# Disgusted at behaviour of the hunt



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

I should start this by saying that though not a hunt follower myself I have always held the view that if people want to hunt thats up to them and I was quite happy to watch an Opening meet and give way to hunt riders if I met them on the road. However today has changed my attitude completely. We rent land in a certain hunt's country. We knew the meet was happening locally but we have always previously been told if they would be hunting near to us and we would bring our horses in from the field. We were not told anything today so left our horses out. However suddenly the hunt appeared, hounds streamed into our field, closely followed by the mounted pack sending our horses into a panic, careering about in the mud. Not one person in the field slowed down or stopped or turned back. It took us running out into the field, in front of the hunt fence waving our arms and telling people to stop and go round. We did not get a single apology and it was only with great reluctance that the rest of the field went round, despite the fact it was only a very short detour.

Why are hunt followers so arrogant, selfish and inconsiderate? Our horses could have been injured galloping about loose like that. Would the hunt pay our vets bills? 

As I said prior to this we were very much live and let live but after this I am very much anti hunt and have written an email to the hunt requesting that they never go on our land again.

It will be interesting to read any replies to this post and see if anyone leaps to these arrogant hunting folks defence. To me there is no defence to behaviour like this and I would certainly support the hunt ban being maintained and strengthened in the future.


----------



## Meandtheboys (26 December 2011)

Shocking behaviour.............but does it suprise me?

NOPE..................say no more!!


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

I should add that they were also blatantly hunting a fox and not following a pre laid trail. Negligent and criminal behaviour all rolled into one.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I should start this by saying that though not a hunt follower myself I have always held the view that if people want to hunt thats up to them and I was quite happy to watch an Opening meet and give way to hunt riders if I met them on the road. However today has changed my attitude completely. We rent land in a certain hunt's country. We knew the meet was happening locally but we have always previously been told if they would be hunting near to us and we would bring our horses in from the field. We were not told anything today so left our horses out. However suddenly the hunt appeared, hounds streamed into our field, closely followed by the mounted pack sending our horses into a panic, careering about in the mud. Not one person in the field slowed down or stopped or turned back. It took us running out into the field, in front of the hunt fence waving our arms and telling people to stop and go round. We did not get a single apology and it was only with great reluctance that the rest of the field went round, despite the fact it was only a very short detour.

Why are hunt followers so arrogant, selfish and inconsiderate? Our horses could have been injured galloping about loose like that. Would the hunt pay our vets bills? 

As I said prior to this we were very much live and let live but after this I am very much anti hunt and have written an email to the hunt requesting that they never go on our land again.

It will be interesting to read any replies to this post and see if anyone leaps to these arrogant hunting folks defence. To me there is no defence to behaviour like this and I would certainly support the hunt ban being maintained and strengthened in the future.
		
Click to expand...

I think you may be a Troll but will give you the benefit of the doubt

I am a bit unclear as to whether they were actually in the field with your horses and whether they have historically been able to hunt on your land? 

I can understand why you are upset but it could just have been a communication fail between the hunt and you. While not in any way nice for you (hope the ponies are OK) it may just be a case of human error, it happens sometimes!


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I should add that they were also blatantly hunting a fox and not following a pre laid trail. Negligent and criminal behaviour all rolled into one.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have proof of that?


----------



## SusieT (26 December 2011)

Do you normally let the hunt in? Where they in the fields that had horses in?


----------



## qaz (26 December 2011)

We have exactly the same problem. Last time we had stallions turned out and the hounds were in their paddocks. We had a lot of damage to horses and fencing. Not one apology from the hunt.


----------



## Maesfen (26 December 2011)

If you knew they were meeting locally then it's only common sense to keep your horses in, your responsibility.  In cases like this it's sometimes better to let them carry on through and get out of the way as quickly as possible whereas you careering around stopping things only made it last that much longer.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			Do you have proof of that?

Click to expand...

I can assure you I am not a troll just furious and upset that our horses were put at risk.

Proof - well I saw the fox about 50 yards from where I was standing. It then ran off across my field followed a couple of minutes later by the hounds, and then the mounted field.

As I said in my first post I was quite happy with the hunt to do their thing, even went to the opening meet and know quite a few folk that hunt. We are newish to the area and hunting has never been my thing but I understand why people do it and enjoy it. However surely it is simply consideration not to jump into and gallop through fields that have horses in?

The fact they are illegally hunting is a not very guarded secret and as I had never actually witnessed it myself before I was prepared to ignore it, however now I have seen it blatantly done in front of me and on my land, endangering my horses I am no longer prepared to sit back quietly


----------



## Fiagai (26 December 2011)

You get what you deserve... ?

The behaviour you describe is of course not excusable. It would hope it not happen with my local
 pack.  I would suggest for a proper response - contact your local secretary - as you have said they usually notify you. I am sure this would be a more suitable method of informing the relevant persons so that they are informed of the circumstances.

I note that you have stated that you are not anti- hunthoqever however your moniker and last post seems to slightly contradict 
this. How in the world do you know they were hunting a fox? This and a number of other media reports today appear to be eerily similar....I really do hope this is not the case.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Maesfen said:



			If you knew they were meeting locally then it's only common sense to keep your horses in, your responsibility.  In cases like this it's sometimes better to let them carry on through and get out of the way as quickly as possible whereas you careering around stopping things only made it last that much longer.
		
Click to expand...

Our horses have always been fine with the hunt going past in the neighbouring fields. But its a very different story when the hounds and field actually jump into the field with the horses. Why did the hunt not tell me they wanted to come into that field? Surely if they are laying a scent trail they know exactly which fields they will be riding in? I was shocked that they actually jumped into the field with the horses in. I honestly thought they would go round, as they always have in the past.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			You get what you deserve... ?

The behaviour you describe is of course not excusable. It would hope it not happen with my local
 pack.  I would suggest for a proper response - contact your local secretary - as you have said they usually notify you. I am sure this would be a more suitable method of informing the relevant persons so that they are informed of the circumstances.

I note that you have stated that you are not anti- hunthoqever however your moniker and last post seems to slightly contradict 
this. How in the world do you know they were hunting a fox? This and a number of other media reports today appear to be eerily similar....I really do hope this is not the case.
		
Click to expand...

I saw the fox - simple as. No trail was laid in our field. The hounds were on the scent of the fox. Everyone knows it goes on. The Hunting Act is unenforceable as the hunts know. If it gets repealed then fair enough. As I said I've always been live and let live. But this behaviour today has made me so angry that the hunt has lost my tolerance.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I can assure you I am not a troll just furious and upset that our horses were put at risk.

Proof - well I saw the fox about 50 yards from where I was standing. It then ran off across my field followed a couple of minutes later by the hounds, and then the mounted field.

As I said in my first post I was quite happy with the hunt to do their thing, even went to the opening meet and know quite a few folk that hunt. We are newish to the area and hunting has never been my thing but I understand why people do it and enjoy it. However surely it is simply consideration not to jump into and gallop through fields that have horses in?

The fact they are illegally hunting is a not very guarded secret and as I had never actually witnessed it myself before I was prepared to ignore it, however now I have seen it blatantly done in front of me and on my land, endangering my horses I am no longer prepared to sit back quietly
		
Click to expand...

When i say "proof" i mean something that would stand up in court?

Yes it would be inconsiderate for them to jump into fields when there are horses in there, but i would hope this was not standard practice? I would contact the hunt directly and ask them why you were not informed and the problems you encountered as a result. It would be interesting to hear the response you get. These people are normally horse folk so i would hope they would be upset with the fact they put your horses in danger and also make sure that it never happened again


----------



## HeatherAnn (26 December 2011)

So, before this incident you were neither for or anti hunt, but now, because they entered your field you are beyond outraged that they are supposedly doing something illegal. What happened to you was unfortunate however, it does not give you the right to become Captain Anti-Hunt. Just go have a mince pie and enjoy the rest of Christmas. Your horse weren't hurt so why all the bother?


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			When i say "proof" i mean something that would stand up in court?

Yes it would be inconsiderate for them to jump into fields when there are horses in there, but i would hope this was not standard practice? I would contact the hunt directly and ask them why you were not informed and the problems you encountered as a result. It would be interesting to hear the response you get. These people are normally horse folk so i would hope they would be upset with the fact they put your horses in danger and also make sure that it never happened again



Click to expand...

I have emailed the hunt and await their reponse. Interestingly our landlord has just knocked on my door to have a go at me for being rude to the hunt and that they have the right to go in any field they want when they are chasing a fox. I replied that it goes both ways - if the hunt show consideration and respect to us then we show the same in return but if they are selfish and endanger our animals then we aren't going to stand  by and say nothing.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

HeatherAnn said:



			So, before this incident you were neither for or anti hunt, but now, because they entered your field you are beyond outraged that they are supposedly doing something illegal. What happened to you was unfortunate however, it does not give you the right to become Captain Anti-Hunt. Just go have a mince pie and enjoy the rest of Christmas. Your horse weren't hurt so why all the bother?
		
Click to expand...

TBF i would imagine if this happened to any one of us we would be mighty peeved by it, especially as the horses were put in danger, it isnt cricket but to me it sound more like a lack of communication rather than malice. 

OP is it your land or does it belong to your landlords?


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			TBF i would imagine if this happened to any one of us we would be mighty peeved by it, especially as the horses were put in danger, it isnt cricket but to me it sound more like a lack of communication rather than malice. 

OP is it your land or does it belong to your landlords? 

Click to expand...

We rent the land but why should that make a difference? We pay our rent on time each month. If the hunt had told us they wanted to ride through that particular field today we would have brought our horses in. In the past they have either phoned or called round but no communication at all for todays hunt. Mot malicious, an oversight I am sure but that wouldn't have compensated us should any of our horses have got injured. And surely on seeing horses loose in a field the mounted followers should have had the sense to go round?

The issue of illegal hunting is separate really - as I said I have turned a blind eye to this but hunts cannot be surprised at neutral people turning against them when they behave like this?


----------



## liveryblues (26 December 2011)

"We knew the meet was happening locally but we have always previously been told if they would be hunting near to us and we would bring our horses in from the field. We were not told anything today so left our horses out" Quote...


"We are newish to the area and hunting has never been my thing but I understand why people do it and enjoy it. However surely it is simply consideration not to jump into and gallop through fields that have horses in?" Quote


"Our horses have always been fine with the hunt going past in the neighbouring fields. But its a very different story when the hounds and field actually jump into the field with the horses. Why did the hunt not tell me they wanted to come into that field?"Quote

"Interestingly our landlord has just knocked on my door to have a go at me for being rude to the hunt and that they have the right to go in any field they want when they are chasing a fox."

A few things bother me... how new to the area were you? you say you have always been told in past & brought your horses in... Would that mean they tell you they want to lay a scent through your field?? or were you aware they chased foxes but ignored the law breaking as long as it didnt affect you? You then say your horses have always been fine with the hunt passing in neighbouring fields... so you dont bring them in?? 
If you rent the land surely your landlord gets to decide if he allows the hunt on it?? If he has not informed you of this & your are unhappy about it, I suggest you find land that does not allow the hunt on it??
I would not be happy with the hunt jumping into a field full of my horses either, but if I knew they were hunting locally I would of checked their route with the secretary!
Are you annoyed that they didnt inform you or that they were apparently breaking the law by hunting foxes?


----------



## Fiagai (26 December 2011)

You get what you deserve...

If it is a really a case of miscommunication and they normally contact you I would respond to it in the same way as my experience of driving. 99% of drivers are responsible and considerate and in my experience
 the remaining 1% are the 
exception. I do not therefore 
damn all drivers of motor vehicles
vehicles. I suggest you apply similar logic to your own experience. If they have extended
 consideration to you in the past I am sure the right thing to do would be contact them directly and not take it as a personal affront - which I presume it wasn't meant to be...


----------



## hcm88 (26 December 2011)

I understand your anger and yes perhaps it is inconsiderate to jump into a field with horses turned out in it - I certainly wouldn't as a keen hunter, BUT it's Boxing Day today! They may not have let you know as normal but surely it's common sense that if your land is usually hunt route then there's a high possibility of them coming through it on one of the most popular hunt days of the year? I make sure all my horses are in every Boxing Day/Opening meet etc just in case it does enter my fields.

Also to accuse them of illegally hunting is quite a serious issue. It's clear that you are angry and understandably so, but don't let that mean you accuse and publicly say things you wouldnt if you werent so.

Hope your horses are ok


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			You get what you deserve...

If it is a really a case of miscommunication and they normally contact you I would respond to it in the same way as my experience of driving. 99% of drivers are responsible and considerate and in my experience
 the remaining 1% are the 
exception. I do not therefore 
damn all drivers of motor vehicles
vehicles. I suggest you apply similar logic to your own experience. If they have extended
 consideration to you in the past I am sure the right thing to do would be contact them directly and not take it as a personal affront - which I presume it wasn't meant to be...
		
Click to expand...

We've been here a couple of years. When we first moved in I assumed that all hunting was done by laying a trail. It's only been this season when I've heard people talk and say that foxes are actually hunted. I was thinking of going cub hunting this year until someone told me it wasn't done by laying a trail. I personally dont want to hunt live animals so didnt go. If people want to do that and risk prosecution thats up to them. 

I was extremely upset when I wrote my original post. I love my horses and lost one this time last year, which makes me extra sensitive I guess. Seeing our herd flying round the field, slipping and sliding and getting very stressed was extremely upsetting. During past hunts the field have galloped in the next door field and our horses have watched alert but not reacted so we had no reason to think they would behave any differently should the field pass close by again. Even as I saw the hounds come into the field I did not expect the mounted followers to jump in after them. I even said to my friend - its okay, they'll go round, they won't jump into a field with loose horses' - but I was sadly proved very wrong.

I've calmed down a bit now but I am still upset. It smacks of an arrogant attitude - we can go anywhere we want and sod anyone or anything else. I am hopeful of getting an apology from the hunt and if I do so then fair enough and as long as they contact us again in the future should they want to hunt through our fields then thats reasonable. I will report back here if/when I hear back from the hunt.

As for the illegal stuff - clearly the Hunt Act is unenforcable and a joke and should be repealed. It wont mean I would like hunting live animals with hounds or take part myself but it would stop this ridiculous situation of everyone pretending hunts are acting within the law when they clearly arent.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			We rent the land but why should that make a difference? We pay our rent on time each month. If the hunt had told us they wanted to ride through that particular field today we would have brought our horses in. In the past they have either phoned or called round but no communication at all for todays hunt. Mot malicious, an oversight I am sure but that wouldn't have compensated us should any of our horses have got injured. And surely on seeing horses loose in a field the mounted followers should have had the sense to go round?

The issue of illegal hunting is separate really - as I said I have turned a blind eye to this but hunts cannot be surprised at neutral people turning against them when they behave like this?
		
Click to expand...

Only because i was slightly confused as in one post you said that you will not allow them through your land anymore and then you said about the landlord being round to see you already, just clearing it up in my head!! 

I am with you all the way for being furious at this happening so am not trying to have a pop


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			Only because i was slightly confused as in one post you said that you will not allow them through your land anymore and then you said about the landlord being round to see you already, just clearing it up in my head!! 

I am with you all the way for being furious at this happening so am not trying to have a pop

Click to expand...

Our landlord made it clear that we cant stop the hunt going into our field - and I cant argue with that but I was fuming at the time! However we have one small field on a very large estate with fields on each side, all with hunt jumps in and out. Avoiding our field is very very easy and wouldn't stop anyone's enjoyment of following the hounds. Didnt even really have an issue with the hounds going through, or the one huntsman. It was the mounted followers in their many numbers that upset the horses.


----------



## Maesfen (26 December 2011)

If your landlord allows hunting on his land then then that will include 'your' land.  It's not unknown for any tenants that complain to their landlord about it to be asked to move on.  I'm not saying yours will do that but don't be surprised if he does.

I'm still baffled that you were silly enough to leave your horses out when you knew they were local to you today with the bigger crowds to go with them; it's the biggest day of the year and you get a lot out that don't follow at any other time of the year.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Yep i imagine i would be jumping up and down screaming obsenities if i were in the same position

At least no one was hurt


----------



## Fiagai (26 December 2011)

Re illegal hunting. If it was a trail hunt is it possible that a trail was laid where the hounds crossed? It is also possible that the hounds were at fault and picked up the scent of a real fox. I can't obviously make any actual observations but the trail marker may have made a mistake and gone thru your land unknown to you thinking he was elsewhere.

As to being told about illegal hunting I would in all honesty take such reports with a bag of salt. The BBC news today had a most woeful piece on Boxing day meets, effectively saying that because people (ie the Anti's) 
were saying that all because hunts still existed that they must be still hunting foxes and cut this with film footage of preban hunting footage. Ignoring trail hunting, blood hounds etc etc
please dont be swayed by the propaganda of the looney brigade. That said it is true that the Hunt Act allows foxes to be flushed to guns under certain conditions. This is lawful and provides at least some form of predator control to landowners In the absence of proper hunting.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Maesfen said:



			If your landlord allows hunting on his land then then that will include 'your' land.  It's not unknown for any tenants that complain to their landlord about it to be asked to move on.  I'm not saying yours will do that but don't be surprised if he does.

I'm still baffled that you were silly enough to leave your horses out when you knew they were local to you today with the bigger crowds to go with them; it's the biggest day of the year and you get a lot out that don't follow at any other time of the year.
		
Click to expand...

I think this has been answered in previous posts? 

After reaing them i dont think YGWYD was in any way in the wrong and as mentioned before this was a simple miscommunication between the hunt and herself which will hopefully never happen again.


----------



## Honey08 (26 December 2011)

HeatherAnn said:



			So, before this incident you were neither for or anti hunt, but now, because they entered your field you are beyond outraged that they are supposedly doing something illegal. What happened to you was unfortunate however, it does not give you the right to become Captain Anti-Hunt. Just go have a mince pie and enjoy the rest of Christmas. Your horse weren't hurt so why all the bother?
		
Click to expand...

Nice!!  A good few replies here on here are rather hunt-centred and show the type of attitude that does cause people on the fence to become anti hunting! An apology goes a long way!


We had a local Harrier pack go across our land without asking a couple of months ago.  They didn't go into the horse's field, but did send the horses manic and it was very annoying that they didn't ask or apologise!

Many years ago (on a boxing day meet for a local drag hunt) they went through someone's field and the horse in it jumped out and followed the hunt for a good mile.  At the time everyone thought it was hysterical (perhaps a tad more alcohol hindered judgement on that day!)


----------



## hobo (26 December 2011)

I don,t think OP is a troll just someone who has had the same upset as us. Ours involved one of our cows not recovering and being put down. This is on our OWN land and not the offical hunt of the area and the same thing happening 3 weeks later.
We have heard that the field bad mouthed us for kicking them off and the road followers blocked the road for the milk tanker.
I will say that the hunt whos area it is behave impectably and this was a neighbouring hunt so please do not be rude to the OP you do not help yourselves.


----------



## oakash (26 December 2011)

Maybe it is just my experience, BUT:

1) How curious that you are worried about loose and unridden horses galloping around a field. My horse does it at the drop of a hat, and has never damaged anything - thats what horses do, after all. It would never occur to me to tell other riders not to gallop in his vicinity. In my particular part of the country hunts go through fields with horses in them all the time without problems.

2) Could it be that hunting rights are owned by the hunt? Certainly it sounds as if your landlord has them if that is not the case.

3) You do sound rather as if you are a 'troll' - but I recognize it may simply be a case of communication failure. Lets face it, the stories making the newspapers usually start with something on the lines of "I was not anti-hunting until the hounds broke into my secure cattery and gobbled up six beautiful kittens after killing and eating my guard-dog" etc etc.


4) As has been suggested it is something you should take up with your local hunt - like most hunts they will fall over backwards to try to keep good relations with the inhabitants of their country.


----------



## SusieT (26 December 2011)

'f you knew they were meeting locally then it's only common sense to keep your horses in, your responsibility.' sorry-disagree. If a hunt in this day and age is going through someones land (i.e they are laying a trail) they need to have the courtesy to just pop a head in and say so. It's good manners that giv ea hunt followers. I would call the hunt up and demand an explanation personally. It might stop it happening again or at least get it so that they definitely call you/


----------



## SusieT (26 December 2011)

A landlord has no right to tell a tenant they must let something happen in their rented fields unless it is in the contract.
It sounds like the hunt were extremely in the wrong here, how many of you normally expect to jump into fields with horses in? How many of you, hunteres included would be happy for the hunt to jump into your fields with horses in? They could be pregnant broodmares or a very precious childs horse. It's an extremely risky thing to do, and the field master sounds like he should be shot for allowing it to happen!

'1) How curious that you are worried about loose and unridden horses galloping around a field. My horse does it at the drop of a hat, and has never damaged anything - thats what horses do, after all. It would never occur to me to tell other riders not to gallop in his vicinity. In my particular part of the country hunts go through fields with horses in them all the time without problems.
No but you might tell them not to gallop in your field with your horses?


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

oakash said:



			3) You do sound rather as if you are a 'troll' - but I recognize it may simply be a case of communication failure. Lets face it, the stories making the newspapers usually start with something on the lines of "I was not anti-hunting until the hounds broke into my secure cattery and gobbled up six beautiful kittens after killing and eating my guard-dog" etc etc.


4) As has been suggested it is something you should take up with your local hunt - like most hunts they will fall over backwards to try to keep good relations with the inhabitants of their country.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely not a troll just a run of the mill horsey owning person who was very concerned for her horses safety this morning. I have emailed the hunt and am waiting for their response. However after getting an earfull from our landlord about never being rude to the hunt I do wonder what sort of reply I will get.

Can I ask what people are expected to do if they don't have stables/barns to bring their horses into when the hunt are in the area? Our horses live out 24/7 but we are lucky enough to have stables to put them in if necessary. However where I lived before I just had a field, no facilities at all. What would the hunt have expected me to do then?


----------



## cptrayes (26 December 2011)

YGWYD  isn't it incredible that some people are suggesting that this is your fault?

Of course if the hunt had been hunting legally then there is no way that they would have laid scent across your field without asking your permission. By definition, if the hounds were in your field they were either out of control or being allowed to hunt fox. There are three hunts nearish to me hunting fox, so I believe that you saw them hunting a fox. Either way, the field should not have followed into your loose horses.

The behaviour is outrageous. There are plenty of horse owners who do not agree with hunting fox, never mind that it's illegal. Why on earth should they have to get their horses in every day that a meet happens to be close enough to possibly come onto their land? Such arrogance is what makes non-hunting folk think we are a bunch of overprivileged toffs.


----------



## Meandtheboys (26 December 2011)

HeatherAnn said:



			So, before this incident you were neither for or anti hunt, but now, because they entered your field you are beyond outraged that they are supposedly doing something illegal. What happened to you was unfortunate however, it does not give you the right to become Captain Anti-Hunt. Just go have a mince pie and enjoy the rest of Christmas. Your horse weren't hurt so why all the bother?
		
Click to expand...

I think it would be a different matter if the hunt went through your horses!!!

I have worked at a few hunt yards and not an anti...............but a times they think they can do what they want and have total disregard to 'others' whether crossing land or on the public highway.


----------



## millitiger (26 December 2011)

If the story did happen as the OP has said, it is absolutely unacceptable for the hunt to behave in such a way and IMO unacceptable for people on here for trying to justify that behaviour and blame the OP.

ANY person with common sense would not jump into a field with loose horses, not only for the sake of those horses but also for your own horse and your own safety.

ANY hunt with any courtesy at all, would speak to the owner of the horses before laying a scent through the field. 
We do not know whether the hunt perhaps told the landlord instead and he did not pass the message on but I would still expect them to take a different route or pull up when they realised there were horses loose in the field.

My horse is fine when the hunt are close (in the next field across from him, less than 10 yards away) and has had the hounds in his field before without major incidents but I would be absolutely raging if the mounted field decided to jump in with him as well!


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (26 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			YGWYD  isn't it incredible that some people are suggesting that this is your fault?

Of course if the hunt had been hunting legally then there is no way that they would have laid scent across your field without asking your permission. By definition, if the hounds were in your field they were either out of control or being allowed to hunt fox. There are three hunts nearish to me hunting fox, so I believe that you saw them hunting a fox. Either way, the field should not have followed into your loose horses.

The behaviour is outrageous. There are plenty of horse owners who do not agree with hunting fox, never mind that it's illegal. Why on earth should they have to get their horses in every day that a meet happens to be close enough to possibly come onto their land? Such arrogance is what makes non-hunting folk think we are a bunch of overprivileged toffs.
		
Click to expand...

/\/\/\ This

Surely those of you who are telling her she is over reacting etc can see how arrogant you all sound? It is exactly this sort of attitude which loses you support amongst the general population.

I am a tenant on a farm on a country estate that the Hunt comes through - they NEVER come near without letting us all know (the farm is also a livery yard) and would cetainly never dream of going through a field with horses in as they know they would lose valuable support and access to the land if they did. It is called common courtesy and respecting your 'neighbours'.


----------



## cptrayes (26 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			As to being told about illegal hunting I would in all honesty take such reports with a bag of salt.
		
Click to expand...

You'd need half a Himalayan Rock Salt Mine to pour on that one Fiagai 

I have in the past two years out drag hunting been invited on three "ex" fox pack meets. When I ask "are you hunting fox?" they reply "yes" and I explain that I do not fox hunt . I don't bother explaining that I also don't knowingly break the law.

If people were allowed to pick and choose what laws they thought were worth them obeying and which they thought weren't, we'd have total anarchy.


----------



## amage (26 December 2011)

Sounds more like the issue is with your landlord....if he gave permission he should have informed you


----------



## sonjafoers (26 December 2011)

OP I am a hunt subscriber and hunt regularly but I have to say I am on your side in this instance.

Our horses are left out when we hunt in our area and it always causes chaos, particularly autumn hunting when the horses are going mad and galloping around at breakfast time so can't be brought in! Even though I am very much pro hunt I can see the frustration it causes and we have had many a lost shoe through yahooing around due to hunt activity.

However the situation you describe is a touch more serious and I too would be livid if the field jumped onto our land knowing horses were turned out and so would our YO. I can totally sympathise with you although I would say in the Hunt's defence that it does seem an unusual situation.

Rather than email I would have telephoned the Hunt Secretary - a more personal approach may get you a better response and certainly seems more mannerly. It may be worth a follow up call tomorrow to explain your annoyance.

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## gunnergundog (26 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Of course if the hunt had been hunting legally then there is no way that they would have laid scent across your field without asking your permission. By definition, if the hounds were in your field they were either out of control or being allowed to hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

As someone who works and trains gundogs (HPRs predominantly that in their ancestry have an element of foxhound) and who therefore has to consider scenting conditions, can I just say that although a trail may have been laid away from your land, the wind and other prevailing conditions can drive that scent 'off course' such that hounds will be maybe 400 plus yards away from the trail, working on a cheek wind.  Whilst predominately ground scenting, hounds do also air scent and therefore are subject to nature leading them astray.  Just something for you to consider.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 December 2011)

Time that this thread  was put to bed,its just going around in circles-


----------



## cptrayes (26 December 2011)

gunnergundog said:



			As someone who works and trains gundogs (HPRs predominantly that in their ancestry have an element of foxhound) and who therefore has to consider scenting conditions, can I just say that although a trail may have been laid away from your land, the wind and other prevailing conditions can drive that scent 'off course' such that hounds will be maybe 400 plus yards away from the trail, working on a cheek wind.  Whilst predominately ground scenting, hounds do also air scent and therefore are subject to nature leading them astray.  Just something for you to consider.
		
Click to expand...



I have been drag hunting for four seasons on some pretty appalling scenting days, with two packs and three huntsmen and the hounds have always been able to be called off, sometimes with difficulty but they do obey.

One day earlier this season we all had a great laugh as we sat in a huge field and watched the hounds air scent in a circle as the wind swirled.

The moment they catch fox scent in a wood, though, which is every couple of weeks,  they are called off and come back to the scent laid for them.

If this was an out of control fox pack by accident then maybe they need to take some lessons from drag huntsmen?


----------



## sonjafoers (26 December 2011)

I think the main issue was with the FIELD rather than the hounds


----------



## gunnergundog (26 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The moment they catch fox scent in a wood, though, which is every couple of weeks,  they are called off and come back to the scent laid for them.

If this was an out of control fox pack by accident then maybe they need to take some lessons from drag huntsmen?
		
Click to expand...

But the trail laid IS fox scent/urine, so as far as hounds are concerned no difference whether the FOX laid the trail or a human did!!

Re calling off a trail, now that is a different matter all together.....


----------



## lakesgirl (26 December 2011)

gunnergundog said:



			As someone who works and trains gundogs (HPRs predominantly that in their ancestry have an element of foxhound) and who therefore has to consider scenting conditions, can I just say that although a trail may have been laid away from your land, the wind and other prevailing conditions can drive that scent 'off course' such that hounds will be maybe 400 plus yards away from the trail, working on a cheek wind.  Whilst predominately ground scenting, hounds do also air scent and therefore are subject to nature leading them astray.  Just something for you to consider.
		
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this,as someone who has 2 scenthounds I never let them off lead on windy days as they could go way off the walk we are on,and also they are not able to find me as easily.


----------



## cptrayes (26 December 2011)

gunnergundog said:



			But the trail laid IS fox scent/urine, so as far as hounds are concerned no difference whether the FOX laid the trail or a human did!!

Re calling off a trail, now that is a different matter all together.....
		
