a line from Shakespeare,  'Me thinks she doth protest too much'! 

Your constant requests for affirmation of the experiences of those who Hunt,  receive well written and explained responses,  but you continue to argue with the puerile approach of a child.  Your claimed for experiences will raise more than an eyebrow or two,  your statements of fact are really quite ludicrous and in the main,  borne of ignorance.  Were you not using your own name,  then there would be some justification in wondering at your intent.  Your apparent and obvious lack of knowledge,  despite your claims to the contrary,  remind me of the child,  who when arguing,  rather than learning and assimilating any degree of understanding,  replies with a near constant stream of "Yeah,  Buts"!!  Your approach to this discussion is reaching the point where you stand every chance of becoming a target for the humour of those who you contradict,  and for that reason,  I shall now withdraw,  finally.  I suspect that you live in a world which is inhabited by very few others.

Not that you're in the mood to accept advice,  but in your shoes I'd stick to those clerical aspects of life about which you can speak with experience,  rather than hypothesised nonsense!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec that pm had no words in it and it called you an effin b in the title, which was a direct response to the fact that you not only repeated on this forum something that I had expressly asked you not to, but refused and still refuse to acknowledge what you had done, and even attempted to blame me.

I have no objection to being called names in response to poor behaviour, if it warrants it, but not in response simply to holding different views to yours.

To read this diatribe you have written, one would think that not one single farmer, worker or lifelong inhabitant in the countryside disagrees with fox hunting. 

Enough with the pathetic personal insults please.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			When did I ever say I was in favour of snares???
		
Click to expand...


When did I ever say you were?


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And I'd have a LOT more respect for your animal welfare claims if you were also campaigning against snares,
		
Click to expand...

^^^^  What is this if not implying I am in favour of them


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			^^^^  What is this if not implying I am in favour of them?
		
Click to expand...

It's saying that for all the claims of having the welfare of the fox high on the list of priorities, I have yet to see any fox hunter campaign in even the slightest way against snares. And that I would, as stated, have a lot more respect for those claims if I did.

It does not, and was not intended to imply that anyone on this thread is in favour of them.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

Since this thread has refused to die a decent death, can I thank those people who have engaged in a civil argument.  

To clarify my own position, which has indeed been modified a little, just in case anyone cares  

1. I have some sympathy with the animal welfare argument. But I would require much more investigation and and evaluation of ALL factors (including horse and hound welfare and that of the species which fox eat, like rabbit)  produced by an independent source to be convinced. But if the argument was convincing, then I would fully support a repeal of the act excluding cubbing.

2. I cannot imagine any argument which would persuade me to back cubbing, the trapping of cubs inside a covert so that the young hounds can be put in to kill them. 

3. I do not find the conservation argument at all convincing. Foxes are wonderfully adaptive creatures and I do not believe that they need man's help to survive as a species. I would need evidence that both urban and non hunted country fox populations were so low in number and/or health that the species was at risk before I could accept fox hunting for reasons of conservation.

Thanks again to the people who have spent their time explaining their undoubted commitment to their sport and to the countryside.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It's saying that for all the claims of having the welfare of the fox high on the list of priorities, I have yet to see any fox hunter campaign in even the slightest way against snares. And that I would, as stated, have a lot more respect for those claims if I did.

It does not, and was not intended to imply that anyone on this thread is in favour of them.
		
Click to expand...

..And how precisely is this relevant to the discussion?


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Since this thread has refused to die a decent death, can I thank those people who have engaged in a civil argument.  

To clarify my own position, which has indeed been modified a little, just in case anyone cares  

1. I have some sympathy with the animal welfare argument. But I would require much more investigation and and evaluation of ALL factors (including horse and hound welfare and that of the species which fox eat, like rabbit)  produced by an independent source to be convinced. But if the argument was convincing, then I would fully support a repeal of the act excluding cubbing.

2. I cannot imagine any argument which would persuade me to back cubbing, the trapping of cubs inside a covert so that the young hounds can be put in to kill them. 