Click to expand...

The point was ill controlled hounds, it only makes the point stronger that the scent is the same. The hounds should respond to a command to hold hard.

But the other poster is correct. The field were most at error, following into a field with loose horses in it.


----------



## OFG (26 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			YGWYD  isn't it incredible that some people are suggesting that this is your fault?

Of course if the hunt had been hunting legally then there is no way that they would have laid scent across your field without asking your permission. By definition, if the hounds were in your field they were either out of control or being allowed to hunt fox. There are three hunts nearish to me hunting fox, so I believe that you saw them hunting a fox. Either way, the field should not have followed into your loose horses.

The behaviour is outrageous. There are plenty of horse owners who do not agree with hunting fox, never mind that it's illegal. Why on earth should they have to get their horses in every day that a meet happens to be close enough to possibly come onto their land? Such arrogance is what makes non-hunting folk think we are a bunch of overprivileged toffs.
		
Click to expand...

^ This

I find some of the replies on this thread amazingly arrogant. To say that you can't see a problem with a hunt field galloping through someone's field when their horses are turned out in it is disgusting. 

It's this kind of attitude amoung some of the hunting faternity that gives hunts and hunting a bad name IMO.

Just because hunting is a tradition does not give you the god given right to ride where ever you blooming well please without thinking of others and their property.

OP - I would be angry and demanding an explanation and apology too. I would also  be checking my contract with the landlord to see if there was anything detailed in there that stated the hunt had a right to hunt over the land you are now renting. I wouldn't put up with the LL getting angry with me for kicking up a fuss with the hunt over this incident.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2011)

OP,

I suspect that there has been a regrettable,  and for your local pack,  an embarrassing,  breakdown in communications.  

Whilst horses will often fly about when they see hounds,  if the mounted field *jumped* into the field where your horses were,  then I would be staggered to hear that anyone would be quite so stupid,  as to enter land where resident horses are loose.  It would,  or should be an unthinkable act.  Few fields would be large enough to prevent the mounted field from skirting around the outside,  and I'm at a loss to think how any rider,  and do bare in mind that they are also horse owners,  would put their own charges at risk by having loose horses around them.

If you are *certain *that the field which contained your horses,  was actually entered by riders,  and if you *actually witnessed* it,  then contact the Master,  without delay,  and ask for an explanation.  I'm not saying that I don't believe you,  but your claim is stretching credulity.

If you are correct in what you say,  then I'm lost for further words.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2011)

OFG said:



			....... I would also  be checking my contract with the landlord to see if there was anything detailed in there that stated the hunt had a right to hunt over the land you are now renting. I wouldn't put up with the LL getting angry with me for kicking up a fuss with the hunt over this incident.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst checking through the rental agreement,  perhaps the OP may care to consider,  that the landlord probably lets the field to them for the purpose of keeping horses,  but it would be highly unlikely that there would be any exclusion from any other use to which the landlord wishes to put it,  and that would include giving hounds a right of entry.

Alec.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			OP,

I suspect that there has been a regrettable,  and for your local pack,  an embarrassing,  breakdown in communications.  

Whilst horses will often fly about when they see hounds,  if the mounted field *jumped* into the field where your horses were,  then I would be staggered to hear that anyone would be quite so stupid,  as to enter land where resident horses are loose.  It would,  or should be an unthinkable act.  Few fields would be large enough to prevent the mounted field from skirting around the outside,  and I'm at a loss to think how any rider,  and do bare in mind that they are also horse owners,  would put their own charges at risk by having loose horses around them.

If you are *certain *that the field which contained your horses,  was actually entered by riders,  and if you *actually witnessed* it,  then contact the Master,  without delay,  and ask for an explanation.  I'm not saying that I don't believe you,  but your claim is stretching credulity.

If you are correct in what you say,  then I'm lost for further words.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Very certain I'm afraid. I was shocked and surprised, even as I was watching events unfurl. We were standing on a bank which borders the field but even as the hounds jumped into the field, followed by a lone huntsman I was sure the following riders would go round and wouldn't be stupid enough or careless enough to go through the field where our horses were standing in plain sight. We saw another red jacket head round the top of the field on the other side of the hedge and thought the field would follow him. But nope, the front runners jumped in and headed down the field to the bottom corner, our horses started galloping, we yelled, were ignored, yelled again as more riders jumped in and then had to go down into the field to stop the next batch of riders doing the same. I would say about twenty riders went through our field before we managed to stop the rest and send them round. A detour which would have taken them an extra 30 seconds at most.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Very certain I'm afraid. I was shocked and surprised, even as I was watching events unfurl. We were standing on a bank which borders the field but even as the hounds jumped into the field, followed by a lone huntsman I was sure the following riders would go round and wouldn't be stupid enough or careless enough to go through the field where our horses were standing in plain sight. We saw another red jacket head round the top of the field on the other side of the hedge and thought the field would follow him. But nope, the front runners jumped in and headed down the field to the bottom corner, our horses started galloping, we yelled, were ignored, yelled again as more riders jumped in and then had to go down into the field to stop the next batch of riders doing the same. I would say about twenty riders went through our field before we managed to stop the rest and send them round. A detour which would have taken them an extra 30 seconds at most.
		
Click to expand...

In your shoes,  I'd be on the 'phone to The Master,  NOW.  That is unthinkable,  and I will agree,  it does hunting no favours.  

It's nothing to do with me,  really,  but I'll apologise,  on their behalf.

Alec.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Thanks Alec 

Have to admit I'm a bit reticent about phoning now I've had a 'dressing down' from our landlord's father. We love living here and would hate to have to leave because of one incident.


----------



## lrequine (26 December 2011)

I get along with all of the masters, whips, secretaries etc in the hunt I go on and I enjoy their company. Please understand that a master's day out hunting is not only for their pleasure but it's also a job, so they're undoubtedly focusing hence the 'no apology'. It's also human nature though, they probably didn't apologise out of embarassment if I'm honest! It could have just been lack of communication.

 However following all this I do agree that some hunt staff can be arrogant and unnecessary, and most of the time it's where they've come from, how they've been brought up like most people. You just need to know how to deal with them. Trust me, I've wanted to say something to some masters when out hunting even though it'll never happen because you get sent home. Sorry to hear about the distress of your horses and I hope none of them were injured in the process.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			We rent land in a certain hunt's country.
		
Click to expand...

In order for your post to have the slightest element of veracity, you should state exactly which hunt you are referring to and exactly where this incident occured.

You are a foal - joined in December 2011, how are we to know that you are genuine? 

Only cold hard facts will do!

At this precise moment without knowing to whom you are referring, I consider your originating and subsequent posts to be an attempt to damage the image of hunting generally.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Thanks Alec 

Have to admit I'm a bit reticent about phoning now I've had a 'dressing down' from our landlord's father. We love living here and would hate to have to leave because of one incident.
		
Click to expand...

Under the terms of your lease you are entitled to the 'quiet enjoyment' of the property and land which you rent - it is part of the standard conditions of a lease - the Hunt crossing your land without your knowledge constitutes a breach of this. I would speak to the Hunt Secretary - you are entitled to an apology.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			In order for your post to have the slightest element of veracity, you should state exactly which hunt you are referring to and exactly where this incident occured.

You are a foal - joined in December 2011, how are we to know that you are genuine? 

Only cold hard facts will do!

At this precise moment without knowing to whom you are referring, I consider your originating and subsequent posts to be an attempt to damage the image of hunting generally.
		
Click to expand...

*WELL?*


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			In order for your post to have the slightest element of veracity, you should state exactly which hunt you are referring to and exactly where this incident occured.

You are a foal - joined in December 2011, how are we to know that you are genuine? 

Only cold hard facts will do!
		
Click to expand...

I used to be a regular contributer here, mostly in New Lounge, but it ended up eating away half of my life. I couldn't remember my log in details so reregistered. I don't really want to get sucked back into the forum but was so furious earlier today I couldn't think where else to vent!

I don't really want to say where we are as despite everything that happened today I don't want to get anyone in trouble and this is a public forum. I've emailed the hunt involved and will hopefully get a response tomorrow.

I can't make anyone believe me if they don't want to and I realise I must sound a bit trollish but honestly I'm not. Of course thats what a troll would say but I cannot do better than tell you I am reporting accurately what happened today.


----------



## Ditchjumper2 (26 December 2011)

Maybe you don't want to say because someone on here might have been out and may disagree with your version of events?  I agree totally that to jump into a field of loose horses is unacceptable. Even if it was just the huntsman and whip I would still find this unacceptable. Far better for hunstman to get off and go on foot to get hounds back.

I always card both landlords and tenants when we hunt. However, it can be tricky when the landlord wants us and the tenants are not so keen. However, surely common sense must prevail - if you know the hunt are in the area and your horses may get upset then bring them in.

I would certainly be ringing the Master today. Can't understand why you haven't.


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			In order for your post to have the slightest element of veracity, you should state exactly which hunt you are referring to and exactly where this incident occured.

You are a foal - joined in December 2011, how are we to know that you are genuine? 

Only cold hard facts will do!

At this precise moment without knowing to whom you are referring, I consider your originating and subsequent posts to be an attempt to damage the image of hunting generally.
		
Click to expand...

Have you actually read this thread through or are you just using the forum to come on and be rude to someone because you are having a bad day and need someone to be rude to?


----------



## rockysmum (26 December 2011)

I cant believe the attitude of some people on this thread.

The OP came on here for a bit of a rant, and who can blame him/her.

They haven't named and shamed the hunt, they haven't caused a big fuss.

If I was a hunting person (I'm not for or against, just not interested), I would be apologising for the behaviour of this hunt, and assuring people that this kind of behaviour was not the norm.  From the tone of some of these post, I'm thinking that it is.  As someone has said before, no wonder hunting has a bad name.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I used to be a regular contributer here, mostly in New Lounge, but it ended up eating away half of my life. I couldn't remember my log in details so reregistered. I don't really want to get sucked back into the forum but was so furious earlier today I couldn't think where else to vent!

I don't really want to say where we are as despite everything that happened today I don't want to get anyone in trouble and this is a public forum. I've emailed the hunt involved and will hopefully get a response tomorrow.

I can't make anyone believe me if they don't want to and I realise I must sound a bit trollish but honestly I'm not. Of course thats what a troll would say but I cannot do better than tell you I am reporting accurately what happened today.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should see this from the point of view of other posters. Without some hard evidence, where, how, when, by whom etc, it is very difficult to evaluate matters.

You would get great sympathy from all concerned, if your complaint and I shall call it a complaint about a hunt, can be reasonably verified, would you not agree?

I have not said you are wrong to post or that I disagree with what you have said I have simply asked you to verify/justify your allegations.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

For a hunt to gallop through someones field WITH HORSES IN IT, isnt a pro/anti hunt issue its an ignorance and disrespect issue.

NO HUNT should be going through fields with loose horses in it what a disaster had the horses jumped out anf floowed the hunt and hurt themselves, would they even care or would it be the owners fault even in this situation.

OP I would be writing letter and calling the huntmaster threatening to take it to the press if restitution wasnt made. How disgraceful 

ETA

In response to the above thread WHY does it have to be verified?? Is every rant on this board requiring verification now?? Or do people just not want to believe that some hunts ride roughshod over land?? And before anyone has a go Im pro hunting have been trying to take my mare for two years now and she keeps hurting herself denying me the pleasure


----------



## cptrayes (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			At this precise moment without knowing to whom you are referring, I consider your originating and subsequent posts to be an attempt to damage the image of hunting generally.
		
Click to expand...

And that is precisely the kind of attitude that got hunting banned as an arrogant upper class prat's sport in the first place!

The image of fox hunting does not need other people to damage it, it does extremely well for itself and you lead the way Judgemental.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Festive Beastie said:



			ETA

In response to the above thread WHY does it have to be verified?? Is every rant on this board requiring verification now?? Or do people just not want to believe that some hunts ride roughshod over land?? And before anyone has a go Im pro hunting have been trying to take my mare for two years now and she keeps hurting herself denying me the pleasure 

Click to expand...

Because this thread was started at 02:07 p.m. (14:07 hrs) 26/12/11 and it now 8.47 p.m. - approx (20:47 hrs) 26/12/11 in that very short time frame there have been 1874 views and 62 posts (may be more by the time I post) that is a phenominal number by this board's normal rate of posting, indeed it might be an all time record.

Some very serious allegations have been made about a hunt somewhere, where we do not know, indeed the legality of their actual hunting has been questioned.

Therefore in those circumstances it is not unreasonable for posters and members of this forum to ask the originating poster to evidence and justify their very serious allegations, it is not?


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Well no, normally when posters have a grievance towards someone or something that could have legal implications they are advised to not name names, for obvious reasons!


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Because this thread was started at 02:07 p.m. (14:07 hrs) 26/12/11 and it now 8.47 p.m. - approx (20:47 hrs) 26/12/11 in that very short time frame there have been 1874 views and 62 posts (may be more by the time I post) that is a phenominal number by this board's normal rate of posting, indeed it might be an all time record.

Some very serious allegations have been made about a hunt somewhere, where we do not know, indeed the legality of their actual hunting has been questioned.

Therefore in those circumstances it is not unreasonable for posters and members of this forum to ask the originating poster to evidence and justify their very serious allegations, it is not?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah so that TFC has to come in and close the thread, the we all get another warning about defamation etc.

I think its right not to name and shame.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			Well no, normally when posters have a grievance towards someone or something that could have legal implications they are advised to not name names, for obvious reasons!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry cross posted


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			Well no, normally when posters have a grievance towards someone or something that could have legal implications they are advised to not name names, for obvious reasons!
		
Click to expand...

Interesting that the OP has now appeared to retire from the thread?


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I should add that they were also blatantly hunting a fox and not following a pre laid trail. Negligent and criminal behaviour all rolled into one.
		
Click to expand...

Have you reported the matter to the police?


----------



## tractor (26 December 2011)

Phone the Master, as others have said - whatever happened, you are unhappy with the events of today, the Hunt need to know this, they will be mortified, they won't do it again. 

Just to balance the situation slightly, on our boxing Day meet today we found three loose young horses this morning in the middle of a forest - they had escaped early this morning. Our foot followers got them into a yard, borrowed a lorry and took them home. 

From your description I would think hounds have "gone wrong" somehow, your field has unfortunately been the centre of this - you may find that Huntsman and Whips jumped in to control the hounds, Master didn't realise what had happened (yes, he should have done) and just followed - many of the field may not have been out before and it all just got a bit messy.....

I hope all of your horses are OK after their stress, and I also hope for the sake of hunting in general that the Masters and Secretary behave appropriately.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Interesting that the OP has now appeared to retire from the thread?
		
Click to expand...

I'm still here!


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I'm still here!
		
Click to expand...

and I am sure numerous posters are waiting for your answers. For example are you going to follow the very good advice of Tractor and do you think hounds in reality made a mistake?

Upon editing my post, I quote from Tractor: "From your description I would think hounds have "gone wrong" somehow".

Do you are agree with Tractor?


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			and I am sure numerous posters are waiting for your answers. For example are you going to follow the very good advice of Tractor and do you think hounds in reality made a mistake?
		
Click to expand...

Can i just ask why you feel you are ENTITLED to what hunt and the whereabouts??

You seem like one of those people who is evanglical about your subject to the point that people dont want to listen to you or answer your questions just because your pushing too much.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			and I am sure numerous posters are waiting for your answers. For example are you going to follow the very good advice of Tractor and do you think hounds in reality made a mistake?
		
Click to expand...

Have emailed the master and will report the reply here when I have one.

Did the hounds make a mistake? They were following a scent... no mistaking that. Happy to give you details via PM Judgmental.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Festive Beastie said:



			Can i just ask why you feel you are ENTITLED to what hunt and the whereabouts??

You seem like one of those people who is evanglical about your subject to the point that people dont want to listen to you or answer your questions just because your pushing too much.
		
Click to expand...

let's hear what the OP has to say? Tractor's post did not ask for the name of the hunt.


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Have emailed the master and will report the reply here when I have one.

Did the hounds make a mistake? They were following a scent... no mistaking that. Happy to give you details via PM Judgmental.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, I shall be most interested.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			let's hear what the OP has to say? Tractor's post did not ask for the name of the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but you are?? And quite loudly. OP has offered to PM you but going by your previous posts it will end up on the thread anyway after you have done your nosing around.

OP it would be nice to hear what the master has to say. Hopefully its the reply we are hoping you get, a massive apology


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2011)

Festive Beastie said:



			Yes but you are?? And quite loudly. OP has offered to PM you but going by your previous posts it will end up on the thread anyway after you have done your nosing around.

OP it would be nice to hear what the master has to say. Hopefully its the reply we are hoping you get, a massive apology  

Click to expand...

Festive Beastie, I have been a member of this forum since June 2010 and I have never once reported or quoted any PM.

I quote from your post: "but going by your previous posts it will end up on the thread anyway".

I would be obliged if you can justify that allegation with a direct quote of any PM I have received?


----------



## Allover (26 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Festive Beastie, I have been a member of this forum since June 2010 and I have never once reported or quoted any PM.

I quote from your post: "but going by your previous posts it will end up on the thread anyway".

I would be obliged if you can justify that allegation with a direct quote of any PM I have received?
		
Click to expand...

You are spoiliing for a fight, nor more no less, no one has to justify themselves to you or anyone else on this forum. 

Where is your festive spirit!


----------



## tractor (26 December 2011)

I don't mind if the OP doesn't reply to me directly, I just know that as Secretary of a pack of hounds, I would be mortified if this had happened with our pack and would be doing all I could to rectify the situation as soon as possible. 

The Masters need to know, and if it means you have to ring them to get a response then do so, asap.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (26 December 2011)

Allover said:



			You are spoiliing for a fight, nor more no less, no one has to justify themselves to you or anyone else on this forum. 

Where is your festive spirit!
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. Your username says it all Im afraid. And youve been asking the OP to disclose the name and location on the thread so what else are people going to assume.

We are going on your actions on this thread I dont go digging through peoples older popsts to find controversy or proof. Childish and sad IMO.


----------



## Rose Folly (26 December 2011)

I think this thread has got blown out of all proportion.

We live in 'hot air balloon country'. Eveyr summer dozens, and I mean dozens, of HABs land around our field. Mercifully, because we have  electricity lines over it they usually try to avoid us, but not always. Wherupon the horses go berserk. And they then go berserk again when the long-base Land Rover plus x number of attendant helpers come to take the whole caboodle away.

Yes, we get annoyed - a bit - have to come in and have a g and t and a snarl. But that's life. These things happen. It's only because hunting is, I guess, a 'hot issue' that everybody's getting in a state about it. Get over it, get a life, move on.


----------



## Lizzie66 (26 December 2011)

Festive Beastie said:



			Can i just ask why you feel you are ENTITLED to what hunt and the whereabouts??

You seem like one of those people who is evanglical about your subject to the point that people dont want to listen to you or answer your questions just because your pushing too much.
		
Click to expand...

Actually most folk on the "Hunting Forum" are very happy to listen to Judgemental !

The OP made a number of contradictory statements at the beginning of this post that led a number of us to believe that they were trolling.

The request for either the area or the hunt was to ascertain whether the OP is trolling.

If not then as most hunting folk have said on here then the hunt should have apologised at the time and the OP  should definitely contact the hunt to make a complaint about them jumping in with her horses.

Nothing very festive in accusing JM of intending to behave dishonourably by disclosing the details of a PM !


----------



## Foxhunter49 (26 December 2011)

There are three hunts that come over our land, one, whose territory it is, will always either call in or ring to say they might be over. The other two often come this way but never tell me because they have no intentions of coming this way.

I run a TB stud and on more than one occasion have had yearlings led by my old 'nanny' mare, jump out over the hunt fences following hounds way before a huntsman or field are in sight. As she was matriarch  the yearlings would follow. Odd thing was that the yearlings could be caught by members of the filed and leg back by hunting whips around their necks but the old mare was to cunning for that!  

I doubt very much that your horses were terrified! They will generally buzz around in an area keeping to their own herd. Had you had a horse like my old mare then she would have led them out over the hunt fence to follow.

If I hear hounds then I will get the horses in because I will turn the electric fence off for hounds and I do not want them charging through it all. Them actually being out when the hunt goes through is part of their education as far as I am concerned.

I find the fact amusing that, as a hunting person, it doesn't worry me that the horses are out (other than the act I might have to get them in if they do follow!) whereas, you as a non hunting person worries.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Lizzie66 said:



			Actually most folk on the "Hunting Forum" are very happy to listen to Judgemental !

The OP made a number of contradictory statements at the beginning of this post that led a number of us to believe that they were trolling.

The request for either the area or the hunt was to ascertain whether the OP is trolling.

If not then as most hunting folk have said on here then the hunt should have apologised at the time and the OP  should definitely contact the hunt to make a complaint about them jumping in with her horses.

Nothing very festive in accusing JM of intending to behave dishonourably by disclosing the details of a PM !
		
Click to expand...

Not a troll but I can understand why you all might think that - new poster and all. I have contacted hunt and await reply. I dont have a problem with Judgemental asking for concrete facts. Have PMed him/her asking what they would llike to know, they haven't yet replied.


----------



## snopuma (26 December 2011)

About 15 years ago a similar thing happened to me, I was assured the hunt were going nowhere near my field , the first thing I knew about it was a local farmer calling me and saying my horse had got and was being pusued by two of the hunt in an attempt to catch him?????

my horse set off through the high street, the industrial estate and 4 miles further down a main road, he had no shoes on as he was recovering from a colic op, I drove frantically up and down lanes for an hour, fully expecting to see the worst round every corner, until at last someone phoned me to say they had trapped him in a field but no-one could get near him, one of the hunt brought a lorry and he came running to me when I called him, they were very apologetic, but to be honest, they are all bl**dy idiots!!!!  why would you even dare to go in someones field, this was before the ban, but thats no excuse, so thanks OS&B  are all rude ignorant and yobbish, and I will never support hunting, this day could  have been so much worse,  they take liberties with other peoples horses, and yet call for liberty for themselves, keep the ban and take it further I say!


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (26 December 2011)

Foxhunter49 said:



			I doubt very much that your horses were terrified! They will generally buzz around in an area keeping to their own herd. Had you had a horse like my old mare then she would have led them out over the hunt fence to follow.

If I hear hounds then I will get the horses in because I will turn the electric fence off for hounds and I do not want them charging through it all. Them actually being out when the hunt goes through is part of their education as far as I am concerned.

I find the fact amusing that, as a hunting person, it doesn't worry me that the horses are out (other than the act I might have to get them in if they do follow!) whereas, you as a non hunting person worries.
		
Click to expand...

Are you really not worried about your horses if they are loose and galloping about the countryside? Maybe I'm over cautious but that thought fills me with horror.


----------



## Lizzie66 (26 December 2011)

snopuma said:



			About 15 years ago a similar thing happened to me, I was assured the hunt were going nowhere near my field , the first thing I knew about it was a local farmer calling me and saying my horse had got and was being pusued by two of the hunt in an attempt to catch him?????

my horse set off through the high street, the industrial estate and 4 miles further down a main road, he had no shoes on as he was recovering from a colic op, I drove frantically up and down lanes for an hour, fully expecting to see the worst round every corner, until at last someone phoned me to say they had trapped him in a field but no-one could get near him, one of the hunt brought a lorry and he came running to me when I called him, they were very apologetic, but to be honest, they are all bl**dy idiots!!!!  why would you even dare to go in someones field, this was before the ban, but thats no excuse, so thanks OS&B  are all rude ignorant and yobbish, and I will never support hunting, this day could  have been so much worse,  they take liberties with other peoples horses, and yet call for liberty for themselves, keep the ban and take it further I say!
		
Click to expand...

If you weren't there are you sure they actually went through your field ? It is unusual around us for the hunt to go through fields with horses in them. We have more than once had horses jump out to join us.  

You have described them as rude, ignorant and yobbish, as well as bl**dy idiots. They apologised profusely, spent more than hour trying to catch your horse, boxed it and took it home for you ? Now who was it you said was rude, ignorant .......... ?


----------



## henryhorn (26 December 2011)

I do sympathise, as a stud we too have had many problems with a local hunt. 
Sadly as it's  now going through the legal channels I cannot comment publicly about it, except to say the hunt will never set foot on any of our farm again. 
Our family went on the London  Marchas well as the joint meet at Postbridge and all of us have hunted regularly in the past, so it's about time they took a long hard look at their behaviour if they can upset pro hunting people like us.


----------



## snopuma (26 December 2011)

Lizzie66 said:



			If you weren't there are you sure they actually went through your field ? It is unusual around us for the hunt to go through fields with horses in them. We have more than once had horses jump out to join us.  

You have described them as rude, ignorant and yobbish, as well as bl**dy idiots. They apologised profusely, spent more than hour trying to catch your horse, boxed it and took it home for you ? Now who was it you said was rude, ignorant .......... ?
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear you clearly didn't understand, shall I try and reiterate?  

1. Hunt not allowed in field
2. Hunt went in field
3. Horse freaked out went through fence, galloped for miles through busy high st, industrial estate, whilst in hot pursuit buy two huntsmen on their horses, on a busy saturday afternoon, anything could have happened, the worst could have happened.
4. they followed/chased him until he found a field
5. I got one sorry and they were mostly acting like it had ruined their day

I can only guess you hunt as you didn't bother to ask if he was okay either.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 December 2011)

tractor said:



			I don't mind if the OP doesn't reply to me directly, I just know that as Secretary of a pack of hounds, I would be mortified if this had happened with our pack and would be doing all I could to rectify the situation as soon as possible. 

The Masters need to know, and if it means you have to ring them to get a response then do so, asap.
		
Click to expand...

VERY well said.  _Assuming_ that the OP has been truthful with me,  by PM,  and I suspect that I've had an honest account,  and were I in her shoes,  I'd be spitting blood,  regardless of who my landlord may be.

Hunting needs all the support which it can muster,  and again,  if I'm in possession of the true facts,  this really isn't the way to achieve it.

OP,  if you're certain of your facts,  then stick to your guns.

Alec.


----------



## Lizzie66 (26 December 2011)

snopuma said:



			Oh dear you clearly didn't understand, shall I try and reiterate?  

1. Hunt not allowed in field
2. Hunt went in field
3. Horse freaked out went through fence, galloped for miles through busy high st, industrial estate, whilst in hot pursuit buy two huntsmen on their horses, on a busy saturday afternoon, anything could have happened, the worst could have happened.
4. they followed/chased him until he found a field
5. I got one sorry and they were mostly acting like it had ruined their day

I can only guess you hunt as you didn't bother to ask if he was okay either.
		
Click to expand...

Could I suggest you reread your own post !

"the first thing I knew about it was a local farmer calling me and saying my horse had got and was being pusued by two of the hunt in an attempt to catch him????? "
- So you weren't there, I asked whether you knew for sure they had gone in your field, or whether your horse had got out as the hunt went past. 

"they were very apologetic"
- This implies more than one sorry !

As I said in my first post, on this thread, if the account of todays events is accurate then they should definitely have an apology and the OP should make a complaint to the masters.

Unfortunately mistakes do happen in all walks of life, in your case if the hunt were genuinely apologetic I am not quite sure what more you expected of them after the fact to avoid being labelled rude, ignorant etc
With regard to whether your horse was ok afterwards, I assumed he must have been otherwise I'm sure you would have mentioned it !

If you knew the hunt were in the vicinity and your horse was recuperating from major surgery it might have been wise to have kept him in, after all better safe than sorry. 15 years ago they wouldn't have been able to give absolute assurances that they wouldn't be on your doorstep as they would have been hunting live quarry.


----------



## Fiagai (26 December 2011)

Santa Paws  with friends of hunting like you who really needs anti's??

You claim that there are three "hunts" near you that hunt fox because you have been invited to "hunt fox" with all three in the past two years...I suggest that at least one or more of the individuals to whom you have talked know of your opinions and you are have had your leg stetched at least on more than one occasion.  You do not claim to have seen this but still put it out as gospel - I am really not surprised that anti's get in such a lather about hunting in the media if those that claim to be involved in hunting claim that it is so because someone has said so ...

From your posts I understand that you prefer drag hunting however I find it hard to believe to believe that you have never experienced hounds that are at fault, you appear not to know that a trail actually uses foxes urine, or more importantly that in the four years you have been hunting you have never experienced anti groups causing trouble (and remember some of these idiots have targeted bloodhounds in their zeal to eliminate illegal hunting!)

In your arguments you would also appear to be happy to redirect insults that are normally the reserve of anti folk including such choice terms as "overpriviledged toffs" and "arrogant upper class prat's sport".  

You have said to Judgemental that the image of fox hunting does not need other people to damage it, it does extremely well for itself - however I will add that you S_P lead the way very well yourself

The OP appears genuinely upset at what seems to be inappropiate behaviour by their local hunt.  They have undertaken to contact the relevant people and hopefully will get redress to what happened.  You have not helped this matter by appropriating blame to all and sundry without knowledge of all the facts


----------



## QUICKFIRE (27 December 2011)

I have hunted and followed, but I am being constantly flabbergasted! at the arrogance! and ignorance! of not one, but several hunts! Masters and fields thinking they are above the Law and riding roughshod over people's land causeing chaos and mayhem! when Police are involved they are reluctant to take action even when people are assulted and verbally abused. cutting through the bull$hit they are still hunting foxes, but being ultra carefull no evidence is obtained, and even if it is, police don't act! horses that are at grass are being hurt! and as mentioned the field are horse lovers too, but if the boot was on the other foot and their horses and / or property was being damaged would they too not be angry? I am quicly becomeing anti ! and this is due to the hunts themselfs and not due to the antis properganda! but my own informed choice :-(


----------



## TwoPair (27 December 2011)

The pack I hunt with have jumped into a field of youngstock before - I'm talking two and three year olds in a huge huge field. There would have been 10 of them maybe, in probably 30 acres, of well fenced and hedged field. We had the land owners permission, and the field all jumped in and out at the same place. I presume the thinking of the land owner was it's all good education! Unfortunately a couple of horses after me somebody broke the rails but everybody immediately stopped jumping, and our gateshutters were straight there with twine tieing as best as they good until our fenceman got there. The youngsters were more excited that they'd got a whole bunch of new friends and were trying to introduce themselves - and once we'd left mogged back off across their field.


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Santa Paws  with friends of hunting like you who really needs anti's??
		
Click to expand...

I am not a friend of fox hunting. It is illegal. It is not for any of us to pick and choose which laws we abide by, that way lies social chaos.



Fiagai said:



			You claim that there are three "hunts" near you that hunt fox because you have been invited to "hunt fox" with all three in the past two years...I suggest that at least one or more of the individuals to whom you have talked know of your opinions and you are have had your leg stetched at least on more than one occasion.
		
Click to expand...

You would so love to believe this, wouldn't you?  Prove you are not an anti yourself and I will give you the names of the three hunts in a PM. My leg was not being pulled, my views were not known by the people who issued the invites. The invites were issued on the strength of the fabulous hedge hopper that I ride.




Fiagai said:



			From your posts I understand that you prefer drag hunting however I find it hard to believe to believe that you have never experienced hounds that are at fault, you appear not to know that a trail actually uses foxes urine, or more importantly that in the four years you have been hunting you have never experienced anti groups causing trouble (and remember some of these idiots have targeted bloodhounds in their zeal to eliminate illegal hunting!)
		
Click to expand...

Where on earth do you get all this rubbish. I did not mention the makeup of the scent because it was not relevant. Besides which, a trail is laid with fox piss, the hounds are not following concentrated fox piss when they follow a live fox, so the comparison was in any case nonsense.

No, in four years recently and four years 15 years ago I never once saw a drag Huntsman unable to call his hounds off the wrong scent.

We are regularly insulted by ignorant people, myself only yesterday. That dos not, however, mean that hunts are not hunting illegally. Just because I am paranoid does not mean that they aren't out to get me 




Fiagai said:



			In your arguments you would also appear to be happy to redirect insults that are normally the reserve of anti folk including such choice terms as "overpriviledged toffs" and "arrogant upper class prat's sport".
		
Click to expand...

You truly cannot distinguish between me pointing out how some of the posts on this thread are portaying hunters and me saying it myself. Figures 




Fiagai said:



			You have not helped this matter by appropriating blame to all and sundry without knowledge of all the facts
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Noodlebug (27 December 2011)

Unfortunately it would appear that there are a couple of hunting people that can't bare any criticism of any hunts and their behaviour and then have accuse people of being trolls or anti hunting. 

We have a local hunt and on the whole they put a card up to say they are in the area, however on a few occasions they have ridden through people's yards and caused problems.

We have also had them unload from our yard and they do come come across as ignorant, aggrogant to**ers that leave horse sh*it on the yard, park their trailers and lorries in the way and can barely bring themselves to acknowledge us.

I am not saying that is how all hunts behave but that the impression this one gives so I am not surprised that a hunt rode across someones field with horses in it.  As for what's the problem horses gallop around anyway!! That is exactly the attitude I am referring to!


----------



## oakash (27 December 2011)

Just looking back on this thread, it seems to me that the only intolerance and quasi-fascism is being displayed by the anti-hunters. 'ooh - you can't ride through a field with horses in it' etc etc.' Sounds as if the hunt which pursued the loose horse which had got out went out of their way to catch it - and received not a single thankyou. I despair of the country which has this degree of intolerance and mean-spiritedness within the anti-hunting community. Live and let live, surely?


----------



## Sunny08 (27 December 2011)

Haven't read all the posts but I'd like to add my two pence worth. I am not a pro or anti hunt person. Our farm land borders two different hunts. One is polite, couteous and we happily let them ride through land which we have identified as ok for hunting. The other hunt don't dare come near us anymore after an almighty row when they rode through a field of pregnant sheep terrifying the hell out them and into a crop field. 

Isn't hunting like anything else? Most are nice and couteous but as with everything there are some idiots out there?


----------



## EAST KENT (27 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			We rent the land but why should that make a difference? We pay our rent on time each month. If the hunt had told us they wanted to ride through that particular field today we would have brought our horses in. In the past they have either phoned or called round but no communication at all for todays hunt. Mot malicious, an oversight I am sure but that wouldn't have compensated us should any of our horses have got injured. And surely on seeing horses loose in a field the mounted followers should have had the sense to go round?

The issue of illegal hunting is separate really - as I said I have turned a blind eye to this but hunts cannot be surprised at neutral people turning against them when they behave like this?
		
Click to expand...

Is it not the OWNER of the land who dictates if hunting is allowed on it??


----------



## AengusOg (27 December 2011)

I haven't read any of the replies, so this may have already been pointed out... 



Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			We knew the meet was happening locally 




			If I knew a hunt was meeting locally, I would take full responsibility for my horses' safety, and would not take any chances. That way, I may have a leg to stand on if I had to make a claim against anyone.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Fiagai (27 December 2011)

Santa-paws

I will take from your return post that you have taken nothing on board.

You are what I believe can be termed 'a mouth'. The OP had a specific complaint and yet you went out of your way to have a general rant at all those who participate in hunting.

You made general and vague accusations against a number if unnamed hunts on the basis of something that was said to you because of your fabulous hedge topper! 

You allegedly asked said individuals did they hunt fox and they all said yes! I reiterate you have has your leg pulled on more than one occasion here. By asking you were than clearly stating your opinions. 

As for social chaos & the hunting Act I suggest you reread the act to understand what is actually allowed under said act and what is not.

I will take it from your use of derogatory populist nonsense that some of your current opinions are formulated from some of our more popular tabloids!


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Santa-paws

I will take from your return post that you have taken nothing on board.
		
Click to expand...

Oh you_ are _enjoying this fight aren't you Fiagai  ? 

I'm not sure what pearls of wisdom you were expecting me to take on board? There aren't any hunts illegally hunting fox? There are. Hounds chase a trail of fox pee? True. It doesn't matter if a mounted field jump into someone's field with loose horses in it? It does. I can't recall anything else from the thread that I was supposed to understand?



Fiagai said:



			You are what I believe can be termed 'a mouth'.
		
Click to expand...

If you mean that I articulate my opinions clearly and will not back down in the face of aggressive responses like yours, then I accept the label. You are entitled to voice whatever legal opinion of me that you hold, which appears to be a right that you do not consider that I should have in return.



Fiagai said:



			he OP had a specific complaint and yet you went out of your way to have a general rant at all those who participate in hunting.
		
Click to expand...

No, I responded to the people who had responded to the OP  in what I considered to be an unwarranted  or unacceptable way to the original post. Like the people who were blaming the OP for the problem and accusing her of being a troll because they did not like what she was saying. 



Fiagai said:



			You made general and vague accusations against a number if unnamed hunts on the basis of something that was said to you because of your fabulous hedge topper!
		
Click to expand...

I have made specific accusations which I have offered to substantiate offline. I am not in the business of naming and shaming. PM Judgemental if you want to know the names of two, he has them. 



Fiagai said:



			You allegedly asked said individuals did they hunt fox and they all said yes! I reiterate you have has your leg pulled on more than one occasion here. By asking you were than clearly stating your opinions.
		
Click to expand...

I did not allegedly ask anyone anything. I asked them. It is not alleged, I was there and it is first hand knowledge, no hearsay. My leg was not being pulled though you so desperately want to believe that it was. None of the people concerned knew my opinions before they asked the question.  I did not ask if they hunted fox until after I had been invited to go out with them.



Fiagai said:



			As for social chaos & the hunting Act I suggest you reread the act to understand what is actually allowed under said act and what is not.
		
Click to expand...

There are hunts hunting fox with a pack of hounds illegally. We cannot pick and choose what laws we choose to abide by. I repeat, if people pick and choose which laws they think are worth abiding by, that way lies social chaos. If the law is wrong use democracy to get it changed, if you can get a majority of MPs to support you.



Fiagai said:



			I will take it from your use of derogatory populist nonsense that some of your current opinions are formulated from some of our more popular tabloids!
		
Click to expand...

I have used no derogatory populist nonsense. I have used only my own first hand experience. But you are enjoying this scrap so much that I have no doubt that you will be back again to throw further insult at me. 

The sad thing is that you really have no idea how much the things that have been written by pro-hunting folk on this thread are liable to turn more and more moderate people against you.


----------



## Always Henesy (27 December 2011)

OP - I understand totally how you must be feeling. I am pro hunting and am disgusted that you have been treated this way.
For the record, we rented a property and 3 acres and kept our horses at home. The landlord actually had to give us 24 hours notice before coming to the property and any visits had to be made at a time convenient to us. The landlord may agree to the hunt coming over the land, but not without consulting you first. You as the tenant have the right to say no to the hunt on the fields. This is based on the fact that you have a proper tenancy agreement in place.
It is not for everyone else to lock up their horses/livestock/children/pregnant sheep etc just because the hunt feels it's their God given right to ride rough shod wherever they like. They do not have the right to ride wherever they like. 
It takes a great deal of friendship/respect and hard work from the hunt to be allowed to ride on any land. And any land that they do ride on has to be treated with respect - fences mended/crops avoided - that kind of thing.
I hope that you get the apology you quite rightly deserve.


----------



## luckyoldme (27 December 2011)

i read the original post and a couple of pages beginning and end. The op sounds quite reasonable in her complaint and then the chaos started. You don t have to be anti hunt to agree with her complaint.. I have experienced the hunt passing by without warning and that is bad enough when you have a nob of a horse like mine. I like the way henesay replied.. its that kind of wisdom and respect that enables folk to live and let live. I was angry that the hunt hadnt told me they were coming this way... the master apologised and sends me a text when they come by now. Sorted.


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Is it not the OWNER of the land who dictates if hunting is allowed on it??
		
Click to expand...

It depends on the terms of the rental agreement. 

Are you saying that if the landlord agreed to allow hunting on that land that you think it was OK for a mounted field to follow hounds into a field with loose horses in it?


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2011)

Always Henesy said:



			OP - I understand totally how you must be feeling. I am pro hunting and am disgusted that you have been treated this way.
For the record, we rented a property and 3 acres and kept our horses at home. The landlord actually had to give us 24 hours notice before coming to the property and any visits had to be made at a time convenient to us. The landlord may agree to the hunt coming over the land, but not without consulting you first. You as the tenant have the right to say no to the hunt on the fields. This is based on the fact that you have a proper tenancy agreement in place.
It is not for everyone else to lock up their horses/livestock/children/pregnant sheep etc just because the hunt feels it's their God given right to ride rough shod wherever they like. They do not have the right to ride wherever they like. 
It takes a great deal of friendship/respect and hard work from the hunt to be allowed to ride on any land. And any land that they do ride on has to be treated with respect - fences mended/crops avoided - that kind of thing.
I hope that you get the apology you quite rightly deserve.
		
Click to expand...

Where's the "like" button when you need it?


----------



## jedge (27 December 2011)

I have also experienced a problem with the hunt recently. A few members (4) decided to take a gate off its hinges and pop a few post and rail fences in an out of the paddocks at the yard I work at. Luckily being winter we had non of the horses out (They are dressage darlings and dont do mud ) They have never had permission to hunt/cross the land. The hounds also ran unchecked for around half and hour around the property causing havoc! I have always had greatest respect for the hunt and loved my few days out that I have had with several packs around my area, but I cannot help but feel disappointed with these antics! 
To be fair to the hunt, a complaint was made and the next time the hunt was in the area and the hounds ran on to the property, the whip came running down the drive unmounted straight away to remove them apologising profusely, which was much appreciated by the landowner. Manners cost nothing and are very well received!


----------



## flower08 (27 December 2011)

i hope you have heard something from the hunt by now?

i worked for the masters of my local hunt for over 10 years, and did some hunting myself, whenever we entered a field with loose horses in that were getting stressed, (esp a small field) we were yelled at by the field master to slow right down, where ever possible going through fields with loose horses in was avoided. 

im glad that your horses were not hurt though


----------



## AengusOg (27 December 2011)

Op, I have read all the posts now, and wonder about this...you said at one point that your horses went down into the bottom corner of your field. Is it possible that the first couple of riders into your field did not see your horses, until it was too late, and that the others followed in ignorance of there being horses in the field? Once in, they had to get out.


----------



## Judgemental (27 December 2011)

Got back to the box and flipped up the laptop, thought I would give it straight from the horse's mouth, as Kamikaze - stable name for my horse snorted, "must be important for you to open the communicator".

I said, "oh Kami it's the time of year, everybody having a 'crack' (or should I say the _throng_ - madding crowd) at hunting, friend or foe alike".

So I explained the situation. "Whilst snatching a tug of hay out of the hay-net with a degree of irritable impatience", Kami said, "bet they all enjoyed hooling about, any excuse. It gets fairly boring and hounds, did you say 'hounds', oh how wonderful for them, I would have been prancing about, cutting the turf up fantastically, probably ping a cirsingle as well and maybe lost a shoe just for fun". 

I know Kami and I would have smiled and thought let the old boy have a frolic.

"Where there any young fillies there too"? Kami said, "aren&#8217;t you a little past that sort of game", I said, "never to old for young fillies or two" said Kami. (Two at a time - there is no stopping him).

Nothing like a good squeal and front hooves up in the air. "I'll see all those young thrusters off any day".

"Was it mature mares or boring old geldings?&#8221; said Kami, "info is a bit sparse,&#8221; I said.

Knowing were the old rascal was coming from.

"Well you don't bother about these things". "I know and that's why we never ever have any bother".

Kami went back to snatching his hay net with a very superior knowing air.....of how it all really works.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2011)

J_M,

I wonder of Kami gave any thought to the public perception of those who hunt.

No?  Thought not,  his mind was on baser matters. 

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (27 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			J_M,

I wonder of Kami gave any thought to the public perception of those who hunt.

No?  Thought not,  his mind was on baser matters. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec it really is very embarrising at times, Kmai is an out and out opportunist

Gets very excited and it is much remarked upon. Unknown and unexpected visitors to his paddock are subjected to much flirtatious behaviour.

However they all go away feeling happy and confident that they will be more than welcome again, indeed they may even be asked.......


----------



## SusannaF (27 December 2011)

Sunny08 said:



			Haven't read all the posts but I'd like to add my two pence worth. I am not a pro or anti hunt person. Our farm land borders two different hunts. One is polite, couteous and we happily let them ride through land which we have identified as ok for hunting. The other hunt don't dare come near us anymore after an almighty row when they rode through a field of pregnant sheep terrifying the hell out them and into a crop field. 

Isn't hunting like anything else? Most are nice and couteous but as with everything there are some idiots out there?
		
Click to expand...


Worth re-iterating.


----------



## SusieT (27 December 2011)

'If you knew the hunt were in the vicinity and your horse was recuperating from major surgery it might have been wise to have kept him in, after all better safe than sorry.'

Those who hunt and have no respect for others may not realise it but by riding with the hunt that does not mean all other people should give up their lives/make special arrangments to suit you.. Have respect and you will get respect and probably more land opened up to you..


----------



## pansy (27 December 2011)

..............



			i hope you have heard something from the hunt by now?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (27 December 2011)

Hey folks

Sorry - been out working all day. 

So the news is good  I wasn't here but my housemates/yardmates were. The Master came round with lots of apologies, promises that it would never happen again and a bottle of vodka. He couldn't have been more apologetic and said it should never have happened.

I can't say fairer than that, no grudges held, the matter is over and done with as far as I'm concerned. 

Thanks for all the support in this thread from the majority of posters - its nice to know that the majority of hunt folk are decent and considerate.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all


----------



## Fiagai (27 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Hey folks

Sorry - been out working all day. 

So the news is good  I wasn't here but my housemates/yardmates were. The Master came round with lots of apologies, promises that it would never happen again and a bottle of vodka. He couldn't have been more apologetic and said it should never have happened.

I can't say fairer than that, no grudges held, the matter is over and done with as far as I'm concerned. 

Thanks for all the support in this thread from the majority of posters - its nice to know that the majority of hunt folk are decent and considerate.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all 

Click to expand...

Delighted with your result ...  Its good to know there is some decency out there


----------



## SusieT (27 December 2011)

Quite right-good job he didn't take the attitude of some of the posters on here..


----------



## AengusOg (27 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Hey folks

 The Master came round with lots of apologies, promises that it would never happen again and a bottle of vodka. He couldn't have been more apologetic and said it should never have happened.

I can't say fairer than that, no grudges held, the matter is over and done with as far as I'm concerned..
		
Click to expand...

As long as he doesn't recognise himself if he reads this thread.




Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			- its nice to know that the majority of hunt folk are decent and considerate.
		
Click to expand...

 That's been the message all along.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (27 December 2011)

AengusOg said:



			As long as he doesn't recognise himself if he reads this thread.
.
		
Click to expand...

Good point  But hopefully he would understand when I first posted yesterday I was seeing red and raging! If I'd seen him in person yesterday I would have said exactly what I posted on here whilst jumping up and down and snarling. Not a pretty sight 

Alls well that ends well I hope


----------



## Fiagai (27 December 2011)

Santa_paws

I do not "enjoy" fights but I do strongly dislike rabble rousing...

The problem with common sense is that that I have found that it isn't really that common.  Common sense here would normally suggest that no one without reason would make allegations that they wont act on

If you have reason to believe, one never mind *3* different hunts are breaking the law and believe you have proof of such - then your moral stand should dictate that you report such matters  to the relevant bodies

As for the OP who posted in relation to her own complaint, how did that warrent you flinging accusations against others unconnected with this situation?

It is neither right nor proper not to make such serious unproven criminal allegations against other hunts on an open forum.  You may believe that such is the case however they are simply defamatory statements without proof.  The stuff of such which is regularly dredged up by faceless anti groups.  You are simply adding fuel to their already ample (but largely spurious) arsenal.

I am not saying their have not been instances where the law may have been broken but that is not a reason to make unfounded allegations.  You do no one including your self any favours with such behaviour

Rereading the posts I found that the OP clearly came out as a genuine poster from her attidude and willingness to answer questions.  These posts and those in support of her appear to be largely in the majority in my opinion and stand on their own merit


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2011)

Well that was the right result OP, good news


----------



## Lizzie66 (27 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Good point  But hopefully he would understand when I first posted yesterday I was seeing red and raging! If I'd seen him in person yesterday I would have said exactly what I posted on here whilst jumping up and down and snarling. Not a pretty sight 

Alls well that ends well I hope 

Click to expand...

Glad you're pleased with the outcome and hope that your horses are non the worse for wear.

My apologies for suggesting you may have been trolling. 

Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Good point  But hopefully he would understand when I first posted yesterday I was seeing red and raging! If I'd seen him in person yesterday I would have said exactly what I posted on here whilst jumping up and down and snarling. Not a pretty sight 

Alls well that ends well I hope 

Click to expand...

Well done.  All that you wanted was an acceptance of the wrong,  an assurance that it would never happen again,  and an apology,  and that's what you've received.  

I'm not too sure that I'd have been quite as placid as you've been,  but there we are,  and as a footnote to myself,  it's just as well that I didn't attempt a career in the Diplomatic Corp!!  

Alec.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (27 December 2011)

What a nice thing to do come round and apologise with a bottle . Great result and speaks volumes IMO to the character of the master .

I agree with comment about glad some of the previous evanglical posters arent huntmasters or hunting would grind to a halt through not being able to use the land.


----------



## Allover (27 December 2011)

Lizzie66 said:



			My apologies for suggesting you may have been trolling.
		
Click to expand...

Me too 

Glad everything has turned out OK


----------



## Honey08 (27 December 2011)

I always admire those people that can apologise and admit it when they are wrong.  That refers to the huntmaster and the posters above.


----------



## Maesfen (27 December 2011)

I'm glad it's been sorted to your satisfaction, I'm sure it won't happen again and I admire the person who called to see you to apologise;, it must be hard for them too (not because they were in the wrong place but because they're never sure what the reaction will be when they appear on the doorstep!)


----------



## tractor (27 December 2011)

I've been out all day and wondered what I'd find when I caught up with this thread....thankfully all seems to have been resolved and the hunt in question have behaved honourably. 

I was pleased to read this, and also pleased that the OP posted the response she had received.


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (27 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Well done.  All that you wanted was an acceptance of the wrong,  an assurance that it would never happen again,  and an apology,  and that's what you've received.  

I'm not too sure that I'd have been quite as placid as you've been,  but there we are,  and as a footnote to myself,  it's just as well that I didn't attempt a career in the Diplomatic Corp!!  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely wasn't placid at the time of the event but then I've always been hot tempered! Never hold grudges and never get bitter though - both things destroy you faster than anything anyone else can do to you.

All I want is people to act decently and be nice and genuine to each other. I was born in town, brought up in town, ancestors were mill workers and miners. I can never claim to any tradition of hunting but I respect peoples rights to freedom of choice but equally expect others to give me the same respect.

Have to admit I was expecting little or no support on here - I was spoiling for a fight when I posted in the heat of the moment yesterday... which is why people understandably thought I was a troll. But credit due theres been more support on here than I ever thought possible


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2011)

1 x abstention here from the patsy parade


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Definitely wasn't placid at the time of the event but then I've always been hot tempered! Never hold grudges and never get bitter though - both things destroy you faster than anything anyone else can do to you.

All I want is people to act decently and be nice and genuine to each other. I was born in town, brought up in town, ancestors were mill workers and miners. I can never claim to any tradition of hunting but I respect peoples rights to freedom of choice but equally expect others to give me the same respect.

Have to admit I was expecting little or no support on here - I was spoiling for a fight when I posted in the heat of the moment yesterday... which is why people understandably thought I was a troll. But credit due theres been more support on here than I ever thought possible 

Click to expand...

I totally agree with your sentiments, you have a sound attitude to life.

 So glad you got an apology, and acknowledging their mistake goes a long way in promoting good will.


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			Have to admit I was expecting little or no support on here - I was spoiling for a fight 

Click to expand...


Why did you need support from this forum, surely this was a localised issue?

We know not where? Nor if there is any substance to your allegations?

You say you were and I quote, "Spoiling for a fight" why enjoin members of this forum?

Did they not have the right to know at the outset and that in the circumstances they would be pandering to your alleged aggression?

Furthermore it would seem from the icons you have used you think it amusing, nay funny to make the allegations you have made?

Bearing in mind your title "The Hunt", an issue that has been recently debated as to hunting descriptions et al, why not The Hounds? Do we take it that no hounds were actually involved. If they where, how many couple?


----------



## Yougetwhatyoudeserve (28 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Why did you need support from this forum, surely this was a localised issue?

We know not where? Nor if there is any substance to your allegations?

You say you were and I quote, "Spoiling for a fight" why enjoin members of this forum?

Did they not have the right to know at the outset and that in the circumstances they would be pandering to your alleged aggression?

Furthermore it would seem from the icons you have used you think it amusing, nay funny to make the allegations you have made?

Bearing in mind your title "The Hunt", an issue that has been recently debated as to hunting descriptions et al, why not The Hounds? Do we take it that no hounds were actually involved. If they where, how many couple?
		
Click to expand...

I have PMed you Judgmental - no reply as yet. You asked for details but seem not to want to converse with me privately...


----------



## Judgemental (28 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I have PMed you Judgmental - no reply as yet. You asked for details but seem not to want to converse with me privately...
		
Click to expand...

I am not interested in PM's and I am none the wiser in any event.

You have come onto this forum and you have made a very serious allegation that 'hounds' somewhere in England and Wales have breached the 2004 Hunting Act.

Where hounds involved in actual hunting? I have read all your posts and I can find no mention of hounds hunting, only mounted persons and "hounds streaming into your field". 

Just because hounds and the mounted field allegedly entered your tenanted land, that does not consitute any offence under the Hunting Act 2004! 

If you care to retract your allegation as to the inference that hounds were involved in hunting, that might just calm the situation.

However make no mistake about it, if you or anybody thinks they can come onto this forum and to quote your own words, "spoiling for a fight" - The Horse and Hound Hunting Forum of all forums and think they can make allegations - true or false and not expect to be closely questioned they would be seriously mistaken by the members of the forum.

Indeed we would be failing in our duty of care to both TFC, the Horse and Hound and the sport we all generally support.


----------



## CARREG (28 December 2011)

Im with Judgemental on this....................Carreg


----------



## cptrayes (28 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I have PMed you Judgmental - no reply as yet. You asked for details but seem not to want to converse with me privately...
		
Click to expand...

I note with interest also that I have offered Fiagai substantive details of what he calls my groundless allegations if he PMs me, but he is clearly not interested in hearing proof, because then he can stick to his insistence that I am lying. 

In answer to his question why I have not alerted the Police, I fear that they have better things to do with their time than worry about fox hunting when people are being burgled (see thread on Soapbox about one case where they have not found time to turn out to investigate). 

In my eyes, that makes it all the more inexcusable to deliberately hunt fox, knowing that the time of the police is being used to prevent clashes between sabs and hunters. If all hunts stuck to the law, the antis would not be out and the police could be serving the broader society instead of the self-serving few who think that they have a right to break laws that they do not like.


----------



## Noodlebug (28 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I am not interested in PM's and I am none the wiser in any event.

You have come onto this forum and you have made a very serious allegation that 'hounds' somewhere in England and Wales have breached the 2004 Hunting Act.

Where hounds involved in actual hunting? I have read all your posts and I can find no mention of hounds hunting, only mounted persons and "hounds streaming into your field". 

Just because hounds and the mounted field allegedly entered your tenanted land, that does not consitute any offence under the Hunting Act 2004! 

If you care to retract your allegation as to the inference that hounds were involved in hunting, that might just calm the situation.

However make no mistake about it, if you or anybody thinks they can come onto this forum and to quote your own words, "spoiling for a fight" - The Horse and Hound Hunting Forum of all forums and think they can make allegations - true or false and not expect to be closely questioned they would be seriously mistaken by the members of the forum.

Indeed we would be failing in our duty of care to both TFC, the Horse and Hound and the sport we all generally support.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of old twaddle


----------



## Vixen Van Debz (28 December 2011)

By design or accident, their actions were wrong: I'm delighted you've been given an apology, a peace offering and some reassurance. All's well that ends well and all that 80)


----------



## AengusOg (28 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			If all hunts stuck to the law, the antis would not be out and the police could be serving the broader society instead of the self-serving few who think that they have a right to break laws that they do not like.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, so now hunts and supporters are being blamed for the faults in the 'broader society', due to the police' attention being diverted...is that it?

Surely anyone who breaks any law is one of the self serving few...blah blah blah.

Secondly, hunts stuck to the law when it was legal to hunt foxes...and the sabs/antis were always out then. The last time I followed a hunt, on foot, was around twenty years ago, and there were new age hippies in balaclavas blowing hunting horns and shouting abuse. Foxhunting was legal, the antis pissed people off; foxhunting is now illegal (at least in its previous form), the antis piss people off.

I wonder, if you were fined for speeding, how you would feel about a group of people monitoring you every time you went out in your car, and how you may be glad of a police interest in such a scenario.

'If all hunts stuck to the law'...if everyone stuck to the law there would be no need for police forces at all. How likely is that?


----------



## Alec Swan (28 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I am not interested in PM's and I am none the wiser in any event.

You have come onto this forum and you have made a very serious allegation that 'hounds' somewhere in England and Wales have breached the 2004 Hunting Act.

Where hounds involved in actual hunting? I have read all your posts and I can find no mention of hounds hunting, only mounted persons and "hounds streaming into your field". 

Just because hounds and the mounted field allegedly entered your tenanted land, that does not consitute any offence under the Hunting Act 2004! 

If you care to retract your allegation as to the inference that hounds were involved in hunting, that might just calm the situation.

However make no mistake about it, if you or anybody thinks they can come onto this forum and to quote your own words, "spoiling for a fight" - The Horse and Hound Hunting Forum of all forums and think they can make allegations - true or false and not expect to be closely questioned they would be seriously mistaken by the members of the forum.

Indeed we would be failing in our duty of care to both TFC, the Horse and Hound and the sport we all generally support.
		
Click to expand...

J_M old bean,

fond of you as I am,  and whilst considering that I've read some unmitigated rubbish on this forum;  on this occasion,  you sir,  have excelled yourself!! 

The allegations have been substantiated,  the Master concerned has offered an unqualified apology,  the OP has graciously accepted that apology,  but YOU seem determined to continue with your tirade.

Don't go to the trouble of explaining yourself,  I don't have the patience to listen.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (28 December 2011)

AengusOg said:



			Ah, so now hunts and supporters are being blamed for the faults in the 'broader society', due to the police' attention being diverted...is that it?
		
Click to expand...

That is not what I wrote, please do not be silly, it just makes fox hunters seem unreasonable and as a whole I know that you are not.



AengusOg said:



			Surely anyone who breaks any law is one of the self serving few...blah blah blah.
		
Click to expand...