3. I do not find the conservation argument at all convincing. Foxes are wonderfully adaptive creatures and I do not believe that they need man's help to survive as a species. I would need evidence that both urban and non hunted country fox populations were so low in number and/or health that the species was at risk before I could accept fox hunting for reasons of conservation.

Thanks again to the people who have spent their time explaining their undoubted commitment to their sport and to the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean by a decent death, bowed down to your 'superior morality'? That it certainly not happened and quite frankly I find this particular post arrogant and rude. I have no problem with differing opinions (as I have previously stated), but I cannot stand it when people are condescending.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2014)

LittleRoodolphRider said:



			Do you mean by a decent death, bowed down to your 'superior morality'? That it certainly not happened and quite frankly I find this particular post arrogant and rude. I have no problem with differing opinions (as I have previously stated), but I cannot stand it when people are condescending.
		
Click to expand...


I can't win with you can I?. I try to have a sensible discussion, I thank people for their efforts, I agree to differ, but all you want to do is trade insults 

You are so determined to see insult in what I write that I could say snow is white and coal is black and you'd either say, actually, they're both grey sometimes, or call me a racist


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. , I have yet to see any fox hunter campaign in even the slightest way against snares. And that I would, as stated, have a lot more respect for those claims if I did.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect you to hang on my every word,  indeed the reverse may well be the truth,  but had you through previous discussions read of my views on snaring,  whilst not actively 'campaigning',  you would have read of my revulsion of the practice.  I am totally against their use,  and there is no more evil contraption devised by man,  than the snare.  I speak with more that a little experience,  for as the years when I worked as a 'keeper,  I killed foxes in their hundreds and by snaring.  I now see it as a disgusting practice.  It's illegal to set snares with the intention of catching deer,  so why is it legal for foxes?  Another opinion that I've also voiced and always have,  is that when a fox finds sanctuary underground,  and when sport is the only intention,  then he should be given best.

Equally,  I have shot a great many foxes too,  some driven to shotguns,  and some shot with a rifle.  There have been very few which I've wounded and lost,  but none the less,  and however few,  I've wondered how their time ended.  I've never yet known a fox to die a lingering death,  with hounds.  It's all but instant.

Not common ground,  but an acceptance that we don't live in a perfect world!

Alec.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (8 December 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I can't win with you can I?. I try to have a sensible discussion, I thank people for their efforts, I agree to differ, but all you want to do is trade insults 

You are so determined to see insult in what I write that I could say snow is white and coal is black and you'd either say, actually, they're both grey sometimes, or call me a racist 

Click to expand...

Um..this is the first time I have noted an insult, and I try to rub along with everybody. Can't say I have ever seen grey coal


----------



## Goldenstar (8 December 2014)

Just because people don't actively campaign for something does not mean they don't think it is wrong .
Personally I loath snares and think there's no place for them and Larsen traps I hate them too, I had a huge battle with a keeper who thought it was his right to put Larsen traps of our land polite requests yielded nothing , so I started releasing the birds and tossing the traps onto the lane the keeper was purple with rage , I thought I might get shot and that was after he thought it was neighbourly to put guns in one of my grazing fields during a shoot .
My ID at the time sorted that , those men can run in plus fours I'll give them that .


----------



## buzzybef (19 December 2014)

shannonandtay said:



			The people could not have been nicer and I felt, really looked after the kids there on the day, I was very impressed and felt reassured that she would be fine with these exceptional riders.  I personally will never change my opinion but that doesn't mean I go around voicing those opinions or that I couldn't be polite and friendly to those people on the day.  We are probably worlds apart in our views, upbringing etc etc. but it didn't stop us having a very enjoyable time.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting, drag or otherwise, will always stand for one thing. In my opinion if you don't agree with this and the heritage that it represents you shouldn't partake in the substitute.


----------



## marianne1981 (19 December 2014)

buzzybef said:



			Hunting, drag or otherwise, will always stand for one thing. In my opinion if you don't agree with this and the heritage that it represents you shouldn't partake in the substitute.
		
Click to expand...

I would absolutely love to drag hunt, def one of my bucket list things but also am definitely not pro hunt. I have always wondered, are drag hunts full of pro hunters or is it mostly people who dont wish to hunt live quarry?


----------