Many people who break the law are part of a self-serving many of badly educated young with inadequate parenting. It does not mean that other better educated people with more advantages in life should follow them into illegal behaviour.



AengusOg said:



			Secondly, hunts stuck to the law when it was legal to hunt foxes...and the sabs/antis were always out then. The last time I followed a hunt, on foot, was around twenty years ago, and there were new age hippies in balaclavas blowing hunting horns and shouting abuse. Foxhunting was legal, the antis pissed people off; foxhunting is now illegal (at least in its previous form), the antis piss people off.
		
Click to expand...

They sabbed because the hunts were being followed by people who were enjoying killing foxes. They are still sabbing hunts which are followed by people who are enjoying killing foxes. The only thing that has changed with sabbing is that the hunts hunting fox with a pack of hounds are doing so illegally. Drag packs do not get sabbed and freely publish their meet lists.

(Cue the usual outrage about using the term "enjoy"?)



AengusOg said:



			I wonder, if you were fined for speeding, how you would feel about a group of people monitoring you every time you went out in your car, and how you may be glad of a police interest in such a scenario.
		
Click to expand...

People and cameras do monitor me every time I go out in my car. I am unable to reach any shop without going through a set of linked speed cameras. Speeding is illegal and I have no problem whatsoever being monitored to ensure that I do not do it. 

If antis had not seen hunts hunting fox since the ban, they would not now be going out on a cold wet winter day to try to stop them doing it, they would have found another target long ago.



AengusOg said:



			'If all hunts stuck to the law'...if everyone stuck to the law there would be no need for police forces at all. How likely is that?
		
Click to expand...

The likelihood of your proposed scenario is irrelevant. 

There is no excuse for anyone to pick and choose which laws they intend to abide by.


----------



## Always Henesy (28 December 2011)

I think that as usual things are getting out of hand. The original (and justified) complaint by the OP has been addressed by the Hunt Master in the form of Vodka D ) and profuse apologies. The OP has been very mature, magnanimous, and gracious in accepting the apology and is now happy to forget it and move on.
Those who are spoiling for a fight - still - when it is not necessary need to take lead from the OP. 
I'll drink to that (preferably vodka  ) - let sleeping dogs lie now.


----------



## flower08 (28 December 2011)

op, i am pleased that this has been sorted out, i have to say i did expect the master to come and see you because as a rule they dont like to upset anyone. 

enjoy your dink


----------



## DragonSlayer (28 December 2011)

I have to say, whilst I am happy OP got the problem sorted out, this has been a highly entertaining read.


----------



## Fiagai (28 December 2011)

Santa_Paws this is really getting quite tiresome...

I do not wish to become involved with any poster making unsubtantiated allegations so I will not Pm you.  I will repeat for your benefit Santa Paws - either put up or shut up - you made your allegations in public so do not attempt to hide behind a curtain of convenient secrecy.  If you have "proof" then go to the relevant authorities and do not keep on repeating your tirade ad nauseum.  Why would police have better things to do Santa Paws? Surely they would be interested in such "criminal activity"?  

Btw I have not mentioned "lying" - if you believe you are right then please do grow a pair and undertake to do what your conscience dictates

From your statements, you clearly are ignorant of the role that fox hunting plays in predator control  -  you clearly were an anti before the Hunting Act  and I take it that you remain so.
Thats fine but please dont pretend that you are somehow motivated by some higher moral regard for society....

Hunts stuck to the law before the hunting Act and were targeted by sabs and antis.  Post the Hunting Act these individuals still have nothing better to do but annoy and disrupt others engaged in lawfull activity (and that includes blood hounds!)


----------



## cptrayes (28 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Santa_Paws this is really getting quite tiresome...
		
Click to expand...

I agree



Fiagai said:



			I do not wish to become involved with any poster making unsubtantiated allegations so I will not Pm you.
		
Click to expand...

You mean that you do not wish to hear my substantiation. If you give me a PM I will give you the name of the secretary of the latest hunt that I was told face to face, by him, that they hunt fox.



Fiagai said:



			I will repeat for your benefit Santa Paws - either put up or shut up - you made your allegations in public so do not attempt to hide behind a curtain of convenient secrecy.
		
Click to expand...

I am not in the business of naming and shaming. I do not wish to bring more antis down on your heads. I will tell you privately, not publicly.



Fiagai said:



			If you have "proof" then go to the relevant authorities and do not keep on repeating your tirade ad nauseum.  Why would police have better things to do Santa Paws? Surely they would be interested in such "criminal activity"?
		
Click to expand...

If you are tired of me repeating myself then stop repeating your accusation that I am lying and I will stop telling you that I am not. If the police cannot properly investigate my own burglary and other people's then I am not going to be the cause of them spending their time on trying to stop fox hunting. The sabs will do it for them with covert surveillance in time.




Fiagai said:



			From your statements, you clearly are ignorant of the role that fox hunting plays in predator control  -  you clearly were an anti before the Hunting Act  and I take it that you remain so.
		
Click to expand...

I am completely aware of the role of hunting with hounds in fox control. Shooting is as effective, Burns says it is as humane, marksmen say it is humane and effective. My own rural area has never been controlled by hunting with hounds, only with guns. You are typical of people who are passionate about your sport that you believe that those of us who do not support you are simply ignorant of the facts. I am not.





Fiagai said:



			Hunts stuck to the law before the hunting Act and were targeted by sabs and antis.  Post the Hunting Act these individuals still have nothing better to do but annoy and disrupt others engaged in lawfull activity (and that includes blood hounds!)
		
Click to expand...

Post the hunting act, sabs are targetting hunts which they can see hunting illegally. Stop all hunts from hunting illegally and they will stop standing out in the wet and cold annoying any of you. They do not sab drag packs. They would not sab hunts that hunt only a trail and call off the hounds if the mistakenly pick up a live fox scent. (I accept that they will still sab hunts hunting legally with two hounds to a gun or a bird of prey). In the main though, they continue their activities because some hunts are continuing theirs.


----------



## Fiagai (28 December 2011)

You really havent read my last post santa_Paws have you?
so I will bullet point this one for your benefit


*I have said nothing about lying 
*If you have an allegation/complaint against 3 different hunts- go to the relevent authorites  
*Do not defame others with unsubstaniated statements on a public forum
*You have no need to name and shame , I am sure the authorities will treat your with the concern it warrents on the merit of the proofs supplied
*For your information police have divisions devoted to specific areas _ I am sure your local wildlife enforcement unit will not be investigating burglaries (unless by anti's) and vice versa and so should be more than willing to investagate your complaints
*Your opinion on shooting is your own - the effectiveness of shooting is at best debatable
* sabs and antis have been targeting all types of hunts (eg recent incident with bloodhounds) they are not discriminating at least!
*You would appear to have a very warm fuzzy opinion of such activity I would argue that they are continuing their activities because of such unsubstatiated allegations by others such as yourself....


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

Well here's my opinion. 

YGWYD - whilst there were some inconsistencies in your account which I was going to raise (I think you perhaps posted in haste/anger!!??) I'm glad that the Master has been round and sorted things with you (Vodka though, seriously?????? Yuck! )

Whilst we are all monitored on a daily basis through CCTV, speed cameras, et al, these are largely (although not exclusively) by the authorities or people protecting their own property/businesses and not a group of.....hmmm....what would they call me if I went on the street and started to get involved in monitoring/trying to prevent crimes, ah that's it......vigilantes.

There may well be hunts which break the law, there are others who do not, yet they all seem to attract the interest of our 'friends' in camo and balaclavas, so are they really interested in whether the law is being broken OR as I suspect is this all about 'class' i.e. because we own horses and follow a hunt we must all be 'toffs'? How wrong they are, plenty of people I know who ride/hunt have a far less 'middle/upper-class' background than I suspect many of the sabs do! I would also say that the vast majority of people I hunt with are animal lovers (no doubt that'll stir a few up!!).

The OP was about a hunt which, regardless of whether it was hunting within the law or not have accepted that their actions were wrong and was posted by someone who it seems had not taken 'time-out' to think things through before posting. We are now once again in to the pro hunt, anti hunt debate which, unless both sides seek to understand the other, which neither side wishes to, there will be and cannot be a resolution.

Anyway, roll on Saturday


----------



## TwoPair (29 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Post the hunting act, sabs are targetting hunts which they can see hunting illegally. Stop all hunts from hunting illegally and they will stop standing out in the wet and cold annoying any of you. They do not sab drag packs. They would not sab hunts that hunt only a trail and call off the hounds if the mistakenly pick up a live fox scent. (I accept that they will still sab hunts hunting legally with two hounds to a gun or a bird of prey). In the main though, they continue their activities because some hunts are continuing theirs.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is a load of bull    The pack I myself have bloodhounded with have been subject to the attention of hunt sabs. It's not exactly like bloodhounds look like foxhounds either   The man running frantically at the front dressed in lycra would probably be most miffed that he was mistaken for  ginger vermin...


----------



## hunting mad (29 December 2011)

First of all,i go hunting at least once a week,sometimes twice a week,and we allow the hunt on our land.
I do have to say there are certain people that give hunting a bad name.Go where they like without thought for anyone else,block roads etc.
We ALWAYS put our horses away when hounds are local.....its a must.
As for the OP accusing of illegal hunting. Have you ever tried to stop hounds on a good scenting day.Accidents do happen.They will switch from a trail to a quarry,after all,that is what hounds were bred to do,and its still in them.You cant blame hounds!!!And when this does happen,hounds are stopped as quickly as possible


----------



## AengusOg (29 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Many people who break the law are part of a self-serving many of badly educated young with inadequate parenting. It does not mean that other better educated people with more advantages in life should follow them into illegal behaviour..
		
Click to expand...

Criminals are criminals. Education and a good upbringing does not preclude anyone from a life of criminality.







Santa Paws said:



			There is no excuse for anyone to pick and choose which laws they intend to abide by.
		
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2011)

For my part I was going to let this one die a natural death and had given up posting.

However I still can't make up my mind as to whether or not the events are genuine.

The bottle of Vodka does not lend credibility, Whisky yes, couple of bottles of wine, yes, but Vodka?

On the other hand, may be it came on the cheap from one of the many dodgy illicit distilleries that seem to be a problem for Customs and Excise. 

If somebody gave me a bottle of Vodka, in the circumstances, even with a well known brand name, I would tip it down the sink on the basis of, if I personally did not buy it in a reputable supermarket or wine merchant, it's provenance cannot be guaranteed. 

No, leaving Vodka out of the scenario, there is something not quite right about this thread and it's origin.


----------



## hunting mad (29 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			For my part I was going to let this one die a natural death and had given up posting.

However I still can't make up my mind as to whether or not the events are genuine.

The bottle of Vodka does not lend credibility, Whisky yes, couple of bottles of wine, yes, but Vodka?

On the other hand, may be it came on the cheap from one of the many dodgy illicit distilleries that seem to be a problem for Customs and Excise. 

If somebody gave me a bottle of Vodka, in the circumstances, even with a well known brand name, I would tip it down the sink on the basis of, if I personally did not buy it in a reputable supermarket or wine merchant, it's provenance cannot be guaranteed. 

No, leaving Vodka out of the scenario, there is something not quite right about this thread and it's origin.
		
Click to expand...

I did think vodka was odd


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2011)

hunting mad said:



			I did think vodka was odd
		
Click to expand...

In all the circumstances described, giving anything other than an apology is risky legally. It is in an effect an admission of both civil and criminal liability.

I know and have known many masters of hounds and I can't think of a single one who would give anybody a bottle of Vodka.

Normally masters and/or hunt secretaries only dispence 'bottles' as a thank you not as an apology.

No, when the facts are *distilled*  there is something very odd about this?


----------



## hunting mad (29 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			In all the circumstances described, giving anything other than an apology is risky legally. It is in an effect an admission of both civil and criminal liability.

I know and have known many masters of hounds and I can't think of a single one who would give anybody a bottle of Vodka.

Normally masters and/or hunt secretaries only dispence 'bottles' as a thank you not as an apology.

No, when the facts are *distilled*  there is something very odd about this?
		
Click to expand...

No,masters and vodka just doesnt add up,especially as a "sorry"


----------



## MerrySherryRider (29 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			For my part I was going to let this one die a natural death and had given up posting.

However I still can't make up my mind as to whether or not the events are genuine.
		
Click to expand...

Considering how verbal you have been on this matter, I'm surprised you do not wish to know the truth. You have declined the OP's offer of a pm telling you the details, perferring to use the thread as a means of criticising anyone who shows the hunt in a bad light.
 The OP was quite correct not to name and shame on a public forum, its common practice not to identify dealers, trainers, livery yards or even hunts on an open forum and I'm surprised that you keep baying for public identification. 

Truth is not on your agenda is it ? Its more a case of 'The hunt that must never be criticised under any circumstances.'


 This attitude does hunting no favours, its only by open dialogue that hunt supporters can be seen to be reasonable people.


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Considering how verbal you have been on this matter, I'm surprised you do not wish to know the truth. You have declined the OP's offer of a pm telling you the details, perferring to use the thread as a means of criticising anyone who shows the hunt in a bad light.
 The OP was quite correct not to name and shame on a public forum, its common practice not to identify dealers, trainers, livery yards or even hunts on an open forum and I'm surprised that you keep baying for public identification. 

Truth is not on your agenda is it ? Its more a case of 'The hunt that must never be criticised under any circumstances.'


 This attitude does hunting no favours, its only by open dialogue that hunt supporters can be seen to be reasonable people.
		
Click to expand...

I have not received a PM from the OP with any information!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (29 December 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I have not received a PM from the OP with any information!

Click to expand...

Op offered the information via pm if contacted.


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Op offered the information via pm if contacted.
		
Click to expand...

OP doesn't need to be contacted, could just send it surely?

I did hear of a case where Master turned up at a landowners house with a bottle of scotch under his arm as an apology for crossing land he wasn't supposed to by mistake. Chatted for a while, made his apologies...........then left with the scotch still under his arm!! lol


----------



## Judgemental (29 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Op offered the information via pm if contacted.
		
Click to expand...

But the OP did not supply any information, there was a PM but no information was forthcoming.

The people who come on this forum, in the main, are highly experienced hunting folk.

It is no good people trying to 'pull the wool', especially on Boxing Day, it will not succeed.  

There is something very odd about the origin of this thread!


----------



## Maesfen (29 December 2011)

VoR said:



			I did hear of a case where Master turned up at a landowners house with a bottle of scotch under his arm as an apology for crossing land he wasn't supposed to by mistake. Chatted for a while, made his apologies...........then left with the scotch still under his arm!! lol
		
Click to expand...

Well, scotch is the tipple of choice for thanks or apologies; vodka's a very odd choice unless they were aware of the tenant's taste beforehand.


----------



## TwoPair (29 December 2011)

Maesfen said:



			Well, scotch is the tipple of choice for thanks or apologies; vodka's a very odd choice unless they were aware of the tenant's taste beforehand.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^ another one who thought vodka was a bit odd. Never EVER heard of vodka being given - unless of course it was a homebrew of cherry/damson/blackberry or other?


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

TwoPair said:



			unless of course it was a homebrew of cherry/damson/blackberry or other?
		
Click to expand...

No longer 'yuk' but mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!


----------



## Hollyberry (29 December 2011)

Here come the hunting bods, automatically justifying what is obviously a totally unjustifiable situation.  Similar thing has happened to me and I am constantly angered by the arrogant and disgusting behaviour of the people that hunt nowadays.  I too was not an anti at all but I have been so totally disgusted at the behaviour every season that I really think the time has come to call an end to it.  I do think it is because people's behaviour generally has got worse but most hunting folk think they have a god given right to plough up all the bridleways with quad bikes, horses, bikes etc, block driveways with lorries and followers as well as open gates and ride over land they chose to - oblivious of what is in the field and yes, I have seen it with my own eyes and a friend's horse was left in a ditch after it fell running away from the field and the followers just carried on and left him lying there.  I am sick of the people on here ignoring the obvious that some hunting people are truly obnoxious and I wish they would not challange everyone who complains about them as being either ignorant or a townie,  its very childish and I suspect the reason why hunting is getting such a bad name nowadays.  Very sad.


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

Hollyberry said:



			Here come the hunting bods, automatically justifying what is obviously a totally unjustifiable situation.  Similar thing has happened to me and I am constantly angered by the arrogant and disgusting behaviour of the people that hunt nowadays.  I too was not an anti at all but I have been so totally disgusted at the behaviour every season that I really think the time has come to call an end to it.  I do think it is because people's behaviour generally has got worse but most hunting folk think they have a god given right to plough up all the bridleways with quad bikes, horses, bikes etc, block driveways with lorries and followers as well as open gates and ride over land they chose to - oblivious of what is in the field and yes, I have seen it with my own eyes and a friend's horse was left in a ditch after it fell running away from the field and the followers just carried on and left him lying there.  I am sick of the people on here ignoring the obvious that some hunting people are truly obnoxious and I wish they would not challange everyone who complains about them as being either ignorant or a townie,  its very childish and I suspect the reason why hunting is getting such a bad name nowadays.  Very sad.
		
Click to expand...

Do you know what, I was going to reply to this, but to be honest I won't even justify it with one other than to say your 'generalisations' are offensive to the majority of us who hunt and in many instances a nonsense!


----------



## HeatherAnn (29 December 2011)

@hollyberry that can be said for almost every group of people, horsey or not. There'll always be the minority that give the others a bad name


----------



## Hollyberry (29 December 2011)

VoR said:



			Do you know what, I was going to reply to this, but to be honest I won't even justify it with one other than to say your 'generalisations' are offensive to the majority of us who hunt and in many instances a nonsense!
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you have to admit that there is very little acceptance from pro hunting people that any of them ever behave badly.  I find it irritating that the po faced hunters who constantly pontificate about anti hunting beliefs being ignorant and getting all indignant when people say the obvious about hunts still hunting foxes think they are above reproach, the arrogance is unbelievable.  I know hunts that hunt foxes constantly and they boast about it to anyone who will listen and I am not the only person who knows this.  I just wish people would be honest about it and admit they are breaking the law and that is why sabs follow them.  Let;s be honest, if there was nothing to find they wouldn't look and being secretive about their activities only adds to it all.  There are of course sabs who are idiots and cause problems but that is true in all areas of life.  Some of my friends hunt and some are anti, makes no difference to me if people behave as they should and don't harm others - how I wish that was the case.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2011)

Maesfen said:



			Well, scotch is the tipple of choice for thanks or apologies; vodka's a very odd choice unless they were aware of the tenant's taste beforehand.
		
Click to expand...

OR,  unless it was the closest bottle to hand!!   Otherwise,  you're right!!  A visitor may be invited to join us in a dram,  but far less likely to be offered a VAT!! 

Alec.


----------



## dingle12 (29 December 2011)

Think its a case of forum bullying and forum police yet again on HHO  pretty sad really.


----------



## hunting mad (29 December 2011)

Hollyberry said:



			Here come the hunting bods, automatically justifying what is obviously a totally unjustifiable situation.  Similar thing has happened to me and I am constantly angered by the arrogant and disgusting behaviour of the people that hunt nowadays.  I too was not an anti at all but I have been so totally disgusted at the behaviour every season that I really think the time has come to call an end to it.  I do think it is because people's behaviour generally has got worse but most hunting folk think they have a god given right to plough up all the bridleways with quad bikes, horses, bikes etc, block driveways with lorries and followers as well as open gates and ride over land they chose to - oblivious of what is in the field and yes, I have seen it with my own eyes and a friend's horse was left in a ditch after it fell running away from the field and the followers just carried on and left him lying there.  I am sick of the people on here ignoring the obvious that some hunting people are truly obnoxious and I wish they would not challange everyone who complains about them as being either ignorant or a townie,  its very childish and I suspect the reason why hunting is getting such a bad name nowadays.  Very sad.
		
Click to expand...

How can you say this?Do you know every  single pack of hounds,and every single person that hunts?
If you have read my previous comments on this thread,you will see i say there are some people that give hunting a bad name,but not every single one of us.Most of us are law abiding citizens,who work hard to be able to go hunting,and have a social life.
You really have no right to say this


----------



## AengusOg (29 December 2011)

It's not the hunts you need to worry about, in terms of foxes killed. Since the ban it has become year-round open season on foxes. They are still killed in huge numbers by people who prefer life without their depredations. The methods of killing them now, though, are not as humane or as observable as was hunting.


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

Hollyberry said:



			Fair enough, but you have to admit that there is very little acceptance from pro hunting people that any of them ever behave badly.  

Let;s be honest, if there was nothing to find they wouldn't look and being secretive about their activities only adds to it all.
		
Click to expand...

You haven't read some of my other posts then! I would also point out that the anti hunt lobby won't usually, if ever, admit to doing anything wrong when clearly they do. They will cry unfair treatment and look at the nasty, violent, cruel hunt people when they have actually intimidated people to the point of retaliation, only recording the reaction on their cameras rather than the events leading up to it. Selective recording and clever editing can make anyone look like a saint or a sinner!

The secrecy is often to try to avoid any of the hunt supporters getting in to unnecessary confrontations (see above), given that sabs are not selective in which hunts they interfere with, even if legally hunting and should not be seen as an admission of guilt, but more often self preservation!


----------



## Fiagai (29 December 2011)

Hollyberry said:



			Here come the hunting bods, automatically justifying what is obviously a totally unjustifiable situation.  Similar thing has happened to me and I am constantly angered by the arrogant and disgusting behaviour of the people that hunt nowadays.  I too was not an anti at all but I have been so totally disgusted at the behaviour every season that I really think the time has come to call an end to it.  I do think it is because people's behaviour generally has got worse but most hunting folk think they have a god given right to plough up all the bridleways with quad bikes, horses, bikes etc, block driveways with lorries and followers as well as open gates and ride over land they chose to - oblivious of what is in the field and yes, I have seen it with my own eyes and a friend's horse was left in a ditch after it fell running away from the field and the followers just carried on and left him lying there.  I am sick of the people on here ignoring the obvious that some hunting people are truly obnoxious and I wish they would not challange everyone who complains about them as being either ignorant or a townie,  its very childish and I suspect the reason why hunting is getting such a bad name nowadays.  Very sad.
		
Click to expand...


Yes it is very sad HB!   It is very sad that it has become so fashionable to make all-encompassing statements about everyone that hunts!  In this day of PC gone mad it has somehow become acceptable to discriminate and abuse those who chose to continue to hunt.  Unsupported allegations are made and everyone is treated as if they are criminals just because they chose an activity that has been labelled as elitism. The BCC on Boxing Day effectively said that anyone continuing to hunt fell under suspicion simply because they went out with horses and hounds!

I have used the example before that in my experience that 99% of drivers are responsible and considerate and in my experience the remaining 1% is the exception. I do not therefore damn all drivers of motor vehicles.

I expect others to extend the same courtesy to other activities and NOT jump on the bandwagon that is already overloaded with shouting ignorant oafs


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

Hear, hear Fiagai.


----------



## rockysmum (29 December 2011)

Dont see why everyone is having a problem believing the Vodka

Obviously the hunt were not very sorry, only slightly sorry, hence giving her an unwanted Christmas present


----------



## VoR (29 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			Dont see why everyone is having a problem believing the Vodka

Obviously the hunt were not very sorry, only slightly sorry, hence giving her an unwanted Christmas present  

Click to expand...

Yep, that's it:

Secretary: Master these people have complained, perhaps you should take a rather lovely bottle of single malt round to say sorry.

Master: Certainly will, goodbye secretary...........not!!!????? Now where's that cheap Vodka I was given?


----------



## rockysmum (29 December 2011)

VoR said:



			Yep, that's it:

Secretary: Master these people have complained, perhaps you should take a rather lovely bottle of single malt round to say sorry.

Master: Certainly will, goodbye secretary...........not!!!????? Now where's that cheap Vodka I was given?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely

You do realise that anyone joining this thread at the end will now think the OP was complaining about the quality of the gift and that HHO have managed 18 pages of rants about it


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Yes it is very sad HB!   It is very sad that it has become so fashionable to make all-encompassing statements about everyone that hunts!  In this day of PC gone mad it has somehow become acceptable to discriminate and abuse those who chose to continue to hunt.  Unsupported allegations are made and everyone is treated as if they are criminals just because they chose an activity that has been labelled as elitism. The BCC on Boxing Day effectively said that anyone continuing to hunt fell under suspicion simply because they went out with horses and hounds!

I have used the example before that in my experience that 99% of drivers are responsible and considerate and in my experience the remaining 1% is the exception. I do not therefore damn all drivers of motor vehicles.

I expect others to extend the same courtesy to other activities and NOT jump on the bandwagon that is already overloaded with shouting ignorant oafs
		
Click to expand...

We are now approaching the end of the year,  and if not for the forum in its entirety,  certainly for this section,  THAT is the post of the year.   



rockysmum said:



			Absolutely

You do realise that anyone joining this thread at the end will now think the OP was complaining about the quality of the gift and that HHO have managed 18 pages of rants about it  

Click to expand...

  A pertinent observation.  Funny too! 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (29 December 2011)

Master: hmmm lovely bottle of Scotch or a bottle of vodka?

Pauses....

Bugger that! Vodka it is....


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			J_M old bean,

fond of you as I am,  and whilst considering that I've read some unmitigated rubbish on this forum;  on this occasion,  you sir,  have excelled yourself!! 

The allegations have been substantiated,  the Master concerned has offered an unqualified apology,  the OP has graciously accepted that apology,  but YOU seem determined to continue with your tirade.

Don't go to the trouble of explaining yourself,  I don't have the patience to listen.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto - you saved me the trouble, Alec - well said!

The OP was VERY entitled to be pi**ed off - fortunately the Master is one of the sensible ones and has made amends!

Some of the hunt supporters on this forum would do well to think on the crappy impression they give others about hunting people!  I spent 7 years of my life as a full-time spokesperson for hunting (before the ban) and an awful lot of my time was spent trying to sort out these 'issues'.  If more hunting people ha really THOUGHT about their behaviour - and behaved better - hunting might NOT have been banned!!

IF the ban is ever to be repealed, we could do with not making more enemies in the meantime!   A little consideration and courtesy costs nothing!


----------



## Mrs B (29 December 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Ditto - you saved me the trouble, Alec - well said!

The OP was VERY entitled to be pi**ed off - fortunately the Master is one of the sensible ones and has made amends!

Some of the hunt supporters on this forum would do well to think on the crappy impression they give others about hunting people!  I spent 7 years of my life as a full-time spokesperson for hunting (before the ban) and an awful lot of my time was spent trying to sort out these 'issues'.  If more hunting people ha really THOUGHT about their behaviour - and behaved better - hunting might NOT have been banned!!

IF the ban is ever to be repealed, we could do with not making more enemies in the meantime!   A little consideration and courtesy costs nothing!
		
Click to expand...

Having read everything through, I started to type, and then decided I should just say: ^^^^^^^^^^ This.


----------



## Rosie Round The Hills (29 December 2011)

I'm with MrsB, Alec and JG on all of this.

And to the original poster, a heartfelt thank you for being so civil about the variety of replies on here, and for your acceptance of the apology as offered.


----------



## cptrayes (29 December 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Ditto - you saved me the trouble, Alec - well said!

The OP was VERY entitled to be pi**ed off - fortunately the Master is one of the sensible ones and has made amends!

Some of the hunt supporters on this forum would do well to think on the crappy impression they give others about hunting people!  I spent 7 years of my life as a full-time spokesperson for hunting (before the ban) and an awful lot of my time was spent trying to sort out these 'issues'.  If more hunting people ha really THOUGHT about their behaviour - and behaved better - hunting might NOT have been banned!!

IF the ban is ever to be repealed, we could do with not making more enemies in the meantime!   A little consideration and courtesy costs nothing!
		
Click to expand...

Well said Janet George!


----------



## VoR (30 December 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			The OP was VERY entitled to be pi**ed off - fortunately the Master is one of the sensible ones and has made amends!

And the OP appears to have been satisfied with the outcome which is THE most important thing

If more hunting people ha really THOUGHT about their behaviour - and behaved better - hunting might NOT have been banned!!

Bit confused, not been hunting that long, but I didn't think the hunting act was made law due to the behaviour of those that hunted, rather a perception of cruelty (and maybe a little bit of a perceived class issue!! ), though I may be wrong??

IF the ban is ever to be repealed, we could do with not making more enemies in the meantime! A little consideration and courtesy costs nothing!

This too is true,tbh the vast majority that I hunt with do show consideration and courtesy at all times and the youngsters that hunt a by far some of the most polite I have met, a credit to their parents and in the way they conduct themselves in the field, the hunt.

Click to expand...

Happy New Year all!


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2011)

Just-finished-wrapping said:



			Unfortunately hounds arnt remote controlled.....
		
Click to expand...

Why are drag hounds more controllable? Same hounds, different training?

We've been through this one already on this thread, but never in 6 seasons and some odd days, hunting with 3 different drag packs, have I ever seen a Hunstman and his whips fail to call hounds off a live fox scent, though I have often seen the hounds find one. Their excitement at finding "the real thing" is sometimes unmistakable 

What a shame someone had to open this up again after JanetGeorge's lovely balanced post. What a shame I felt obliged to reply, more fool me 

Personally I think we should leave this  thread now with this as the last word:




			Originally Posted by JanetGeorge


The OP was VERY entitled to be pi**ed off - fortunately the Master is one of the sensible ones and has made amends!

Some of the hunt supporters on this forum would do well to think on the crappy impression they give others about hunting people! I spent 7 years of my life as a full-time spokesperson for hunting (before the ban) and an awful lot of my time was spent trying to sort out these 'issues'. If more hunting people ha really THOUGHT about their behaviour - and behaved better - hunting might NOT have been banned!!

IF the ban is ever to be repealed, we could do with not making more enemies in the meantime! A little consideration and courtesy costs nothing!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## flower08 (30 December 2011)

hunting mad said:



			No,masters and vodka just doesnt add up,especially as a "sorry"
		
Click to expand...

i have to say having worked for masters that i agree with you here


----------



## flower08 (30 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			Absolutely

You do realise that anyone joining this thread at the end will now think the OP was complaining about the quality of the gift and that HHO have managed 18 pages of rants about it  

Click to expand...


and this did make me laugh!


----------



## Fiagai (30 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Why are drag hounds more controllable? Same hounds, different training?

We've been through this one already on this thread, but never in 6 seasons and some odd days, hunting with 3 different drag packs, have I ever seen a Hunstman and his whips fail to call hounds off a live fox scent, though I have often seen the hounds find one. Their excitement at finding "the real thing" is sometimes unmistakable ...
		
Click to expand...

Well S_P - truely I do not know why your drag hounds are more controllable.  but perhaps there are some posters here with many years of experience with hounds who might be able to provide an answer?

I congratulate you on your apparently perfect hounds but what I do know is that hunting terminology allows for hounds to be "at fault" and "to riot" and this type of behaviour has been known to happen at least from time to time.  Neither are hounds machines.  Yes they can be "trained" as you say, but that does not make then infallible.  Training unfortunately does not allow for unexpected changes to environmental conditions such as wind and temperature that may put hounds off.

Nothing in this world is perfect, sometimes mistakes are made and rash judgements taken but that does not mean that where this happens lynching should be suggested as the only means of correction.  If at first there is doubt or unknown circumstances then the benefit of same should be given.  Fortunately in this case the OP is happy with the explanation and resolution.  I wish them well, I hope you do to...


----------



## Alec Swan (30 December 2011)

Fiagai,

from my limited experience,  hounds will listen when they've nothing better to do,  but when their heads are down,  not a hope in hell!! But then would we have them any other way? 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (30 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,

from my limited experience,  hounds will listen when they've nothing better to do,  but when their heads are down,  not a hope in hell!! But then would we have them any other way? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec

A hound is a hound, is a hound  unless its a couple then its two! 

But in answer I like hounds they way nature intended...


----------



## rockysmum (30 December 2011)

Just out of interest and because I have nothing else to do at the moment.

Having read "at fault" and "riot" I just wondered how much the insurance premiums are for a hunt.

And what about elfandsafety do you have to risk assess each venue, individual hounds etc etc.  I have to ensure every single thing is risk assessed and safe systems of work have been done in my job.

My mind was just idly wandering to serious road accidents, damage to people, animals or property caused by out of control hounds and such like.  I dont know how often it happens but it sounds as though it should be very expensive to insure against.


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			Just out of interest and because I have nothing else to do at the moment.

Having read "at fault" and "riot" I just wondered how much the insurance premiums are for a hunt.

And what about elfandsafety do you have to risk assess each venue, individual hounds etc etc.  I have to ensure every single thing is risk assessed and safe systems of work have been done in my job.

My mind was just idly wandering to serious road accidents, damage to people, animals or property caused by out of control hounds and such like.  I dont know how often it happens but it sounds as though it should be very expensive to insure against.
		
Click to expand...

Rm - all hunts have insurance...thankfully such incidents are rare.  "At fault" simply means that hounds are at fault when they have lost the line of their quarry or trail.  "Riot" means anything that hounds might follow a scent other than they should do.  It does not mean out of control btw

These terms describe how hounds behave it doesnt really mean that hounds start burning cars in London or get drunk in the local nightclub and are held liable for being drunk and disorderly on a friday night


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,

from my limited experience,  hounds will listen when they've nothing better to do,  but when their heads are down,  not a hope in hell!! But then would we have them any other way? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well there you have it Alec, don't you? It spoils the day for  a drag hunt if the hounds follow live quarry.

It makes the day for a fox hunt if the hounds follow live quarry.

This is a training issue, nothing more nothing less. Fox packs are not trained sufficiently to guarantee that they can be called off a live scent because you do not want them to be called off a live scent. Simples


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			These terms describe how hounds behave it doesnt really mean that hounds start burning cars in London or get drunk in the local nightclub and are held liable for being drunk and disorderly on a friday night 

Click to expand...

PMSL


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			PMSL   

Click to expand...



RM

Here is a picture of some "hounds" behaving badly or maybe they are "drag" hounds?...


----------



## Godknows (31 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			YGWYD  isn't it incredible that some people are suggesting that this is your fault?

Of course if the hunt had been hunting legally then there is no way that they would have laid scent across your field without asking your permission. By definition, if the hounds were in your field they were either out of control or being allowed to hunt fox. There are three hunts nearish to me hunting fox, so I believe that you saw them hunting a fox. Either way, the field should not have followed into your loose horses.

The behaviour is outrageous. There are plenty of horse owners who do not agree with hunting fox, never mind that it's illegal. Why on earth should they have to get their horses in every day that a meet happens to be close enough to possibly come onto their land? Such arrogance is what makes non-hunting folk think we are a bunch of overprivileged toffs.
		
Click to expand...

Haven't read all yet but have to totally agree with this^^^^^

So far I like the OP don't hunt but live and let live.  The hunt in question have been down right rude and then they have the nerve to complain to the land owner??  Just sounds like one of them may be his kin??  If you pay the rent and it doesn't say you must take the horses in why should you.  As I say I don't hunt and have no idea when peeps do and don't hunt??  

Do all you that do hunt know when there's a dressage event?  No didn't think so.  You do your hunting no good attacking someone who just trying to point out the bad behavior of some.


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			RM

Here is a picture of some "hounds" behaving badly or maybe they are "drag" hounds?...

[/IMG]
		
Click to expand...


     You wouldn't get away with posting that anywhere except the hunting section       All those cigs and alcohol shocking, call the RSPCA.

And tell all those out of control rioting hounds to watch out for this little guy


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2011)

LOL  

Aww Poor Fluffy Bunnies... 


rockysmum said:



     You wouldn't get away with posting that anywhere except the hunting section       All those cigs and alcohol shocking, call the RSPCA.

And tell all those out of control rioting hounds to watch out for this little guy 






Click to expand...


----------



## Godknows (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



     You wouldn't get away with posting that anywhere except the hunting section       All those cigs and alcohol shocking, call the RSPCA.

And tell all those out of control rioting hounds to watch out for this little guy 





















Click to expand...

They should be the riders not the bunnies


----------



## Fiagai (31 December 2011)

Godknows said:



			They should be the riders not the bunnies

Click to expand...

Naa dont be silly not even foxes like Fluffy Bunnies...


----------



## Godknows (31 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Naa dont be silly not even foxes like Fluffy Bunnies...

Click to expand...



Glad it has been resolved.


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

Fiagai said:



			LOL  

Aww Poor Fluffy Bunnies...
		
Click to expand...



Dont worry the fluffy bunnies got their revenge


----------



## Godknows (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:



			Dont worry the fluffy bunnies got their revenge  








Click to expand...

PMSL


----------



## JanetGeorge (31 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			This is a training issue, nothing more nothing less. Fox packs are not trained sufficiently to guarantee that they can be called off a live scent because you do not want them to be called off a live scent. Simples 

Click to expand...

Sorry - but that's rubbish!  Even one very well-trained dog can be tempted - with 30+ that's a LOT of potential temptation, but 'incidents' are thankfully quite rare (it's too often stupid followers that cause incidents rather than hounds!)

Hunts go to an enormous amount of trouble to ensure hounds stay under control.  Some packs in deer country actually keep a few pet deer in kennels to ensure they have hounds VERY steady to deer!  Not sure if they still do it, but one pack local to me used to take a couple of deer on hound exercise - really made motorists' heads turn!

Hounds that can't be called off a live scent are a dangerous liability - and while one 'incident' may be tolerated, repeat incidents mean a huntsman will be looking for a new job (and struggling to find one!!)  Incidents mean loss of farmer support, the risk of road accidents - and the risk of prosecution!


----------



## SusannaF (31 December 2011)

Odd how the people saying you can't generalise about all hunts are also saying emphatically that _no _master would hand out vodka


----------



## Luci07 (31 December 2011)

I have read all the way through the posts and kept coming back to it. Some very interesting views have come up, I, as someone who DOES choose to support hunting applauded both the action of the hunt master who apologised AND the actions of the OP who recieved it gracefully and reported back.

But JG! Is as usual, the voice of reason. Unfortunately I really do agree with her that had our manners better in previous times, we might not have had the act passed. There were a lot of people who didn't care but bad manners led to a poor perception of hunting people.

Personally,and although it has been a while due to lack of a horse who could hunt, I went out with the Surrey Union and they placed a huge emphasis on good manners and following the rules. No hooning over the middles of fields etc! We were told where we could go by the master and no one deviated.  When I have run into them while out hacking, I was welcomed and asked if I would like to join them! Maybe with the next horse I will be able to go out..


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Sorry - but that's rubbish!  Even one very well-trained dog can be tempted - with 30+ that's a LOT of potential temptation, but 'incidents' are thankfully quite rare (it's too often stupid followers that cause incidents rather than hounds!)

Hunts go to an enormous amount of trouble to ensure hounds stay under control.  Some packs in deer country actually keep a few pet deer in kennels to ensure they have hounds VERY steady to deer!  Not sure if they still do it, but one pack local to me used to take a couple of deer on hound exercise - really made motorists' heads turn!

Hounds that can't be called off a live scent are a dangerous liability - and while one 'incident' may be tolerated, repeat incidents mean a huntsman will be looking for a new job (and struggling to find one!!)  Incidents mean loss of farmer support, the risk of road accidents - and the risk of prosecution!
		
Click to expand...


JG it is not rubbish. I have drag hunted for years and many times have seen hounds called off a live scent.

The unarguable conclusion from this post is that if the OP saw an entire pack of  hounds clearly hunting fox then that pack had either been allowed to hunt that fox by the Huntsman or were out of his control. 

That was also my conclusion, and I am mystified why you have opened that part of the discussion again when your main post was so wonderfully balanced.


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:








Click to expand...


----------



## JoBird (31 December 2011)

I have been hunting on horseaback and follow and loads of my friends do the same.  I have to say regretably that the OP and Santa Paws are both correct.  I have witnessed hounds and horses trashing people's gardens without apology and definitely hunting foxes.  It really isnt a secret people (including me) just turn a blind eye. 

It is the rudeness/arogance that really does bother me and gives hunting a bad name.  Hopefully someone influential will hammer it into the hunts that they really need to "behave" and be well manered or even the followers will feel embarassed to be part of it.  I realise not all hunts are at fault but some really need a good talking to!


----------



## A1JUMPJOCKEY (31 December 2011)

The biggest problem is, is that a lot of people following hounds dont have the first idea of ettiquette and protocol on a days Hunting, We had an occasion last season where some of the field who were toiling behind (why do people do this) trotted through a large livery yard to catch up with the Field, upsetting a lot of horses in the process. The horses who were up behind our Lady master walked through the yard as your supposed to do. Sincere appoliges were made to the owner and a severe Bollo**ng to the people behind. Its little things like not waiting for the horse behind you to cross a foot bridge before galloping off!!!(my biggest pet hate)

Ive not read all of the 200+ comments regarding this issue as there is not enough time in the day.(plus im watching great racing from Newbury). On the "ODD" occasion where Hounds, Hunt Staff or the field have passed through land or property where permisson was not sort after, i can assure you that 99% of Packs up and down GB would not be anything but appoligetic or curtious to farmers or Landowners. In most cases hounds have gone across that property in the past and are probably normally made welcome. 

If hounds are in your local area and you have been told by your pack, then its your responsibility for your horses in the your fields. If you have a livery yard, small stable or a few of your own, please make your self known to your local Secretary and they will put you on the e-mail list or the list for the Master of the day to ring prior to a days hunting.

Im not a Master or Professional Hunt staff just a very keen Am-Whip, im passionate about Hunting and Hounds and can only appoligise for some poor manners from others. I can assure we at the Southdown and Eridge have a very good Relationship with all our farmers and Landowners and are always pollite to all passing cars etc. As proved with over 100 on horseback and 2000on there feet on Boxing Day in Lewes.

PS: Before the comments come in, im not a wealthy older person. Im 28 and work hard and follow hounds when racing Commitments allow.


----------



## Godknows (31 December 2011)

Yougetwhatyoudeserve said:



			I should start this by saying that though not a hunt follower myself I have always held the view that if people want to hunt thats up to them and I was quite happy to watch an Opening meet and give way to hunt riders if I met them on the road. However today has changed my attitude completely. We rent land in a certain hunt's country. We knew the meet was happening locally but we have always previously been told if they would be hunting near to us and we would bring our horses in from the field. We were not told anything today so left our horses out. However suddenly the hunt appeared, hounds streamed into our field, closely followed by the mounted pack sending our horses into a panic, careering about in the mud. 



QUOTE]



A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			The biggest problem is, is that a lot of people following hounds dont have the first idea of ettiquette and protocol on a days Hunting, We had an occasion last season where some of the field who were toiling behind (why do people do this) trotted through a large livery yard to catch up with the Field, upsetting a lot of horses in the process. The horses who were up behind our Lady master walked through the yard as your supposed to do. Sincere appoliges were made to the owner and a severe Bollo**ng to the people behind. Its little things like not waiting for the horse behind you to cross a foot bridge before galloping off!!!(my biggest pet hate)

Ive not read all of the 200+ comments regarding this issue as there is not enough time in the day.(plus im watching great racing from Newbury). On the "ODD" occasion where Hounds, Hunt Staff or the field have passed through land or property where permisson was not sort after, i can assure you that 99% of Packs up and down GB would not be anything but appoligetic or curtious to farmers or Landowners. In most cases hounds have gone across that property in the past and are probably normally made welcome. 

If hounds are in your local area and you have been told by your pack, then its your responsibility for your horses in the your fields. If you have a livery yard, small stable or a few of your own, please make your self known to your local Secretary and they will put you on the e-mail list or the list for the Master of the day to ring prior to a days hunting.

Im not a Master or Professional Hunt staff just a very keen Am-Whip, im passionate about Hunting and Hounds and can only appoligise for some poor manners from others. I can assure we at the Southdown and Eridge have a very good Relationship with all our farmers and Landowners and are always pollite to all passing cars etc. As proved with over 100 on horseback and 2000on there feet on Boxing Day in Lewes.

PS: Before the comments come in, im not a wealthy older person. Im 28 and work hard and follow hounds when racing Commitments allow.
		
Click to expand...

A1JJ As you will see from the quote above by OP origninal first post.  They did not inform them when they normally do but it has all been resolved as they took her/him a bottle of Vodka to put in horses feed to keep them calm and apologised



Click to expand...


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			If hounds are in your local area and you have been told by your pack, then its your responsibility for your horses in the your fields. If you have a livery yard, small stable or a few of your own, please make your self known to your local Secretary and they will put you on the e-mail list or the list for the Master of the day to ring prior to a days hunting.
QUOTE]

Now you see its this kind of comment which would wind up us normal horse owners.  It seems a little arrogant 

If I owned my own land and my horses were out on it, I would assume that it is the responsibility of the hunt to 1) ask my permision to hunt over it   2) tell me exactly when they intended to do so.

From your post it sounds as though they have a right to cross anyones land, do they?  Is this right restricted to hunts or can any of us go galloping through other peoples property, as long as we inform them first.  Assuming they need permission, it would not seem to be in their interests to annoy the land owner, or that permission will soon be revoked.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (31 December 2011)

rockysmum said:





A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			If hounds are in your local area and you have been told by your pack, then its your responsibility for your horses in the your fields. If you have a livery yard, small stable or a few of your own, please make your self known to your local Secretary and they will put you on the e-mail list or the list for the Master of the day to ring prior to a days hunting.
QUOTE]

Now you see its this kind of comment which would wind up us normal horse owners.  It seems a little arrogant  *Well here's a "normal" horse owner who would find it quite acceptable.*

If I owned my own land and my horses were out on it, I would assume that it is the responsibility of the hunt to 1) ask my permision to hunt over it   2) tell me exactly when they intended to do so. *If you owned your own land,  and if you were in hunting country,  and if this was in the days when we hunted foxes,  instead of a bloke in trainers,  then it would most probably be a given,  that hounds would cross your property at some time during the season,  and all that I know of are quite happy with that.*

From your post it sounds as though they have a right to cross anyones land, do they?  Is this right restricted to hunts or can any of us go galloping through other peoples property, as long as we inform them first.  Assuming they need permission, it would not seem to be in their interests to annoy the land owner, or that permission will soon be revoked.  *It isn't so much a RIGHT,  more a freedom which was,  and generally still is accepted,  and given.  Generally,  the mounted field  will have a Field Master who will be very well aware of ethical and correct behaviour,  and to revert right back to the very start of this,  at times ludicrous,  occasionally funny,  and often silly thread,  there was an unthinkable breakdown in the joined up thinking of some one.*

Click to expand...

What I've tried to say to you is that most land owners,  will welcome hounds,  and those riders who know how to conduct themselves in a courteous fashion.  Does that help?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## A1JUMPJOCKEY (31 December 2011)

Its not our god given right to gallop where ever we wont to. We seek permission way in advance, I dont know of a pack of hounds who would go out of there way to gallop through a field of horses as you seem to think we do. Most of the instances of horses being upset in fields is when horses and hounds pass along lanes and bridle ways ( which like yourselves we do have a right to pass along) the reason i said get in touch with your local secretary is that you can be pre warned of hounds being in your area, Surely thats not being Arrogant thats just common sense.


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:





rockysmum said:



			What I've tried to say to you is that most land owners,  will welcome hounds,  and those riders who know how to conduct themselves in a courteous fashion.  Does that help?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 I dont actually disagree, it was just the way the post was worded, as though it was a right not a favour.  And be honest, the people who have that attitude would be the first to complain if someone (other than a hunt) trespassed on their land.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			Its not our god given right to gallop where ever we wont to. We seek permission way in advance, I dont know of a pack of hounds who would go out of there way to gallop through a field of horses as you seem to think we do. Most of the instances of horses being upset in fields is when horses and hounds pass along lanes and bridle ways ( which like yourselves we do have a right to pass along) the reason i said get in touch with your local secretary is that you can be pre warned of hounds being in your area, Surely thats not being Arrogant thats just common sense.
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have done it again  

Why the hell should landowners have to contact the hunt secretary.  If an event is being organised its surely the responsibility of the organisors to make sure they know everyone who will be affected and contact them, especially if its possible this event might cross private land.


----------



## JanetGeorge (31 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			JG it is not rubbish. I have drag hunted for years and many times have seen hounds called off a live scent.

The unarguable conclusion from this post is that if the OP saw an entire pack of  hounds clearly hunting fox then that pack had either been allowed to hunt that fox by the Huntsman or were out of his control. 

That was also my conclusion, and I am mystified why you have opened that part of the discussion again when your main post was so wonderfully balanced.
		
Click to expand...

Yep - and I've foxhunted for many years - and many times have seen hounds called off a live scent - either a fox that was heading where the hunt didn't want to go, or deer, or hare.  I've also seen draghounds decline to be called off live scent - and foxhounds ditto!

Both sorts of hounds SHOULD be able to be called off a live scent - and usually can be - but ***** happens.  If the huntsman - or whippers-in - aren't close enough and hounds get up a head of steam there CAN be loss of control.  What I was saying was rubbish was the suggestion that hunts (of ANY flavour) WANTED their hounds to riot!


----------



## A1JUMPJOCKEY (31 December 2011)

I ask you to re-read my post please. Not on any occasion did i say we think we can go anywhere we like. If you have been pre warned and your horses get upsett you can hardly blame the passing hunt. If you have not been warned there in your area not just crossing near by land then yes im sure most packs would be sorry your horses were lit up.

What i did type though was that if you do have horses in fields and you no that your local pack sometimes comes near by is it not the sensible thing to ask to be warned in the future as im sure prevention is better than cure. Hunt secretarys and Masters are employed to do this.

Its not the Hunts Responsibility to warn you of them going past on lanes and bridleways but if they want to pass through your land then the will ask. If you dont want them to pass across then they will not, This is why if you make yourself known, you will be very much avoided in the future. Again this in not ARROGANT just common sense.

Also some country is scattered around with some land quite a hack on roads etc to get to the next farm, as not all Neighbouring Landowners want you to cross through.


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			What i did type though was that if you do have horses in fields and you no that your local pack sometimes comes near by is it not the sensible thing to ask to be warned in the future as im sure prevention is better than cure. Hunt secretarys and Masters are employed to do this.
		
Click to expand...

In which case it would not seem unreasonable that they got the contact details of ALL land owners in the areas they hunt in and put out a schedule.

Our local shoots do it, and they dont come onto the land, just warn people in case they are riding past them which is very sensible and responsible.

My only real point in this is to say that I think it should be the responsibility of the hunt to find out who might be affected, rather than people having to chase them up.


----------



## Alec Swan (31 December 2011)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			....... the reason i said get in touch with your local secretary is that you can be pre warned of hounds being in your area, .
		
Click to expand...




rockysmum said:



			....... its surely the responsibility of the organisors to make sure they know everyone who will be affected and contact them, especially if its possible this event might cross private land.
		
Click to expand...

rockysmum,  read the words of A1JJ again.  When first moving into an area where land is likely to have hounds running over it,  find your local Secretary,  make yourself known,  leave a number or e/mail address,  and you will be advised as to when hounds may be near you.  That is called introducing yourself,  or taking the fight to the enemy,  but however you view it,  take the necessary steps,  and you will be certain that at least you made the effort! 

Alec.


----------



## rockysmum (31 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			rockysmum,  read the words of A1JJ again.  When first moving into an area where land is likely to have hounds running over it,  find your local Secretary,  make yourself known,  leave a number or e/mail address,  and you will be advised as to when hounds may be near you.  That is called introducing yourself,  or taking the fight to the enemy,  but however you view it,  take the necessary steps,  and you will be certain that at least you made the effort! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

   Just because I'm bored and there is nothing on the TV at the moment 

Once again I can see why there are problems.  You make the assumption that anyone new to the area would even know where the local hunts went, or even that they existed at all.   Unfortunately I suspect that this is not always the case.  People who were not brought up in hunting areas might commit the dreadful sin of never thinking to ask.  They buy their house and land never suspecting they might be invaded by rioting hounds  (I love that term) and 50+ horses and riders.

Perhaps the hunt should introduce themselves,  or take the fight to the enemy, or take the necessary steps,  and then they could be certain that at least they made the effort


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			What I was saying was rubbish was the suggestion that hunts (of ANY flavour) WANTED their hounds to riot!
		
Click to expand...

If by "riot" you mean follow a live quarry then that is not rubbish. There _are _ hunts who want their hounds to follow live quarry.

I am so sorry that you opened this discussion again when I thought it was put to bed, but I will not accept that there are no hunts who want to hunt live quarry when I have been told by the hunt secretary themself that they do. 

JG, if you want the evidence of hunts which are openly hunting live quarry please PM me and I will let you have it.


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			rockysmum,  read the words of A1JJ again.  When first moving into an area where land is likely to have hounds running over it,  find your local Secretary,  make yourself known,  leave a number or e/mail address,  and you will be advised as to when hounds may be near you.  That is called introducing yourself,  or taking the fight to the enemy,  but however you view it,  take the necessary steps,  and you will be certain that at least you made the effort! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me Alec? Why the **** should I have to do that?  Car rallies warn me when they are in my area. Bike races warn me when they are in my area. Long distance runners warn me when they are in my area. Hell, I even get warned when_ snow_ intends to fall on me.

*Why* should I have to contact the hunt for them to tell me when they are in my area? Do you realise how _incredibly_ arrogant that sounds????

It is the responsibility of the* hunt* to warn people that they are there, not of innocent landowners to seek it out. And *how* do we seek it out when "ex" fox packs are still hiding their meets? And *why* do they need to hide their meet card if they are hunting lawfully?? If a hunt is following a trail legally then they will know which properties they will be passing and should warn people who live near the lines or at the very least openly publicise their meets.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that you are still offering the countryside a service which they cannot get from anywhere else and that the people who live in it should make all sorts of allowances for you.

This is no longer the case. Hunting is an entertainment, nothing more. Shooting is at least as effective and at least as humane. Start acting like the countryside is doing you a service instead of the other way around and you may find that the image of fox hunting improves.


----------



## Alec Swan (31 December 2011)

Dear oh dear,  so much to dissect,  and so little time,  because for certain this will continue for centuries! 



Santa Paws said:



			Excuse me Alec? Why the **** should I have to do that?  *You don't HAVE to do it at all,  you can continue as you are,  having moved to your newly acquired land and house,  and show no deference or respect to a tradition of good manners and courtesy which is generally reciprocal,  and is certainly time honoured.  That would be your choice.*Car rallies warn me when they are in my area. *I wonder how you managed that one,  perhaps you could drop the odd hint in my direction,  because the local off road 4 wheel drive **** wits,  make our own green lanes,  impassable in winter,  by cutting them to shreds.*Bike races warn me when they are in my area. Long distance runners warn me when they are in my area. Hell, I even get warned when_ snow_ intends to fall on me.  *So you'd expect local meets to be advertised along with the weather reports,  would you?  I wish you luck with that one. *

*Why* should I have to contact the hunt for them to tell me when they are in my area? Do you realise how _incredibly_ arrogant that sounds????  *Not a case of common sense then?  No,  I thought not.  Let me spell it out to you as simply as I am able,  in an effort to help you understand.  If you were to contact your local Pack secretary,  the Kennels will give you the number,  and when you speak to the secretary,  request that your name be put on and e/mailable contact list,  so that you can be advised when hounds are likely to be in the area.  Does that make sense to you? *

It is the responsibility of the* hunt* to warn people that they are there, not of innocent landowners to seek it out. *Finally we're in agreement,  BUT,  first if you were to introduce yourself,  they can hardly be expected to track down every single Boycee from Peckham,  who decide upon changing the rural scene,  to suit himself.  *And *how* do we seek it out when "ex" fox packs are still hiding their meets? And *why* do they need to hide their meet card if they are hunting lawfully?? If a hunt is following a trail legally then they will know which properties they will be passing and should warn people who live near the lines or at the very least openly publicise their meets. *A teensy problem with that.  Legal hunting is a pleasurable pastime for most.  You may not have heard of them but there are groups,  known as Sabs,  Antis,  or ****wits,  depending upon how you feel,  and these people will conduct illegal activities,  some,  indeed many putting the lives of others at risk,  and you'll never guess what,  the damage which they do to our rural environment is far greater that those who hunt.*

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that you are still offering the countryside a service which they cannot get from anywhere else and that the people who live in it should make all sorts of allowances for you.  *No,  I'm "attempting" to be of service to my rural environs,  and am generally prevented from doing so,  by a collection of clowns,  made up in part by Defra,  Government,  and those with no understanding of how rural life has been traditionally lived since time immemorial,  and would change everything to suit their own blinkered worlds.*

This is no longer the case. Hunting is an entertainment, nothing more. Shooting is at least as effective and at least as humane. *I have killed many many hundreds of foxes,  with firearms and by other means,  but mostly,  with firearms.  I can assure you that the efficacy and the humanity,  attached to shooting,  will not stand up to genuine inspection,  despite what you may have read,  or been told.*Start acting like the countryside is doing you a service instead of the other way around and you may find that the image of fox hunting improves.  *I'm at the service of my rural environment,  and I would in closing,  ask you one question;  As the countryside has developed over many centuries,  into the world which we now have,  and as those who,  with the greatest respect,  may have a more realistic handle on things,  than you do,  how do you feel that your new found thinking will improve matters?*

Click to expand...

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (1 January 2012)

Alec
It would appear that we have a new type of hunting person characterised by detesting anything actually to do with hunting including hounds behaving as hounds are sometimes want to do. I think this new breed also like vodka


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2012)

My house is not newly acquired, why on earth do you make that assumption?

Why is it an issue to ask for local meets to be accessible on a website that I can look up as I do for drag meets?

Sorry, I do not accept that a leisure club, a hunt, should expect me to show it respect and deference.

If you are legally hunting a trail there is no problem whatsoever with knowing which properties you will pass by. "Boycee from Peckham" (how patronising!) in this area is improving property after property which were a total mess before they took them on, rebuilding walls, improving land, planting new woods and looking after their stock better than many established farmers. The world has changed. You need to change with it.

The sabs will stop sabbing you if you stop hunting fox. They only sabbed bloodhounds once, and they won't make that mistake again for a long time. They don't sab drags. They are continuing to sab hunts because you are continuing to allow your hounds to chase fox. If you stop, so will they.  While hunts continue to excuse your hounds "accidentally" finding a fox scent and "running riot" chasing it without being (or being able to be) called off, then hunts will continue to be sabbed. 

Rural life since time immemorial also believed in dancing bears, dog fighting, cock fighting, children working long hours of hard manual work, pigs kept in disgusting confinement that drove them mad, cows chained by the neck into stalls for 6 months of the year etc etc. Society moves on. You may not like it, but the majority of people in this country do not agree with obtaining enjoyment from chasing a wild animal for miles across country to kill it. 

 I can assure you that foxes in my area are controlled perfectly well and humanely by marksmen with guns. I do not believe that it is more humane to hunt them with a pack of hounds and I do not believe that you can point me to any independant study that says it is. 

Why do you, in your incredible arrogance, assume that my current thinking is "newfound" or that I do not have a realistic handle on things simply because I do not agree with you?

Alec were you a huntsman or a whip? Because unless you were (or are if you still hunt fox) then you are kidding yourself if you think that you are doing any service to the countryside. The huntsman is, the whips are, the hounds are but the followers are there for the fun. OK their subs pay for the hounds and Huntsman but "service to the countryside"? -  a man with a gun is as good and cheaper. 

Your attitude is entirely typical of a voiciferous minority (I hope) of fox hunters who answer everyone who disagrees with them with the comment "you don't understand what you are talking about".

I *DO* understand fox hunting, completely, I have done it. I *DO* understand that you have been robbed of something that you are passionate about. I feel very sorry for you. But it is my  personal opinion that fox hunting is not  justifiable in this day and age.

Now, please can we agree to differ instead of any more tedious and frankly bl88dy arrogant comments about how long I have been a country dweller and my supposed lack of knowledge?

Happy New Year!


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Alec
It would appear that we have a new type of hunting person characterised by detesting anything actually to do with hunting including hounds behaving as hounds are sometimes want to do. I think this new breed also like vodka 

Click to expand...



I think that you are quite correct Fiagai. The drink of choice of many young people in this country is currently vodka and vodka mixes, and most young people in this country are, I suspect, completely against culling foxes by chasing them across county with hounds.

I see you can't sleep either, I hope you don't have the virus that I have that seems to include a total inability to sleep


----------



## Judgemental (1 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			I think that you are quite correct Fiagai. The drink of choice of many young people in this country is currently vodka and vodka mixes, and most young people in this country are, I suspect, completely against culling foxes by chasing them across county with hounds.

I see you can't sleep either, I hope you don't have the virus that I have that seems to include a total inability to sleep 

Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar-revellers-Toxic-liquid-make-ill-blind.html

Toxic fake vodka that can 'make them ill or blind'
By Sean Poulter Daily Mail

Last updated at 3:20 PM on 31st December 2011

New Year drinkers have been warned about fake vodka containing toxins, including chemicals used to make anti-freeze, that could make them go blind.
High levels of methanol and industrial solvents have been found in counterfeit vodka seized by trading standards officers across the country in recent weeks.

Criminal gangs have set up stills and are making their own vodka-like drinks, which are then dressed up to look like genuine brands such as Glens, Smirnoff, Drop, Arctic Ice, Red Admiral and Spar Imperial.

Party goers are being warned to avoid buying cheap booze which could cause kidney damage

These are then sold on at a knock-down price through small off-licences and corner shops across the country.

Tests on counterfeit bottles recently seized around the UK have revealed alarming levels of methanol  a key ingredient used to make anti-freeze with the potential to blind somebody.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oxic-liquid-make-ill-blind.html#ixzz1iBnjN9EZ


----------



## Lizzie66 (1 January 2012)

Santa Paws

Santa Paws - you keep harping on about arrogance, but your post is incredibly arrogant and full of generalisations.

I'm sure that SOME newcomers to the countryside do maintain their properties better than SOME established farmers, but you imply that all newcomers are better than all established farmers - incredibly arrogant !

It would behove any newcomers to any community to find out about their local area and any activities that may go on in the area, therefore suggesting that they contact the local hunt to be put on a mailing list isn't arrogant just a suggestion to make everyones life easier. If horses are kept on land adjacent to a dwelling then I am sure that the hunt would pop a card through their door, but when they are in a field in the middle of nowhere it does become more problematic to find out who the owner is and who to notify.

Sabs do follow hunts that are hunting within the law, despite what you may say. They hope to be able to both disrupt the day and potentially find evidence to prove the hunt has broken the law. Therefore the hunts that have suffered from sabs following in the pre-ban do tend to be reluctant to openly publicise their meet cards.

Any individual going about their business in a law-abiding way would rightly get rather narked to be followed and filmed by self styled monitors hoping to catch them out breaking the law. You certainly would not openly tell them where you are going to be to enable them to do this more easily.

You say shooting is a better option. If the shooter is a marks man then possibly it may no worse. However it does not take into account the other aspects to hunting with hounds, ie dispersal of numbers, the natural selection (fitter stronger foxes normally get away) etc. In normal circumstances with average marksman it is worse, the foxes are injured left to die slow painful deaths. 

Hunts provide an invaluable service to farmers which is why so many of them are happy to open up their land to allow the hunts across. The only way the hunts can survive is through its subscribers and members therefore followers are important to the hunt. So although many followers may not directly help out the farmers indirectly they do.

The majority of hunt followers are polite and understand and accept that not everyone shares their opinion, generally they do not feel the need to ram it down peoples throat. However generalisations around hunting abound; that we are toffs, arrogant and look down on others continue to be thrown around by many people who either have minimal knowledge or are anti hunting and wish to continue to perpetuate this myth.

So when people come onto a pro hunting web site to throw mud, or to latch onto threads and turn them into mud slinging against hunting you can't really be surprised when it gets slung back ! I am not having a go at the OP of this thread as they appear to have had a legitimate complaint that has been addressed to their satisfaction.

And before you say this website is for all, I would agree that it is, but its provided by the Horse and Hound magazine which is pro hunting and its readership is traditionally also pro hunting.


----------



## rockysmum (1 January 2012)

Before you all start on me   I'm not for or anti hunting, I couldn't care less, but this thread has kept me amused for hours.

Alec I do think your reply to Santa Paws was incredible arrogant, I just hope your hunt doesn't need to cross any land owned by someone from Peckham 



Lizzie66 said:



			Hunts provide an invaluable service to farmers which is why so many of them are happy to open up their land to allow the hunts across. The only way the hunts can survive is through its subscribers and members therefore followers are important to the hunt. So although many followers may not directly help out the farmers indirectly they do.
QUOTE]


This does puzzle me though, exactly what service does the hunt provide to farmers, now they are not allowed to hunt anymore.  Ploughing the fields perhaps     Sorry, but that is a genuine question
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Lizzie66 (1 January 2012)

Most hunts provide a fallen stock service to farmers, this reduces the overhead costs of disposing of deadstock that cannot go into the human food chain.


----------



## A1JUMPJOCKEY (1 January 2012)

Also whilst we were putting in a few new sets of timber rails to jump on a farmers land last month, we also repaired lots of fencing and re hung a few gates for him whilst out there, Saving him time and money. These little things also with the fallen stock round are a back scratching way of helping each other out. The countryside has always run like this and long may it continue.

Im sure most other pack's also do this but we hold a Farmers Dinner during the season as a thankyou to all landowners and farmers.


----------



## EAST KENT (1 January 2012)

What about those hunts who no longer feed flesh? Do they still remove deads even though  they feed ghastly pellets?


----------



## YorksG (1 January 2012)

Was just about to post about fallen stock, a very valuable service indeed. As an aside, surely if someone is aware of others breaking the law, particularly on a regular basis, and chooses not to inform the police of this, they too are commiting an offence? If you are told of the time and place that an offence is planned to be committed, then there is even more onus on you to inform the police.


----------



## JanetGeorge (1 January 2012)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			Also whilst we were putting in a few new sets of timber rails to jump on a farmers land last month, we also repaired lots of fencing and re hung a few gates for him whilst out there, Saving him time and money. These little things also with the fallen stock round are a back scratching way of helping each other out. The countryside has always run like this and long may it continue.

Im sure most other pack's also do this but we hold a Farmers Dinner during the season as a thankyou to all landowners and farmers.
		
Click to expand...

Yep - Farmers' supper is always well attended, and plenty take up free tickets to the Point-to-point (the odd one then flogs them off to their friends )

And it's surprising how many farmers turn up to local meets - even if they're not regular followers.  It's an excuse to 'get away' for a few hours, catch up on the local gossip etc.  Farming can be a very lonely occupation, as many now sell stock off farm and don't go to market!

And many hunts still operate lambing call outs - two hounds and a shotgun (within the law!!) - to dispose of a particular fox who has developed a taste for new-born lambs.


----------



## AengusOg (1 January 2012)

A1JUMPJOCKEY said:



			...a back scratching way of helping each other out. The countryside has always run like this and long may it continue.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear.

Unfortunately, the countryside is filling up with city slickers and townies who have no idea about such things. They are the arrogant ones; moving into decent communities and failing to integrate, and treating the 'natives' like a bunch of blood-lusting simpletons.


----------



## rockysmum (1 January 2012)

AengusOg said:



			Hear hear.

Unfortunately, the countryside is filling up with city slickers and townies who have no idea about such things. They are the arrogant ones; moving into decent communities and failing to integrate, and treating the 'natives' like a bunch of blood-lusting simpletons.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously spent far too much time watching "The Hills Have Eyes"


----------



## Fiagai (1 January 2012)

It's quite amazing that new bloods appear to have no real appreciation of what hunting over the last couple of centuries has contributed to present day hunting activities. Continued access to the countryside and the goodwill of rural communities has been built up over many years. 

The service that existing hunts offer for the purposes of predator 
control continues even after the Hunt Act albeit in a different form.

Generations of enlightened self interest has ensured that in the countryside a healthy  rural fox populations has been managed at least up to recent times. Coverts were known and maintained by landholders and hunts alike. Something alas that is being replaced by largely unmanaged methods.

All hunting activity today whether drag, trail or otherwise stands on the shoulders of those have gone 
before us.  Such  community ties built up cannot simply derided because by the thinking that such things can be simply abandoned because they are preceived as somehow old fashioned.

It is also remarkable to see relative newcomers deriding the knowledge and wisdom of the posters who have been involved in hunting over many years.

And by the way Santa-Paws the comment about Vodka was a humorous aside! But it's could to know that the tipple of choice is that which fuels the drunk and fallover of certain portions of youth culture  and by the way I sleep very well especially after a long day in the field as I have always done....


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Other than killing foxes which is done in my area by marksmen, fox hunts do NOTHING for the countryside that is not also done by my local drag pack.

Stop kidding yourselves that farmers need you, guys, they don't!


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Lizzie66 said:



			Santa Paws


I'm sure that SOME newcomers to the countryside do maintain their properties better than SOME established farmers, but you imply that all newcomers are better than all established farmers - incredibly arrogant !
		
Click to expand...

I said property after property, not all properties, and it is nothing but a FACT.




Lizzie66 said:



			Sabs do follow hunts that are hunting within the law, despite what you may say. They hope to be able to both disrupt the day and potentially find evidence to prove the hunt has broken the law. Therefore the hunts that have suffered from sabs following in the pre-ban do tend to be reluctant to openly publicise their meet cards.
		
Click to expand...

Because they are failing to call their hounds off "accidental" fox scents maybe, when they riot. As long as hounds are not called off live quarry and the field continues to follow hounds following live quarry the sabs will follow the hunts. Drag packs are not sabbed. If their hounds do ever follow live scent the field does not follow.



Lizzie66 said:



			You say shooting is a better option. If the shooter is a marks man then possibly it may no worse. However it does not take into account the other aspects to hunting with hounds, ie dispersal of numbers, the natural selection (fitter stronger foxes normally get away) etc. In normal circumstances with average marksman it is worse, the foxes are injured left to die slow painful deaths.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sick to death of the "foxes left to die slow and painful deaths" argument. I've never, ever seen a shot fox corpse or dying shot fox thought I see plenty of live ones and ride all over this countryside, which is controlled by marksmen for the deer and the fox. You will never stop uneducated louts with air guns causing problems, but they exist whether you cull fox with  hounds or with a marksman. Fitter stronger foxes get away - yes, they do, so you can chase them another day and another day until you finally get to chase one that is old or sick and get it.  Just what you want when you're old or sick, eh? Or maybe it's better if you are young instead, and inside a wood where you were born, and a ring of people are put around the outside to make a noise so you won't dare to leave the wood while a bunch of young hounds are put in to learn how to kill you while you are trapped? Cubbing, or "early season hunting" as the marketers have re-branded it????



Lizzie66 said:



			Hunts provide an invaluable service to farmers which is why so many of them are happy to open up their land to allow the hunts across. The only way the hunts can survive is through its subscribers and members therefore followers are important to the hunt. So although many followers may not directly help out the farmers indirectly they do.
		
Click to expand...

You do NOTHING that my local drag pack does not also do.





Lizzie66 said:



			And before you say this website is for all, I would agree that it is, but its provided by the Horse and Hound magazine which is pro hunting and its readership is traditionally also pro hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It is provided by Horse and Hound magazine because it generates ENORMOUS advertising revenues and long running arguments like this one are the life blood of this forum. 

The readership was traditionally pro hunting a LONG time ago. As I have said to others, times have changed and you need to as well.


----------



## AengusOg (2 January 2012)

Round and around and around we go...

Santa...since the hunting ban, there are 'marksmen' killing more foxes now than ever before


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

AengusOg said:



			Round and around and around we go...

Santa...since the hunting ban, there are 'marksmen' killing more foxes now than ever before
		
Click to expand...

I don't actually have any problem with that Aengus. The brown hare population, a threatened species, is burgeoning because of it.


----------



## TwoPair (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Drag packs are not sabbed.
		
Click to expand...

And I will say again that drag packs ARE sabbed - I have been out with a BLOODHOUND pack that have been sabbed. Christ, bloodhounds don't even look like foxhounds. They don't even look like they could even vaguely chase a fox.

Santa Paws if you are going to keep spouting, don't make yourself look arrogant (as you are accusing others of being) by acting holier than thou and saying sabs don't intervene with drag packs, when more than one person has said they have been witness to it / told of it. By keeping on saying that sabs *don't or won't* target drag packs you are either a) calling those who have witnessed it liars or b) so entrenched in your beliefs that you won't accept you are wrong and that it does happen (which is what you are accusing others of).


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

TwoPair said:



			And I will say again that drag packs ARE sabbed - I have been out with a BLOODHOUND pack that have been sabbed. Christ, bloodhounds don't even look like foxhounds. They don't even look like they could even vaguely chase a fox.
		
Click to expand...

How many times? Do they sab you week after week or were they sensible enough to take the message that you hunt the clean boot once?  Sabbing once is a silly mistake. The sabbing that is going on week after week is because sabs are seeing hounds hunt fox. I was told so myself two weeks ago by the secretary of a hunt which is regularly sabbed.



TwoPair said:



			Santa Paws if you are going to keep spouting, don't make yourself look arrogant (as you are accusing others of being) by acting holier than thou and saying sabs don't intervene with drag packs, when more than one person has said they have been witness to it / told of it. By keeping on saying that sabs *don't or won't* target drag packs you are either a) calling those who have witnessed it liars or b) so entrenched in your beliefs that you won't accept you are wrong and that it does happen (which is what you are accusing others of).
		
Click to expand...



I do apologise TwoPair. You obviously missed the part of my previous postings where, far from calling anyone a liar,  I acknowledged that a bloodhound pack had been sabbed once.

I hardly think that it counts in the whole scale of the discussion do you? If drags and bloodhounds were sabbed week after week it would support the fox hunters excuses for keeping their meets a secret.

But they aren't.

As a rule, apart from one isolated exception, drag/bloodhound packs are NOT sabbed and there is no point suggesting that one mistake makes the slightest difference to the argument.

I maintain my position, if hunts called off hounds as soon as they could from a live scent, and the mounted followers were held until the hounds were returned to the trail, as happens with a drag meet, then sabs would not sab for many weeks before they became totally bored with standing the cold and wet. They'd go and find some bird shooters to annoy instead.


----------



## NeilM (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			fox hunts do NOTHING for the countryside that is not also done by my local drag pack.
		
Click to expand...

As someone on the verge of taking up hunting, I have been watching this thread slightly bemused. There have been well made, as well as pedantic and nit picking points from both camps, but the comment above has a worrying implication.

SP; are you accusing every hunt that has foxhounds of hunting illegally?


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

NeilM said:



			As someone on the verge of taking up hunting, I have been watching this thread slightly bemused. There have been well made, as well as pedantic and nit picking points from both camps, but the comment above has a worrying implication.

SP; are you accusing every hunt that has foxhounds of hunting illegally?
		
Click to expand...

What on earth has your question got to do with the quote, Neil, I'm baffled??  

No, of course I am not accusing every hunt of hunting illegally and I never have. But some do.


----------



## EAST KENT (2 January 2012)

Whatever  Santa Paws is on should be avoided


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Hunts. Are still providing a predator control service to landowners albeit flushing same to guns. Traditional hunts know more about the population of foxes than any other group or individuals. Landowners know this and continue to work with landowners. Landowners in turn continue to allow access for hunting.  This is a service that Drag hunts do not provide. Why should any landowners allow those who provide no service in return? Where they do it is more often in recognition of the historic relationship that had existed in the services provided by hunts. 

Drag hunting sits on the shoulders of traditional fox 
hunting and cannot be separated from it. 

To continue to have access for hunting I would suggest that no one should attempt to either ignore or alienate the last real ties between fox hunting and 
landowners.

It is an interesting development to have those who claim to be part of the hunting tradition but are standing on the same ground as Anti's deriding all that are not of their thinking!


----------



## AengusOg (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			I don't actually have any problem with that Aengus. The brown hare population, a threatened species, is burgeoning because of it.
		
Click to expand...

Because of what?


----------



## NeilM (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			What on earth has your question got to do with the quote, Neil, I'm baffled??  

No, of course I am not accusing every hunt of hunting illegally and I never have. But some do.
		
Click to expand...

So by "foxhunts" do you mean those packs which you claim are hunting illegally?

I don't understand the difference in the quote between a 'foxhunts' and a 'local drag pack'. 

Just to be clear on my position; I would not go out with a pack that I knew had the intention of killing a fox, for two reasons: 1) I would not knowingly wish to break the law. 2) After many years of hunting with guns, traps, snares and hawks, I now choose not to kill animals. Vermin control is a service offered by many skilled hunters, but I am no longer one of them.

All of that said, I am not anti-hunting, quite the opposite, I think the hunting ban is an appalling piece of legislation which was driven in parliament by left wing politicians looking to 'have a go at the toffs'.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Hunts. Are still providing a predator control service to landowners albeit flushing same to guns. Traditional hunts know more about the population of foxes than any other group or individuals. Landowners know this and continue to work with landowners. Landowners in turn continue to allow access for hunting.  This is a service that Drag hunts do not provide. Why should any landowners allow those who provide no service in return? Where they do it is more often in recognition of the historic relationship that had existed in the services provided by hunts.
		
Click to expand...

The farmers around here, an area which is not covered by a hunt, would laugh themselves stupid at your idea that a Hunt would have more idea where foxes operate on his farm than he does. And marksmen to killl them are easy to get hold of




Fiagai said:



			Drag hunting sits on the shoulders of traditional fox 
hunting and cannot be separated from it. 

To continue to have access for hunting I would suggest that no one should attempt to either ignore or alienate the last real ties between fox hunting and 
landowners.

It is an interesting development to have those who claim to be part of the hunting tradition but are standing on the same ground as Anti's deriding all that are not of their thinking!
		
Click to expand...


This is utter total complete b8ll8cks!

Do you _*really*_ deceive yourselves that badly?

The two drag packs with which I hunt have their own kennels. They have a meat run and slaughter for farmers and horse owners. They have never been affiliated to a fox hunt and the one I subscribe to this year has been offered  more and more land every year to hunt over.  They are out today (I'm too sick) after* double  * the amount of December rainfall that is normal. The ground has standing water everywhere and yet the goodwill we have with the farmers means that the meet is still on. 



Fiagai if you are going to continue to argue please stop foooling yourself that your hunt is needed for the essential services it provides!  There are plenty of areas of this country not "served" by a fox pack and they seem to manage just hunky dory without you.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

NeilM said:



			So by "foxhunts" do you mean those packs which you claim are hunting illegally?

I don't understand the difference in the quote between a 'foxhunts' and a 'local drag pack'. 

Just to be clear on my position; I would not go out with a pack that I knew had the intention of killing a fox, for two reasons: 1) I would not knowingly wish to break the law. 2) After many years of hunting with guns, traps, snares and hawks, I now choose not to kill animals. Vermin control is a service offered by many skilled hunters, but I am no longer one of them.

All of that said, I am not anti-hunting, quite the opposite, I think the hunting ban is an appalling piece of legislation which was driven in parliament by left wing politicians looking to 'have a go at the toffs'.
		
Click to expand...


OK Neil, I'm sorry I didn't realise that you were completely new to hunting.

Drag packs don't hunt live quarry and never did, they were set up to hunt a scent, sometimes laid by a horse and sometimes by a man. Bloodhound packs also hunt a man, but with no scent, and that's called hunting the clean boot. 

If you want to absolutely guarantee never to chase live quarry, hunt with a drag pack or bloodhounds. It's a damned good day, I'm spitting that I couldn't get out this afternoon 

If you want to go with what was a fox  pack, you'll have to ask them. There are at least  two packs openly hunting fox and another which will happily allow the hounds to divert off a laid trail if they pick up a live scent, so you may have some trouble ensuring that you will definitely not hunt live quarry. And here is your Catch-22:

If you are completely unknown to them and they do not trust you they will tell you the they hunt a trail even if they don't, and you may find it difficult after that to find out where they are meeting in case they think you are a sab. You will need to find someone in the area who trusts you and is trusted by them to ask the question with or for you.  (And hope that they are not a loca-to-here Harrier Pack whose website said that they  would not allow anyone to hunt with them unless they have a Countryside Alliance membership. )

I have no idea if any pack in your area is hunting illegally, but I have a friend who hunts a lot in your area and I will ask her if you PM me with your email address and identify who you are (my ID is my logon name usually, but it's at the bottom now  ).


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

NeilM said:



			All of that said, I am not anti-hunting, quite the opposite, I think the hunting ban is an appalling piece of legislation which was driven in parliament by left wing politicians looking to 'have a go at the toffs'.
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you on the origin of the act, and would add that it was done to win votes, which was truly disgusting abuse of parliamentary time  and politics when there were far more important things to be discussing, like security of our national energy supply!

Every time  I make any criticism of fox hunting I am addressed as if I am some rabid anti. It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are completely justified in our feelings that hunting live quarry is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justfiably criticised for.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Santa_paws - you really don't have a clue do you bless!

Hunts work with landowners. In the past many hunts protected and managed coverts. Hunt staff and subscribers were local and often landowners themselves. Where there was s problem fox it was hunted at the request of the landowners. The goodwill that exists between hunts and landowners is based on this and other links. For some one who claims such a short history of (drag) hunting you appear to  overtly opinionated view of everything you don't like. From untidy landowners/farmers, fox hunting, and shooting you appear to believe your opinions are somehow god given.

I notice that you have acknowledged that you don't care that increasing numbers of foxes are shot.  Well I do. A proper balance of foxes and their prey is important. Mindless and unmanaged hunting does no 
favour for any species. When will the shooting stop - when the fox population is near extinction? Ok we will have plenty of hares, landowners with forestry will be delighted I'm sure...

No one is taken in by your rantings S_P. It is clear from you have posted here and your blatant allegations against all and sundry that you are simply an Anti in another form. You do yourself or this forum any benefit.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			Whatever  Santa Paws is on should be avoided  

Click to expand...

Urghh .

Oxymetazoline.
Paracetamol.
Menthol.

If I'm lucky in a minute and there is any left, mulled Merlot.

I hope you feel better than me


----------



## Orangehorse (2 January 2012)

The trouble with the doubt about what is and is not done on a day's hunting is the truly terrible way the Bill was drawn up by the Government.

Some pre-ban foxhunts state quite plainly that they hunt a trail, there is one locally that is on the edge of a large urban population in a small country and I expect it makes life a lot easier for them to set a trail and follow it.

Others state that the "hunt within the law"  - I am sure they do, as they always announce it at every meet.  That means that they will use the "exemptions" that were put into the Bill.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Santa_paws - you really don't have a clue do you bless!
		
Click to expand...

No, I'm a sad case Fiagai, I really am. Someone should cull me 




Fiagai said:



			From untidy landowners/farmers, fox hunting, and shooting you appear to believe your opinions are somehow god given.
		
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, my opinions are certainly not God given, but it is the law to have free speech in this country so I will continue to challenge you if I believe that you are wrong.




Fiagai said:



			When will the shooting stop - when the fox population is near extinction? Ok we will have plenty of hares, landowners with forestry will be delighted I'm sure...
		
Click to expand...


You write as if the hunt had total control over everyone who kills fox, which of course you did not. 

You also write as if hunts killed the majority of foxes which were killed in their area, which is of course nonsense. When hunting with hounds was legal, most foxes were killed by other means. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I recall that it was a substantial majority. 

Farmers will continue to remove fox that bother their stock as they always did before hunting was ever banned and boys with air guns will continue to come into the countryside to lamp for fun, as they always did.



Not sure about your comment about landowners with Forestry? Can you explain.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Well S_P

If you truly knew anything about traditional fox hunting then you would know that this was how fox populations were managed. Anyone showing up wishing to take pot shots were given a quick boot in the pants by landowners who worked with the hunts. This allowed for landowners to know who was on their land and when. No landowner I know would allow random lampers


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Meant to add that if you know anything about the countryside then you would know about hares...
But then you thinking lamping foxes is 'fun' - you really are a box of contraindications arn't you!


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Well S_P

If you truly knew anything about traditional fox hunting then you would know that this was how fox populations were managed. Anyone showing up wishing to take pot shots were given a quick boot in the pants by landowners who worked with the hunts. This allowed for landowners to know who was on their land and when. No landowner I know would allow random lampers
		
Click to expand...



You persist in accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about and you persists in writing things that show that I know far more about what goes on in some parts of countyside life than you do.

There are many places where people lamp and cannot be seen from any farmhouse. Farmers do not have overnight patrol units guarding their land and are in bed when they are not lambing. 

There are many people who would not be so crazy as to approach people of unknown temperament, carrying guns out hunting without permission after dark.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Meant to add that if you know anything about the countryside then you would know about hares...
But then you thinking lamping foxes is 'fun' - you really are a box of contraindications arn't you!
		
Click to expand...



Am I to take it from you that you think the brown hare lives in woods?  Do please explain, because if yours do they are a different breed from ours, which live in long grass.

I don't think lamping foxes is fun. But I know for a certainty that the boys from Oldham who go out on Saddleworth Moor doing it think it's terrific.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Oh deary me S_P

No I don't mean hares live in woods. And as you appear to be on first terms with lampers and their habits I can tell you that those who live and farm the countryside know alot more than you give them credit for. One of the many benefits of landowners and hunts working together. I know of one bunch of rehire who tried this and got an armed escort of property they were illegally lamping on.  But you appear to approve of unregulated hunting
and the decimation of foxes so I presume that such activities are ok then?


----------



## Alec Swan (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			You persist in accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about and you persists in writing things that show that I know far more about what goes on in some parts of countyside life than you do.

There are many places where people lamp and cannot be seen from any farmhouse. Farmers do not have overnight patrol units guarding their land and are in bed when they are not lambing. 

There are many people who would not be so crazy as to approach people of unknown temperament, carrying guns out hunting without permission after dark.
		
Click to expand...

cptrayes,  or what ever your new guise is,  over the last year,  or so,  you've entertained us with your hypothesised nonsense,  and the strange thing is,  and I'll include myself in this,  you've managed to entrap others in debate.

There is a simple fact which you seem to overlook;  you argue from the standpoint of someone with little or no experience,  and those of us daft enough to engage you in debate,  make little or no progress,  because you,  in reality,  haven't the faintest idea what you're on about,  have you?

rockysmum,  I'm sorry if you find me arrogant,  but were you to argue with someone who insists upon laying down factual statements,  as evidence,  which the bulk of us know to be nonsense,  would you not become a little impatient?  

Fiagai, Judgemental, NeillM, AengusOg et all,  again we are involved with a cpt discussion.  Explain something to me,  if you are able,  what on earth is the point?

I have no wish to be offensive,  but occasionally in life,  we meet those to whom "You can't put it,  where it wont go",  applies.  Continue,  if you wish to educate,  but I suspect that you'll give up,  as I now am.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (2 January 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			cptrayes,  or what ever your new guise is,  over the last year,  or so,  you've entertained us with your hypothesised nonsense,  and the strange thing is,  and I'll include myself in this,  you've managed to entrap others in debate.

There is a simple fact which you seem to overlook;  you argue from the standpoint of someone with little or no experience,  and those of us daft enough to engage you in debate,  make little or no progress,  because you,  in reality,  haven't the faintest idea what you're on about,  have you?

rockysmum,  I'm sorry if you find me arrogant,  but were you to argue with someone who insists upon laying down factual statements,  as evidence,  which the bulk of us know to be nonsense,  would you not become a little impatient?  

Fiagai, Judgemental, NeillM, AengusOg et all,  again we are involved with a cpt discussion.  Explain something to me,  if you are able,  what on earth is the point?

I have no wish to be offensive,  but occasionally in life,  we meet those to whom "You can't put it,  where it wont go",  applies.  Continue,  if you wish to educate,  but I suspect that you'll give up,  as I now am.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec I am flattered you included me with elite of debaters on this thread.

However I have to confess to having retired somewhat bemused about 20 pages ago. What, JM bemused, can't hack it any more.

What does strike me is how long this thread has become and not the least unamicable comment or reposte. That might be a slight overstatement but hey....

Everybody is being most charming to one another.


----------



## TwoPair (2 January 2012)

Gosh this runs and runs. Santa Paws - this pack were sabbed a couple of times, but the field master didn't actually have chance to stop and speak to them to tell the that the chap running at the front in lycra wasn't actually just out for a Sunday stroll - as you well know, drag packs aren't slow, and a field masters job is constant.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Oh deary me S_P

No I don't mean hares live in woods. And as you appear to be on first terms with lampers and their habits I can tell you that those who live and farm the countryside know alot more than you give them credit for. One of the many benefits of landowners and hunts working together. I know of one bunch of rehire who tried this and got an armed escort of property they were illegally lamping on.  But you appear to approve of unregulated hunting
and the decimation of foxes so I presume that such activities are ok then?
		
Click to expand...

Why do you presume? You are incorrect. It does not take approval to recognise the joy that illegal hunters get from their activities, which is why I can understand why fox hunters are also doing it.

You think one armed escort one night for one bunch that happened to be spotted can remove illegal lamping over vast tracts of sparsely populated land? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

TwoPair said:



			Gosh this runs and runs. Santa Paws - this pack were sabbed a couple of times, but the field master didn't actually have chance to stop and speak to them to tell the that the chap running at the front in lycra wasn't actually just out for a Sunday stroll - as you well know, drag packs aren't slow, and a field masters job is constant.
		
Click to expand...

OK you were sabbed twice by some spectacularly stupid sabs 

I am referring to one hunt that I know of direct from the secretary's mouth are hunting fox routinely and sabbed routinely because of it. 

I still believe that if hunts follow trail, call hounds off a live scent as soon as they can, and hold the field until hounds are retreived, that sabbing will simply disappear.

I believe that because no drag or bloodhound pack is systematically sabbed.


----------



## Always Henesy (2 January 2012)

Crikey! Is this still going on?

Good posts from all...but please agree to disagree and put this to bed.
Stupid me gets notified on my phone every time there is a reply...it takes me 1/2 hour just to delete them all!


----------



## Alec Swan (2 January 2012)

Always Henesy said:



			.......
Stupid me gets notified on my phone every time there is a reply...it takes me 1/2 hour just to delete them all!

Click to expand...

Put your 'phone on vibrate?  Perhaps.  Just a thought!! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			cptrayes,  or what ever your new guise is,
		
Click to expand...

My guise is cptrayes as has always been clear. For fun I have taken Santa Paws for Christmas as a logon but my true name is at the bottom of the page. 




Alec Swan said:



			over the last year,  or so,  you've entertained us with your hypothesised nonsense,  and the strange thing is,  and I'll include myself in this,  you've managed to entrap others in debate.
		
Click to expand...

Please explain what you think is hypothesized nonsense and I will attempt to explain the basis of my opinion and observation. As far as I am aware, I have "hypothesized" nothing, but I am happy to clarify if you think that I have.

I don't seek to "entrap" anyone in debate. I come onto these threads to put a different point of view to people who may come on and read it, and to correct things that are completely wrong, like the idea that drag packs somehow depend on fox hunts and attacking someone as a troll on the basis that recompense for wrongdoing was made with a bottle of vodka and not a bottle of whisky.




Alec Swan said:



			There is a simple fact which you seem to overlook;  you argue from the standpoint of someone with little or no experience,
		
Click to expand...

I do not. I argue from the standpoint of an ex fox hunter with three hunts, a drag hunter of many years standing with three drag packs, and a long term country dweller and landowner who has read the reports and done my research.

You fall once again into the argument "you simply don't understand". I *do* understand. I do *not* agree.  Unfortunately for you and others, failure to agree with you is, in your definition, a failure to understand that fox hunting is right. What I do understand is that your passion for your sport, which I admire, had caused a huge feeling of loss for you all, with which I wholly sympathise.

But it does not mean that you can simply write off the opinions of anyone who does not agree with you as a failure to understand your sport.




Alec Swan said:



			those of us daft enough to engage you in debate,  make little or no progress,
		
Click to expand...

"Progress" meaning that no matter how many times you repeat yourselves that I will not believe that modern day fox hunting holds any more relevance than the local golf club?

Correct, you cannot make that "progress".

Not_ one_ of the dire predictions of the Countryside Alliance - shot hounds, people out of work - has come true since the ban and there are now 10% more people hunting than there were before. Do you think all those people have joined because they are so incensed that hunting has been banned that they want to support it?  No, most of them have come out because they want to hunt without chasing fox and there was no drag pack in their area.

Why can you hunting people who argue like this on this forum not accept valid criticism of your sport, put right what is clearly wrong (like the original post of this thread) and then accept that there are those of us who simply do not agree with you about the rest?



Alec Swan said:



			rockysmum,  I'm sorry if you find me arrogant,  but were you to argue with someone who insists upon laying down factual statements,  as evidence,  which the bulk of us know to be nonsense,  would you not become a little impatient?
		
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me as to the nonsense that I am talking, because so far the only nonsense I can see is stuff like Fiagai saying that illegal lamping can be controlled by a fox hunt acting in concert with farmers, others saying fox hounds can't be called off a live scent when drag hounds can, that somehow hunting fox on hounds is absolutely essential for farmers etc etc.

My major statements so far have been:

Some packs are hunting fox by failing to call hounds off a live scent when they pick it up when following a trail.

A small number (possibly only the two of which I have close knowledge) are deliberately hunting fox illegally.

Drag hounds are not routinely sabbed because they don't hunt fox.

Lamping illegally cannot be completely controlled and never has been.

The majority of foxes in hunted areas were never killed by the hunt, they were killed by other means.

Burns says that shooting is at least as humane as hunting and there is no idependant source to show that it is not.

Many areas never were fox hunted by hounds and this demonstrates the fallacy of saying that fox hunting by hounds is essential to farmers.

And a few other bits and pieces. 

Now, if you have some evidence that those are not correct, please present it and lets discuss it. I would love to.

Meanwhile I will go back to reading my inbox of people telling me they agree with what I am writing but that they are too scared of the attacks that are made on this forum by supporters of hunting to post for themselves.



Alec Swan said:



			Continue,  if you wish to educate,  but I suspect that you'll give up,  as I now am.
		
Click to expand...

Alec you do not wish to educate.  You wish to *make* people who have a moral objection to culling foxes with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders agree with you that they are wrong.

They are not wrong.

I am not wrong.

We all hold a _different_ opinion  from you and it is time that you began to respect it, because this new generation of young people feel even stronger about it.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws, 

there was a point,  some while back,  when the stupidity of your points was irksome.  No longer.  

It isn't that I can't debate the points of hunting with you,  but more that I wont.  Both you and I see the world through different eyes.   You may quote all the reports which you wish,  but do you actually speak with experience?  I've read your claims of knowledge and experience,  but had you kept your eyes and ears open,  you would have come away with a different viewpoint,  and it would be at odds with your current stance.

I would point out to you,  that quoting the idiot,  does little to further the quoters point. 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Oh dear S_P

Your comments which started as ludicrous have now descended into hilarity: you ignore posters who have given you concrete examples as once of incidences and yet to continue to bandy about your one alleged incident of some unnamed secretary in some unnamed hunt to make the uncorroborated statement about all hunts that have historically hunted fox continue to do so!

You do appear to have a most wonderful knack of making friends! I understand from your posts you are on your third drag hunt in three years? Taking the example of your behaviour here I am really not that surprised. You would appeared to have successfully insulted and derided practically every poster who has replied to you. As for one who has always hunted with the same hunt I can only presume that your bed hopping is perhaps as a result of similar behaviour that you have engaged in here namely shouting your views while insulting those that do not agree with you. I do dearly hope that you will follow suit and maybe find somewhere where someone might listen to your rantings....

btw the way you are one who claimed lamping was great fun! This really is hilarious.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

With friends like you pair fox hunting needs no enemies, does it?

Congratulations guys, you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			With friends like you pair fox hunting needs no enemies, does it?

Congratulations guys, you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.
		
Click to expand...

erhhh so you are saying you are an Anti!


----------



## YorksG (2 January 2012)

However SantaPaws, you are the only one who has openly admitted committing an offence  Plus if you hunt on Saddleworth Moor, which mounted pack can you possibly hunt with?


----------



## Alec Swan (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			......., you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.
		
Click to expand...

It's a strange thing,  but the person who has no valid argument,  all so often refers to the corrective,  as an insult.  Reading through the posts of Fiagai,  I can see little to take offence at,  and for myself,  I can assure you,  that that was never my intent.  

If I have indeed caused offence,  then you have my unreserved apology.  That said,  damaging and factually inaccurate statements will be rebuffed, and on occasions firmly.  The simple fact is that if you insist on talking tripe,  then those who see the world as it is,  will speak up. Sorry,  but that's a fact of life. 

Cheer up,  it'll soon be Christmas! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			erhhh so you are saying you are an Anti! 

Click to expand...


Have I not made it clear enough that on a personal basis I believe hunting fox on horseback with hounds is unjustfiable? Were you asleep ?


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

YuletideG said:



			However SantaPaws, you are the only one who has openly admitted committing an offence  Plus if you hunt on Saddleworth Moor, which mounted pack can you possibly hunt with?
		
Click to expand...


Yorks G


I do not hunt Saddleworth moor.  I did not say that I did.

What offence are you accusing me of having committed?


----------



## YorksG (2 January 2012)

The offence of having knowlege of others committing offences and you being an accessory by not informing the authorities of this 
Well I knew you did not hunt with a mounted pack on Saddleworth Moor, but you did seem to suggest a close acquaintance with the place, while discussing your hunting.


----------



## Fiagai (2 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Have I not made it clear enough that on a personal basis I believe hunting fox on horseback with hounds is unjustfiable? Were you asleep ?
		
Click to expand...

Sish, Just in case you missed it (ahem), that last statement was meant as ironic!   S_P I am really quite old enough to know fairy tales from reality.  So I'm afraid I believe in you and your uncorroberated views as much as I belive in your namesake (ie Santa) and thankfully Its now time to return to reality


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Yorks don't be silly 

If failing to report everyone you ever see or hear of doing things which are illegal was a prosecution which would hold up in court, though it is technically an offence, we would all be in court every day reporting speeding drivers and people who have a fag in the toilet of a pub.  

It takes a bit more than someone inviting me to join a fox hunt and me declining for me to have commited a criminal offence, thankfully, particularly as I have broadcast it on this forum and will happily provide any policeman reading it with the details should they ask.

If you are unhappy with that explanation can I suggest that you will yourself be committing an offence if you do not now report me to the Police? Pop along to your local station tomorrow morning.


----------



## YorksG (2 January 2012)

I can assure you that I am not being at all silly. You stated very clearly that you had been invited to hunt illegally and also stated that people should not choose which laws they obeyed. Therefore by your own moral standpoint, you have a duty to report the actual law breaking and the intended law breaking, by the hunts who invited you to hunt fox.


----------



## cptrayes (2 January 2012)

Please pop along and report me Yorks, do.  You are quite correct, I am not following my own moral code with regard to the letter of the law in failing to report my friends for telling me that they hunt fox.


----------



## YorksG (3 January 2012)

I have no intent or interest in reporting you, however I do find your hypocrisy somewhat odd. and your posting style unpleasant in the attempt to be patronising, but each to their own


----------



## Alec Swan (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			....... for telling me that they hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

Psst,  just a tip for you,  nobody who hunts would use your terminology.  We "Ride to Hounds",  we don't "hunt fox",  ever. Our cousins on the other side of the pond may,  but then they're a curious lot!!  

cpt,  let me take you under my wing,  and help you in sounding a little more plausible.  This is a genuine offer of assistance.

Alec.


----------



## stormhill (3 January 2012)

Santa paws,
 I have read your threads over the past few days initially with amusement but increasingly with complete disgust. Since the ban a lot of people have worked very hard under a lot of pressure to maintain what for many is a way of life.They have done a brilliant job and more people are following hounds than ever. You obviously have no problem with killing foxes hence your lamping comment. Sadly since the ban we have no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery. I know that people will agree that the fox population in this country is in a worse state than ever since 2005. It is obvious that the purpose of your posts is soley to upset and aggrivate  so please abuse me as I am sure you will and then GO AWAY because you are very BORING


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Please explain what you think is hypothesized nonsense and I will attempt to explain the basis of my opinion and observation. As far as I am aware, I have "hypothesized" nothing, but I am happy to clarify if you think that I have.
		
Click to expand...

To me the strongest evidence of the fact that that you are merely spouting anti-hunt rhetoric rather than speaking from a real knowledge and understanding of the countryside is the way you continually and repeatedly try to make out that the main alternative to hunting is for foxes and deer to be controlled by "marksmen".

"Marksmen" is a term used by those who are trying to hide the fact, as stated by Lord Burns, that every form of animal control has adverse welfare implications.

Animals in the British countryside are not shot by "marksmen". They are shot by "people with guns".

Whether they are trained SAS snipers or people who could not hit a barn door at 10 feet with a blunderbuss is left entirely down to luck - but from my personal experience on the shooting field there are more of the latter than the former. 

There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.

Hopefully, most gamekeepers and professional stalkers are relatively competent with the tools of their trade - but again this is a hope rather than any form of verified statistic.

But gamekeepers and professional stalkers are only a small proprtion of those shooting foxes out in our countryside.


And the point is, when you compare hunting with hounds to shooting by properly trained, experienced marksmen with a 95-99% accuracy rate, then the amount of suffering involved in hunting may compare unfavourably to the shooting.

However, when you start comparing it to shooting done by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate - ie: normal people - where one shot in three is botched, then the balance swings wayyyy in the other direction.

And when you start comparing hunting to the other forms of fox control, such as trapping, snaring and poisoning then the balance crashes like a ton of bricks in favour of hunting.


The problem with most anti-hunt arguers is that they try to compare what happens in hunting with hounds to some utopian ideal of how they wish little foxy would live in comfort without the nasty hunters being involved.

The reality is that every fox in the wild dies a nasty death involving suffering. The choice is not, as antis would have it, between suffering and not-suffering; it is between which type of unpleasant death the fox will endure. 

And with your constant repetition of the "marksman" myth, you place yourself squarely in the unrealistic end of the spectrum.


----------



## A1fie (3 January 2012)

CPTrayes/Santa paws is the only member of the forum I have ever felt the need to put on user ignore.  I find her ignorant, uninformed and self righteous in her views on everything from barefoot to hunting and the internet equivalent of the person at a party who talks loudly at you, not listening to a word you say.


----------



## NeilM (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.
		
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, certainly not for deer, and as a 'retired' marksman, I would like to defend those who use rifles for both deer and fox. I know of no one who would be satisfied with anything other than 100% clean kill. First, because these people take a pride in keeping suffering to an absolute minimum, regardless of what they are shooting, and second because a missed shot means a high velocity rifle round flying through the countryside, and for that you could easily lose your FAC.

As for those using shotguns...that is a different matter. There are those who are very good and there are those who are not.

That said, I believe in freedom of choice, and the hunting ban restricts that freedom.


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			To me the strongest evidence of the fact that that you are merely spouting anti-hunt rhetoric rather than speaking from a real knowledge and understanding of the countryside is the way you continually and repeatedly try to make out that the main alternative to hunting is for foxes and deer to be controlled by "marksmen".

"Marksmen" is a term used by those who are trying to hide the fact, as stated by Lord Burns, that every form of animal control has adverse welfare implications.

Animals in the British countryside are not shot by "marksmen". They are shot by "people with guns".

Whether they are trained SAS snipers or people who could not hit a barn door at 10 feet with a blunderbuss is left entirely down to luck - but from my personal experience on the shooting field there are more of the latter than the former. 

There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.

Hopefully, most gamekeepers and professional stalkers are relatively competent with the tools of their trade - but again this is a hope rather than any form of verified statistic.

But gamekeepers and professional stalkers are only a small proprtion of those shooting foxes out in our countryside.


And the point is, when you compare hunting with hounds to shooting by properly trained, experienced marksmen with a 95-99% accuracy rate, then the amount of suffering involved in hunting may compare unfavourably to the shooting.

However, when you start comparing it to shooting done by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate - ie: normal people - where one shot in three is botched, then the balance swings wayyyy in the other direction.

And when you start comparing hunting to the other forms of fox control, such as trapping, snaring and poisoning then the balance crashes like a ton of bricks in favour of hunting.


The problem with most anti-hunt arguers is that they try to compare what happens in hunting with hounds to some utopian ideal of how they wish little foxy would live in comfort without the nasty hunters being involved.

The reality is that every fox in the wild dies a nasty death involving suffering. The choice is not, as antis would have it, between suffering and not-suffering; it is between which type of unpleasant death the fox will endure. 

And with your constant repetition of the "marksman" myth, you place yourself squarely in the unrealistic end of the spectrum.
		
Click to expand...



You omit anywhere in this rant to mention that while fox hunting was legal the  majority of foxes, even in areas covered by hunts, were killed in the ways you mention, good and bad. Banning hunting with hounds has changed very little in that respect.

I make no apologies for the use of the term marksman. When my friends require fox or deer to be culled they call in one of several local marksmen.

Perhaps you are all so entrenched in your hunting with hounds model that you are unaware what happens in vast areas of the countryside which are not covered by a fox pack?


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

stormhill said:



			Santa paws,
 I have read your threads over the past few days initially with amusement but increasingly with complete disgust. Since the ban a lot of people have worked very hard under a lot of pressure to maintain what for many is a way of life.They have done a brilliant job and more people are following hounds than ever. You obviously have no problem with killing foxes hence your lamping comment. Sadly since the ban we have no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery. I know that people will agree that the fox population in this country is in a worse state than ever since 2005. It is obvious that the purpose of your posts is soley to upset and aggrivate  so please abuse me as I am sure you will and then GO AWAY because you are very BORING
		
Click to expand...

Stormhill there is a button that you can press so that you will not see my posts. Please use it.

I do not shoot and therefore it is not my sport, but you are correct that I have no problem with vermin animals being culled.

You have " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery"  You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?

There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that? If/when you get the ban lifted I predict an increasingly aging field with dwindling numbers, because the kids coming out of school now are more against the chasing of live quarry with a pack of hounds before killing it than the generation before them. It is past its time.


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			You omit anywhere in this rant to mention that while fox hunting was legal the  majority of foxes, even in areas covered by hunts, were killed in the ways you mention, good and bad. Banning hunting with hounds has changed very little in that respect.

Perhaps you are all so entrenched in your hunting with hounds model that you are unaware what happens in vast areas of the countryside which are not covered by a fox pack?
		
Click to expand...


No, dear heart, I am perfectly aware of what happens in non-hunting areas of the countryside. I have lived and worked in non-hunting area and I have shot foxes myself with different calibres and types of firearms.

The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to make out that hunting is so much better than shooting that shooting ought to be banned in favour of hunting.

What I am saying, and what you are trying to avoid addressing, is that hunting is *not so much worse* than shooting that it should be banned in favour of shooting.





			I make no apologies for the use of the term marksman. When my friends require fox or deer to be culled they call in one of several local marksmen.
		
Click to expand...

No. Your friends call in one of several people with guns who like to shoot things.

If any single one of them had ever asked *any* of those people to provide any form of accuracy certificate or, better still, made them set up targets and prove their competency in person before setting them loose on the local wildlife, I would be surpised.

It will be based on hearsay and the assertions of the so-called marksmen themselves, not any any form of qualification or assessment.


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that?
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is not a former quarry pack in the country that is now advertising itself as a "pacifist" pack that doesn't approve of killing foxes.

Every single one of them is advocating a return to quarry hunting and and campaigning for that return and nearly every single one of them is still actively involved in killing foxes by the various legal methods available to maintain the link between fox control and the Hunt in the minds of farmers and landowners in their area.

Any anti-quarry-hunt person finding themselves happy and comfortable in such an environment and surrounded by such people would have to be so unperceptive as to be almost comatose.





			The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that?
		
Click to expand...

Of course it was, and it was already being addressed by the existing drag packs. 

Had there been extra demand before the ban, then there would have been more or bigger drag packs before the ban to address it.


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			You omit anywhere in this rant to mention...
		
Click to expand...

Incidentally, your description of my perfectly calm, rational and inoffensive response to your question as a "rant" is also quite revealing...


----------



## Lizzie66 (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that? If/when you get the ban lifted I predict an increasingly aging field with dwindling numbers, because the kids coming out of school now are more against the chasing of live quarry with a pack of hounds before killing it than the generation before them. It is past its time.
		
Click to expand...

You do like to contradict yourself don't you !

According to your previous posts more people than ever are hunting now. Also according to your previous posts most foxhound packs are still chasing live quarry. Therefore by your own definition more people than ever are out hunting live quarry. The British have always been perverse, the more you tell us we can't do something the more we want to do it !

I would also like to point out that there are a number of well reported cases of senior active LACS members that have, upon closer studying of the animal welfare issues relating to hunting with hounds, made the informed decision to change sides. Not yet heard of a former MFH campaigning for LACS, but feel free to prove me wrong !

The point is that hunting with hounds is the best method of conservation of a healthy fox population. Nature can be "cruel" in the sense that the sick and infirm are left to fend for themselves or die. Hunting with hounds brings this suffering to an end fairly rapidly or, in the case of a healthy fox, the animal gets away free from injury. 

If all we wanted was a good day out then we would all be happy to continue hunting a trail or with drag hounds. The point is that many of us fervently believe that hunting with hounds is in the best interests of maintaining a healthy fox population at manageable numbers.

The fact that you don't like the idea of hunting live quarry is not a problem to me nor I imagine to anyone on here. I don't take pleasure in the kill, the pleasure is in watching hounds work to find and follow a trail, and satisfaction in them doing the job they were bred and trained for, roll on the repeal! I must say I used to get a bit of a kick when one did get away ! 

What I find a problem is the sanctimonious and patronising tone that you have taken on this thread. You have a different opinion - fine, you are more than entitled to it. However you keep harping on as though your opinion is fact, whereas it is actually based on fluffy bunny rhetoric. You don't care about animal welfare, you don't even appear to care about preserving life at all cost (you have said you are happy to have them shot), at least if this were the case I could quite happily agree to differ.


----------



## EAST KENT (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Urghh .

Oxymetazoline.
Paracetamol.
Menthol.

If I'm lucky in a minute and there is any left, mulled Merlot.

I hope you feel better than me 

Click to expand...

Blimey..all that and the dreaded Saddleworth Moor..no wonder you are so cross. Cheer up,we have ten minutes more daylight already,smile


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Lizzie66 said:



			according to your previous posts most foxhound packs are still chasing live quarry.
		
Click to expand...

I have *never said this*.




Lizzie66 said:



			The point is that hunting with hounds is the best method of conservation of a healthy fox population.
		
Click to expand...

I do not agree with you.  Please respect my right to disagree.




Lizzie66 said:



			What I find a problem is the sanctimonious and patronising tone that you have taken on this thread. You have a different opinion - fine, you are more than entitled to it. However you keep harping on as though your opinion is fact, whereas it is actually based on fluffy bunny rhetoric.
		
Click to expand...

Please tell me what facts I have quoted whch are incorrect and I will gladly learn from you.



Lizzie66 said:



			You don't care about animal welfare
		
Click to expand...

You make an enormous leap from me expressing the opinion that chasing a fox with hounds followed by a pack of people on horses is not the correct way to conserve and manage them in the 21st century to a complete lack of care about animal welfare, don't you?


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			Nonsense.

There is not a former quarry pack in the country that is now advertising itself as a "pacifist" pack that doesn't approve of killing foxes. Every single one of them is advocating a return to quarry hunting and and campaigning for that return and nearly every single one of them is still actively involved in killing foxes by the various legal methods available to maintain the link between fox control and the Hunt in the minds of farmers and landowners in their area.
		
Click to expand...

There are people, like Neil on this thread, who simply want not to kill fox themselves. As long as they don't kill fox when he is out on horseback then he, and I, wouldn't give a damn about what views they hold the rest of the time and would ride the trail hunt for fun.   Because actually, we are a pretty tolerant lot as regards other people holding different views from our own.





Herne said:



			Of course it was, and it was already being addressed by the existing drag packs. 

Had there been extra demand before the ban, then there would have been more or bigger drag packs before the ban to address it.
		
Click to expand...

It was not being addressed by existing drag packs. Most of the country is not within travelling distance of a drag pack.

Most people would not be able to afford to set up a drag pack  if they wanted to drag hunt and there was not one in their area. But given the sudden availability of trail hunting, they will go. 

I maintain that there was latent demand for drag/trail hunting and the increase in numbers was most likely to be predominantly due to that.  A poll held on this forum suggested as much, but of course it was not statistically valid due to small numbers.

If you put it down to the ban, why did those people not hunt before the ban?

Has the CLA or anyone else had any independent research commissioned into the new hunters and their motivation? I'd love to see it if anyone can point me to it.


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to make out that hunting is so much better than shooting that shooting ought to be banned in favour of hunting.

What I am saying, and what you are trying to avoid addressing, is that hunting is *not so much worse* than shooting that it should be banned in favour of shooting.
		
Click to expand...

I am not trying to avoid addressing anything. I am not trying to make out that shooting is better than hunting for the fox, but what I do do is rebut the assertion that it is worse, and I have Burns to back that up. 

The principle problem that I have with hunting with hounds is the prolonged chase which is used for entertainment by the followers. In the 21st Century that, to me, is unacceptable. Please respect my right to that opinion.




Herne said:



			No. Your friends call in one of several people with guns who like to shoot things.
		
Click to expand...

What basis do you have for disagreeing with me on this? You are not here when they shoot. You do not know the men involved or the equipment that they use or the level of skill that they have.




Herne said:



			If any single one of them had ever asked *any* of those people to provide any form of accuracy certificate or, better still, made them set up targets and prove their competency in person before setting them loose on the local wildlife, I would be surpised.
		
Click to expand...

They did not need to. They have been known in the area for a long time for their skill in taking out fox and deer with a clean kill.  Not hearsay, observation. 

Can you tell me what certificates of competency  you show farmers before hunting fox on their land with hounds?


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			It was not being addressed by existing drag packs. Most of the country is not within travelling distance of a drag pack.
		
Click to expand...

Because there was not the demand.




			Has the CLA or anyone else had any independent research commissioned into the new hunters and their motivation? I'd love to see it if anyone can point me to it.
		
Click to expand...

Not as far as I am aware.

However, I base my observations on being a Master of Foxhounds and talking to and getting to know every single one of the new subscribers and followers that we have.

Not one of them, not a single one, holds the motivation that you assume.

Now you could try to claim that my hunt was for some reason dramatically unrespresentitive of some national swing, but from my conversation with other Masters, I see no basis for assuming that to be the case.




			If you put it down to the ban, why did those people not hunt before the ban?
		
Click to expand...

Right, first of all, you are starting from a false premise. The increase in numbers did not begin with the ban. It started a number of years *before* the ban and has continued through the years of the ban.

And I put it down to a number of factors:

1) Hunts have woken up to the PR business over the past decade or so, and made active attempts to recruit people who were previously put off by the misapprehension that it was elitist or a closed-shop.

2) Hunting has woken up to the PR business over the past couple of decades and many more people are now aware that the anti-hunt argument is flawed and that hunting is not the sadsim-fest that the anti-hunters always made it out to be. The tide of public opinion is moving away from the antis not towards them. Pro-hunting consistently gets more votes these days than it did 20 years ago, which suggests that your theory is flawed.

3) Quite a number of people have started hunting since the ban specifically to demontrate their opposition to the ban and to show solidarity with the hunts. A number of additional land-owners have also started allowing access for the same reasons. As one said to me just the other day, "I don't like being told by the Government what I can and can't allow in my own land".

4) There were a number of newspaper and magazine articles in the early years of the ban stating that hunting was being considered to be "cool" (if you will forgive the use of the term) by some precisely because it had now been banned.


----------



## AengusOg (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Perhaps you are all so entrenched in your hunting with hounds model that you are unaware what happens in vast areas of the countryside which are not covered by a fox pack?
		
Click to expand...

Foxes are killed at all times of the year by just about any means available to those who wish them dead.

In hunting country, when hunting was allowed, the foxes enjoyed a bit of protection at certain times.


----------



## Herne (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			I am not trying to avoid addressing anything. I am not trying to make out that shooting is better than hunting for the fox, but what I do do is rebut the assertion that it is worse, and I have Burns to back that up.
		
Click to expand...

No, you do not. 

What Burns said was, and I quote: 




			Our *tentative conclusion* is that lamping using rifles, *if* carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances has *fewer* adverse welfare implications than hunting...
		
Click to expand...

(the emphasis is mine, not his)

That is not a ringing endorsement in anyone's book. What Burns basically said is that shooting might be better than hunting under certain circumstances. Whoopee doo. Hardly basis for punitive legislation.





			The principle problem that I have with hunting with hounds is the prolonged chase which is used for entertainment by the followers. In the 21st Century that, to me, is unacceptable. Please respect my right to that opinion.
		
Click to expand...

There can be prolonged suffering in the chase, there can be prolonged suffering in gunshot wounds.

You are advocating the position that one was apparantly so bad that is should have been abolished by Law and that the other is apparantly just fine and dandy as it is.

You are entitled to hold that opinion. I am entitled to question you over the reasoning of your comparison and state my opinion that your "opinion" is just wishful thinking if you are unable to validate it.





			What basis do you have for disagreeing with me on this? You are not here when they shoot. You do not know the men involved or the equipment that they use or the level of skill that they have ... They did not need to. They have been known in the area for a long time for their skill in taking out fox and deer with a clean kill.  Not hearsay, observation.
		
Click to expand...

Observation by whom? The people actually giving the permission or someone else? If it is someone else, then it is hearsay.

I am sorry, but in trying to make out that all shooting is done by marksmen you really are on a hiding to nothing - because there is no assessment made.

Accept the fact that some of the people that shoot are not marksmen and address the questions that that raises.

I am quite surprised that the implications do not seem to worry you...


----------



## VoR (3 January 2012)

Not bad, 31 pages out of someone being 'miffed' that the hunt passed over land that the landowner permitted them to hunt over, deliberately or by accident hunting a fox or maybe just following a trail who knows and an OP who has now said they are happy with the outcome.


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			Because there was not the demand.
		
Click to expand...

There *was *demand. There was demand from me when I lived in Bristol and there was no drag pack near enough for me to hunt with. I am pretty sure that I was not alone. The increase in numbers of people trail hunting demonstrates, there was demand.




Herne said:



			However, I base my observations on being a Master of Foxhounds and talking to and getting to know every single one of the new subscribers and followers that we have.
		
Click to expand...

Now, it has been suggested to me that the people who tell me that they hunt fox were pulling my leg.

Let me tell you what I would most certainly do if I lived in your area, wanted to hunt trail with you and knew you were keen for fox hunting to be reinstated and that you had the power to prevent me from hunting with you.

I would not tell you my true feelings. 




Herne said:



			Right, first of all, you are starting from a false premise. The increase in numbers did not begin with the ban. It started a number of years *before* the ban and has continued through the years of the ban.
		
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that before and I am surprised that I have made the statement that I have about increased numbers a number of times before anyone has told me. 

Why do the Countryside Alliance not make that clear when they headline the 10% increase as reason for repeal, do you know?




Herne said:



			And I put it down to a number of factors:

1) Hunts have woken up to the PR business over the past decade or so, and made active attempts to recruit people who were previously put off by the misapprehension that it was elitist or a closed-shop.

2) Hunting has woken up to the PR business over the past couple of decades and many more people are now aware that the anti-hunt argument is flawed and that hunting is not the sadsim-fest that the anti-hunters always made it out to be. The tide of public opinion is moving away from the antis not towards them. Pro-hunting consistently gets more votes these days than it did 20 years ago, which suggests that your theory is flawed.

3) Quite a number of people have started hunting since the ban specifically to demontrate their opposition to the ban and to show solidarity with the hunts. A number of additional land-owners have also started allowing access for the same reasons. As one said to me just the other day, "I don't like being told by the Government what I can and can't allow in my own land".

4) There were a number of newspaper and magazine articles in the early years of the ban stating that hunting was being considered to be "cool" (if you will forgive the use of the term) by some precisely because it had now been banned.
		
Click to expand...

Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me, thankyou.



ps I am of course an anti hunter and I never have and never would either describe it or consider it to be a sadism fest. People on this forum have been rightly criticised for suggesting all hunters act in certain ways, please do not fall into the same language. Most people who are against hunting would not use such language to describe it, principally because they know that  it is not.


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

AengusOg said:



			Foxes are killed at all times of the year by just about any means available to those who wish them dead.

In hunting country, when hunting was allowed, the foxes enjoyed a bit of protection at certain times.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure you are right Aengus.

I'm just not sure that it balances out cubbing (oh by the way I love people telling me that I am using the wrong terminology when you have chosen to whitewash what goes on with cubbing by calling it "Autumn Hunting" )

Trapping cubs inside a covert by positioning riders around the outside slapping their whips with their sticks and then putting young hounds into the enclosed area  to get them? Not very sporting really, is it?


----------



## rockysmum (3 January 2012)

Will you people please think before you post.

In defending hunting, which I have admitted to having no interest in, you are attacking something I do enjoy.  No doubt the sabs will be reading this and going after shoots next.

Some of you are making shooting sound like a bunch of chavs let out with firearms.

The people I know who shoot have a far better accuracy rating than those quoted and would not leave an injured animal without trying to find it and finish it off.

I actually only shoot clays, but my partner (now deceased) and his friends were regularly invited to cull deer and other animals.  They took pride in killing humanely, and had the correct weapons for the job, everything from deer rifles to humane killers.


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

Herne said:



			No, you do not. 

That is not a ringing endorsement in anyone's book. What Burns basically said is that shooting might be better than hunting under certain circumstances. Whoopee doo. Hardly basis for punitive legislation.
		
Click to expand...

He did not say that hunting with hounds was better, which is what hunters always want people to believe.

Why do you think that hunting was banned on welfare issues?  It was banned for votes. It was supported by the majority of the British population on the basis that in the 21st century it is no longer defensible for a group of people on horseback to obtain enjoyment from an activity which requires the death of an animal after a long chase, particularly when that enjoyment can be replicated in a large measure by hunting a trail. 

I did not personally believe that it should have had parliamentary time. I thought the timescale for implementation was grossly unfair and should have been a couple of decades. But I did agree with the result. 



Herne said:



			You are advocating the position that one was apparantly so bad that is should have been abolished by Law and that the other is apparantly just fine and dandy as it is.
		
Click to expand...

No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion. 




Herne said:



			Observation by whom? The people actually giving the permission or someone else? If it is someone else, then it is hearsay.
		
Click to expand...

How do farmers know what kind of a job you do?  Around here, they know the marksmen in the same way.  I will continue to call a man who can stalk for a morning and take out his three target deer with three bullets with a clean kill each time a marksman. He surely deserves that title for his skill, and the venison was delicious. 



Herne said:



			I am sorry, but in trying to make out that all shooting is done by marksmen you really are on a hiding to nothing - because there is no assessment made.
		
Click to expand...

I have *never* made this assertion.  More than that, I have already talked about illegal lamping as being uncontrollable in large unpopulated areas of countryside. 



Herne said:



			Accept the fact that some of the[ people that shoot are not marksmen and address the questions that that raises.
		
Click to expand...

I have, right from the beginnning of this argument. They existed before the ban and they exist after it. It does not materially affect the argument. Most foxes were never killed by hunts even in areas covered by a fox hunt. In fact I remember at the time one of the arguments put forward for keeping hunting with hounds by some people was "but we hardly ever catch them"


----------



## cptrayes (3 January 2012)

"whips with their sticks" should of course read "boots with their whips"


----------



## EAST KENT (3 January 2012)

It was finding a still alive cub that some dope had shot ,and was being eaten alive from maggot that made me pro hunting .Sure,marksmen do kill accurately..sometimes..but we`ll never know how many get winged and rot away.It is`nt like Africa where your hunting guide is honour bound to track up and kill your mistakes is it?
Now,don`t know about the rest of you..but I seem to have lost the will to live on this thread. Get well soon SC


----------



## Judgemental (3 January 2012)

Goodness me my darlings, you are really kicking on, 300+ posts and nearly 20,000 views. Are we talking about a record on the hunting forum?

It just goes to show how many people are interested, 20,000 views, it would be good if a few of those labour MP's came and participated.

I was considering a controversial comment and perhaps disagreeing with JG or Herne just for fun, but on reflection I am going to wish them a Happy and very Prosperous New Year, that goes for everybody else too.

We have not seen Simsar for ages or Paddy?


----------



## EAST KENT (3 January 2012)

It`s no where near the one that goes something like "I hate cobs because........." that one is endless .Yes..where IS Simsar??


----------



## Lizzie66 (3 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion. 

Click to expand...

Are you really saying that "enjoying" the killing of animals is what you are against ? If so then please do ensure that all your "marksmen" are suitably miserable. I'm sure that no one who gets that good at their job/pastime does it through enjoying it !

Your arguments get more inane the longer this thread goes on !


----------



## NeilM (3 January 2012)

rockysmum said:



			Will you people please think before you post.

In defending hunting, which I have admitted to having no interest in, you are attacking something I do enjoy.  No doubt the sabs will be reading this and going after shoots next.

Some of you are making shooting sound like a bunch of chavs let out with firearms.

The people I know who shoot have a far better accuracy rating than those quoted and would not leave an injured animal without trying to find it and finish it off.

I actually only shoot clays, but my partner (now deceased) and his friends were regularly invited to cull deer and other animals.  They took pride in killing humanely, and had the correct weapons for the job, everything from deer rifles to humane killers.
		
Click to expand...


Well said, I tried to make a similar point earlier.

Let's be clear about terms, someone with a rifle or shotgun is not a marksman, but a marksman does use a rifle (or shotgun). The Oxford English definition of a marksman is: Someone skilled in shooting.

There are those who have firearms, who regard foxes (and just about anything else) as vermin, and as such, they are not bothered if they get a clean kill or not. That is not a marksman and that kind of person will not be invited (as I have been) to cull deer, shoot foxes and clear other vermin from farm and woodland. Sad to say, in my experience over many years, the people most likely to 'wing' an animal and leave it to it's own fate are 'friends' of landowners.

Sorry, I'm taking this thread off track, but it is important not to tar all shooters with the same brush (and all hunts I guess).


----------



## A1fie (3 January 2012)

I hunt but I do not shoot however I do believe that both hunting and shooting have a vital role to play in the conservation of the countryside.  I think both have historically worked along side each other and both, when done properly are the most humane way of managing the fox population.  

I think that sometimes (pre ban) a hunt could flush out a problematic/old/sick fox quicker than a marksman could by laying in wait, however I have no problem accepting that a high percentage of shooters are very skilled and accurate.


----------



## VoR (4 January 2012)

The longer this goes on the more confused I get, so a couple genuine questions from a confused forum member;

Anti-hunt posters are justifying why more people are hunting by saying it is because we no longer hunt a quarry and these people would stop hunting if we did, however, LACS and all anti-hunting people also pronounce that we ARE hunting live foxes and therefore we need to be monitored, sabbed, otherwise interfered with? Doesn't that contradict the 'more people are hunting because live animals are not hunted' stance and therefore which is the true picture? 

On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt?


----------



## rockysmum (4 January 2012)

VoR said:



			On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt? 

Click to expand...

Thats a very good point, I have no idea as I have not shot anything live since my partner died.  I assumed not, as we have quite a lot of pheasant shoots around us and I have never seen a sab, whereas I believe our local hunts attract them.

It will be interesting to hear about other parts of the country.  I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press.  Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms  

I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet.  A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals


----------



## VoR (4 January 2012)

rockysmum said:



			I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press.  Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms  

I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet.  A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals   

Click to expand...

Right so the answer is to do a 'John Wayne' and have a rifle on my saddle then 'yeeee-haah'!! 

And I have to agree that it's cruel shooting those cuddly little Skeets you nasty person!


----------



## Amymay (4 January 2012)

Really interesting post.  Excellent points made by both Herne and Cptrays.


----------



## cptrayes (4 January 2012)

rockysmum said:



			I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet.  A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals   

Click to expand...

Fantastic!  

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too


----------



## Miss L Toe (4 January 2012)

What harm do those poor skeet do, and you can't even claim you are killing for the pot :biggrin:


----------



## VoR (4 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Fantastic!  

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too 

Click to expand...

Pah, Bergamot vermin deserve everything they get!


----------



## Fiagai (4 January 2012)

rockysmum said:



			Thats a very good point, I have no idea as I have not shot anything live since my partner died.  I assumed not, as we have quite a lot of pheasant shoots around us and I have never seen a sab, whereas I believe our local hunts attract them.
It will be interesting to hear about other parts of the country.  I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press.  Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms  
I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet.  A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals   

Click to expand...

RM

Your point reminds me very much of the dichotomy of a recent Advert for Brookes (bicycle) Saddles entitled 

- *Unquestionable British Tradition *(!)   The advert shows a pair of rather trendily dressed individuals "saving a fox from hounds" by grabbing it and hiding behind some trees!!!,   The real laugh is that the pair have arrived at their location (in the middle of a wood) by racing type road bikes sporting Brookes saddles.  Now as a proud owner of a bike with a comfy Brookes saddle I think that cycling in the countryside is quite nice *However* Brookes saddles are made of tanned cow hide .   Hardly concerned impartial vegans are they 

The "Unquestionable British Tradition" title really is a bit odd!.  Surely Fox Hunting is traditional and perhaps cycling also falls under the same definition but I think fox rescuing is a bit more "New Labour" tbh than Unquestionable British Tradition.

I do like the comments in the video about the guy "rescuing the fox from St Tiddlywinks Hedgehog Hospital" to take up a life as a film extra and the directors comments about asking a Master of Fox hounds to participate LOL...

Back to your point RM - it appears to be extremely trendy at the moment to be an Anti and even after the Hunting Act give credence to the media frenzy that anyone dressed up in the correct gear with hounds is actually hunting.

The advert is simply perpetuating this myth.  Perhaps there will be a follow up showing the same couple rescuing pheasants in the middle of a shoot?  I wonder how fast they could peddle.....

For anyone who wishes to view the advert LINK

Enjoy I am away to pick myself up from the floor...


----------



## VoR (4 January 2012)

Fiagai said:



			RM

- *Unquestionable British Tradition *(!)   The "Unquestionable British Tradition" title really is a bit odd!.  

Surely Fox Hunting is traditional and perhaps cycling also falls under the same definition.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so the first bicycles were introduced in what, early 19th Century? The first fox hunt say, mid 16th Century? Sabbing more 20th Century? Are they saying Cycling and sabbing are a tradition and fox hunting not? I seem to be spending most of my time like this on this thread!!


----------



## LaurenBay (4 January 2012)

Always Henesy said:



			I think that as usual things are getting out of hand. The original (and justified) complaint by the OP has been addressed by the Hunt Master in the form of Vodka D ) and profuse apologies. The OP has been very mature, magnanimous, and gracious in accepting the apology and is now happy to forget it and move on.
Those who are spoiling for a fight - still - when it is not necessary need to take lead from the OP. 
I'll drink to that (preferably vodka  ) - let sleeping dogs lie now.
		
Click to expand...

Need a like button! Although make mine a Malibu 

OP glad you got the result you were looking for.


----------



## Fiagai (4 January 2012)

VoR said:



			Hmmm, so the first bicycles were introduced in what, early 19th Century? The first fox hunt say, mid 16th Century? Sabbing more 20th Century? Are they saying Cycling and sabbing are a tradition and fox hunting not? I seem to be spending most of my time like this on this thread!!
		
Click to expand...


Tbh I think what ever sells is the real message

But doing a proper piece of deconstructivism I noted the following

*There are no Hunt staff or followers evident anywhere

*Hounds are pretend ones ie ie show hounds

*The Fox is a film extra and is obviously scarred out of its wits by the whole cabbodle (and you cant blame the pretend hounds as they were filmed in a seperate scene)

The Anti's are film extras (arnt they always )

*The original idea was to use a shot frozen stuffed fox but the director decided that wouldn't be good policy!!

So I gather it was somehow better for marketing purposes to pretend that a "pet" fox was being hunted by pretend hounds and rescued by actors pretending to be New Labour Anti types (spot the trendy flat cap) than to use a real albeit dead fox that had been actually shot....

You are the not the only one that is confused VoR....


----------



## Fiagai (4 January 2012)

Ok my sincerest appologies to Brookes Bicycle Saddles...hrrrmmmppphhhahahrmppph

This is from their website and is titled..
*www.brooksengland.com/[B]Our Heritage[/B]*
*BOULTBEE BROOKS AND HIS FAMILY&#8217;
Courtesy of Blackwell Court, Late House of the Brooks Family*








LINK

I presume it will be replaced by a photograph of some sabs in balaclavas....


oh the irony of it ..sorry I really cant stop I am back on the floor again...hrrrmmmppphhhahahrmppph...


----------



## NeilM (4 January 2012)

VoR said:



			On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt? 

Click to expand...

This is a question that has long puzzled me. LACS and other sabs target hunts / meets, and make a huge amount of fuss about the cruelty aspect of hunting with hounds.

How much fuss do they make about badger baiting, or dog fighting, or cock fighting or ever bare knuckle fighting. All are barbaric, but I have never heard of a dog fight or badger dig being sabbed, why not? Well, mainly because those who participate in such pastimes would tear the sabs into teeny tiny pieces, or more likely their dogs would.

This is why I have always regarded the hunting ban as purely political and organisations who campaigned for the ban and for the continuation of the ban are simply left wingers having a go at the 'toffs'.


----------



## 4x4 (4 January 2012)

Yes but WHERE was it? Bet I know!


----------



## rockysmum (4 January 2012)

VoR said:



			Right so the answer is to do a 'John Wayne' and have a rifle on my saddle then 'yeeee-haah'!! 

And I have to agree that it's cruel shooting those cuddly little Skeets you nasty person! 

Click to expand...




Santa Paws said:



			Fantastic!  

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too 

Click to expand...


----------



## Judgemental (4 January 2012)

I had intended to stay out of this thread.

However, Shakespeare's Henry V springs to mind: 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' and 'Cry &#8216;God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' 

It is extraordinarily simply what shoots do not get sabbed.

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns. 

Simples


----------



## Fiagai (4 January 2012)

Judgemental said:



			I had intended to stay out of this thread.

However, Shakespeare's Henry V springs to mind: 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' and 'Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' 

It is extraordinarily simply what shoots do not get sabbed.

The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns. 

Simples
		
Click to expand...

JM

are you perhaps suggesting we should take to carrying shotguns whilst mounted


----------



## VoR (4 January 2012)

John Wayne in True Grit, reins between my teeth, colt 45 in one hand, winchester rifle in the other, yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaah!!


----------



## combat_claire (5 January 2012)

Judgemental said:



			The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns. 

Simples
		
Click to expand...

A quick look at the HSA website shows that this is incorrect, there are several incidents of grouse shoots being disrupted. It is my understanding from the shooting press that incidents of sabotage against shoots tends to be less direct action and more cowardly moves such as releasing magpies from Larsen traps, cutting snares, tipping over pheasant feeders, destroying release pens etc. 

Indeed whilst I was on a conservation holiday dry stone walling in Cumbria our suspect group leader suggested that our evening entertainment should be to destroy grouse butts - I have no idea whether this was just cheap bravado or whether they did go out and do it; but it reflects the cowardly mentality of these people. 

Which reminds me, one of my friends out hunting last season when the Sabs rocked up asked one of them why he insisted on covering his face with scarf and sunglasses while she pointed out that she was proud of what she did and had no need to hide her features...


----------



## Herne (5 January 2012)

Judgemental said:



			The latter do not know where they are taking place and frankly anybody with any sence, will not want to start interfering with a number of people carrying loaded shotguns.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

Shoots are hard to sab because they are hard to find.

However, once you have found a shoot they are then incredibly easy to sab.

To sab a hunt, you need a large a number of fit people and transport to follow it, because the hunt moves over a large area.

Sabbing a shoot, once you have found it, can be done by two old ladies and a cat.

Shoots take place in a restricted area and as soon as the police are called (by either side) and they see that there is any form of protest or altercation going in an activity that involves firearms, they will then demand that the shoot is immediately terminated and that the guns are locked away into vehicles and taken home.

Any members of the shoot who complain or fail to comply risk losing their licences.

The police put up with a lot of piddling about between hunts and sabs because most of it just involves irritation and civil law matters such as trespass.

As soon as firearms become involved, they crack down immediately with a rod of iron.


----------



## EAST KENT (5 January 2012)

Driven shoots are on private land,trespass laws would apply to any sabs brave enough to annoy the average gamekeeper.Personally I would not


----------



## Herne (5 January 2012)

Misconception, I am afraid.

There are no such things as "trespass Laws" in England and Wales. Trespass is a Tort, for which the remedy is action in the civil courts. The Police do not take action against trespass.

They will, however, take action against "breach of the peace" and if that "breach of the peace" is taking place any where near guns, they will insist that the guns are removed.

And if it is an annoyed average gamekeeper that is breaching the peace, then it is the annoyed average gamekeeper that will get arrested, regardless of whether he is being "annoyed" by trespassers.

The remedy against trespassers is to use reasonable force to escort them off the land or to a highway, to sue them for damages or to get an injunction against them. Trying to escort them off your land whilst carrying a firearm, or accompanied by those that are, will not be considered "reasonable force" by the Courts.

There is, of course, now the criminal offence of aggravated trespass, but shoots will find it no easier to get the police to enforce that than hunts have done - and, in the meantime, the Police will still insist on the firearms being removed.


----------



## NeilM (5 January 2012)

To add to Herne's post, the only time the Police WILL be interested is if the trespasser has a firearm. Trespass with a firearm is a pretty serious offence.

So, use 'reasonable force' on sab, shove spare shotgun in his / her hands, and phone the Police


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 January 2012)

Herne said:



			And if it is an annoyed average gamekeeper that is breaching the peace, then it is the annoyed average gamekeeper that will get arrested, regardless of whether he is being "annoyed" by trespassers.

The remedy against trespassers is to use reasonable force to escort them off the land or to a highway, to sue them for damages or to get an injunction against them. Trying to escort them off your land whilst carrying a firearm, or accompanied by those that are, will not be considered "reasonable force" by the Courts.
		
Click to expand...

Your annoyed average gamekeeper needs a Bull Mastiff and a mobile phone. Mastiffs, the traditional gamekeepers dog, bring undesiribles down by putting their paws on the person's shoulders and using their weight to push them over, keeping them pinned down until help arrives.
Much more satisfying.


----------



## VoR (5 January 2012)

Yay, up to page 35 and yet another change of direction, starting to get car-sick now!!


----------



## Herne (5 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			I have *never* made this assertion.  More than that, I have already talked about illegal lamping as being uncontrollable in large unpopulated areas of countryside.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm. Let me see. 

Yes, you admit the problem of illegal lamping, and I grant you that legitimate shooters can no more be held liable for illegal shooting than legitimate hunting can be held liable for those who breaks its rules, but &#8230;



Santa Paws said:



			I can assure you that foxes in my area are controlled perfectly well and humanely by marksmen with guns..
		
Click to expand...




Santa Paws said:



			Other than killing foxes which is done in my area by marksmen...
		
Click to expand...




Santa Paws said:



			but they exist whether you cull fox with  hounds or with a marksman.
		
Click to expand...




Santa Paws said:



			And marksmen to killl them are easy to get hold of &#8230;
		
Click to expand...

*EVERY* time you talk about legal shooting, you make out that it is done by marksmen, giving the clear implication that it is *only* done by marksmen &#8211; which we both know is not the case.

You say it because you want to sanitise your beliefs about shooting in order to bolster your beliefs about hunting.





			No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion.
		
Click to expand...

No, dear heart, it has *every* relevance to the discussion.

It is your statements of what you think happened most often or what you claim most people think that are irrelevant. 

As Mahatma Ghandi said: In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. 


Ok, lets take this right down to basics:

You will concede, I hope, that it would be *hypothetically possible* for the situation to be that every single shooter was a hopeless shot and every single fox that was shot at spent a week in agony dying of gangrene. In such an entirely theoretical situation, hunting with dogs, with all its faults, would clearly then be a better method of control in terms of animal welfare than shooting.

Likewise, I must concede that it is hypothetically possible that every fox-shooter could be a total dead-eyed-dick and that every single fox ever shot at was killed instantaneously with no suffering involved what-so-ever, at all, ever &#8211; thus making shooting undeniably and unquestionably better than hunting on an animal welfare basis.

The reality, of course, lies somewhere between those two hypothetical and unfeasible extremes &#8211; and I concede without qualm that it lies much, much, much nearer the latter extreme than the former. 


However, the mistake that you, and people on your side of the equation, make is that you then go on to ASSUME that the amount of suffering generated by shooting is not only less, but that it is less by such a degree of magnitude that it is justified to make hunting illegal.

And the critical word there is: Assume. You do not believe this because you *know* it to be true. You convince yourself that you believe it because you want it to be true.




Santa Paws said:



			I do not believe that it is more humane to hunt them with a pack of hounds and I do not believe that you can point me to any independant study that says it is.
		
Click to expand...

I do not believe&#8230; I do not believe&#8230;  in other words &#8211; *you do not KNOW*. 

You are basing your recommendations on what is best for animal welfare on what is, basically, when it comes down to it, a GUESS.




Santa Paws said:



			It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are completely justified in our feelings that hunting live quarry is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justfiably criticised for.
		
Click to expand...

No, I will not agree that you are justified in your feelings &#8211; unless you can demonstrate that your feelings are justifiable. 


So, let&#8217;s examine the equation, shall we &#8211; and in order to avoid getting bogged down by the intimate details of specific instances, let&#8217;s look at a very general statement. How about this:

*&#8220;If you shoot a thousand foxes, that will generate substantially less suffering than if you hunt a thousand foxes.&#8221;*

How&#8217;s that? I think that pretty much sums up the case for the abolition of hunting with dogs, don&#8217;t you? If you hunt a thousand foxes you will cause more suffering than if you shoot a thousand foxes &#8211; so hunting should be abolished in favour of shooting.

Ok. So let&#8217;s examine that statement. 

Let&#8217;s look at hunting a thousand foxes. Burns estimated that the kill takes a &#8220;matter of seconds&#8221; (para 6.49). However, it can be claimed that foxes suffer during the chase, too. Burns said that the average chase is around 15-20 minutes (para 2.22). But, it could be claimed that foxes also suffer from exhaustion after chasing, so let&#8217;s be really fair and say an average of an hour to cover all eventualities. 1,000 foxes = 1,000 hours.

Ok, now let&#8217;s look at 1,000 shot foxes &#8211; and let&#8217;s assume that shooters have a 95% accuracy rate. That&#8217;s 19 out of 20 foxes killed absolutely stone dead, instantaneously, with absolutely no suffering what-so-ever. None. Nada. Nothing. Zip.

That leaves 5% that are wounded. Of those, some will die of their injuries in a matter of minutes or hours. Some will get infections and die in a matter of hours or days. Some will be incapacitated by their wounds and not be able to hunt or hold territory and die of starvation or cold or disease caused by malnutrition in a number of days. And some, will not die; they will recover. And paradoxically, they will suffer the most, because death brings and end to suffering. How long does it take to recover from an untreated gunshot wound? Days? Weeks? 

So, that can be anything from several hours to several days. Well, we&#8217;re dealing with an average here, so let&#8217;s say: one day. 

5% of 1,000 foxes is 50. 50 foxes at 24 hours is: 1,200 hours.

Well, what do you know? Far from being less by an order of magnitude, it&#8217;s actually about the same.

And that is including the whole rigmarole of &#8220;the extended chase&#8221; etc. 

Hmm. So what will the antis say:

&#8220;That&#8217;s ridiculous! You can&#8217;t make such comparisons!&#8221; &#8211; We&#8217;re not the ones making the comparisons, you are. You are the ones saying that hunting is so much worse that it should be made illegal, I&#8217;m just putting figures to _your side&#8217;s_ comparison.

&#8220;You  can&#8217;t compare different types of suffering like that&#8221; &#8211; indeed not. Personally, I would think that suffering of pain would be a worse sort of suffering than the suffering of fear, but who knows. The *only* way we can quantify the amount of suffering is by the time involved.

 &#8220;Your figures are just guesses&#8221;. Yep. True. But they are good guesses. Educated guesses. Feel free to come up with better ones.


So how much worse should the suffering caused by hunting be to justify banning it? 10 times? A hundred times?

I'll let you pick the amount, and then try to quantify it...

The problem for your side is NOT that shooting causes a lot of suffering. It doesn&#8217;t. I know, I shoot. It is that, in reality, the amount of real suffering hunting causes is miniscule.

The suffering caused by hunting is measured in seconds or minutes. The amount of suffering caused by botched shots is measured in hours or days - and there's the rub.

I've just demonstrated that hunting is no worse than shooting at all.

Go on, then. Have a play with the figures and see what you can come up with. 

Good luck. You&#8217;ll need it.


----------



## VoR (5 January 2012)

Talking of scientific studies, on the subject of 'Hunting with hounds is Cruel and less humane than other types of wildlife management', I had a slow day yesterday and began 'googling' - Scientific Studies: Fox Hunting.

There are a fair few peer reviewed, apparently controlled studies which say that a fox that is chased suffers no more, and perhaps less, than a trapped or wounded one and none that can show any evidence, through controlled research, that a fox being chased is either;

a) scared or;
b) aware of the danger of death or;
c) suffers any long lasting damage.

In fact, it seems that the opposite is true!

They display the natural behaviour of any animal being 'predated' and once no longer hunted, quickly return to other behaviours......which I thought was quite interesting.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			I do not shoot and therefore it is not my sport, but you are correct that I have no problem with vermin animals being culled.

You have " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery"  You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?

.
		
Click to expand...

When I first came to the UK, I had VERY little experience of foxhunting (I was young, and brave, and favoured eventing.)  But I HAD a lot of experience in fox shooting - albeit crammed into about 12 months when I was working in the bush in Oz!  My employer wouldn't let anyone shoot fox until they had proved their marksmanship on rabbits!  Was this because he was 'humane'?  No, it was because - after 50 years as a grazier lambing 10,000 ewes outdoors he was convinced - with strong evidence to support his conviction - that injured and infirm foxes were the main predators of new-born lambs  (easy pickings!)  I proved myself and was regularly sent out on fox control nights - we were given x number of cartridges and at the end of the session the boss expected x - y cartridges to be returned (with y being the number of dead foxes!!)  BUT - we used heavy calibre rifles (.303s)  You could hit a fox ANYWHERE with one of those and it was killed instantly or bled out very quickly!

In many areas of the UK you can struggle to get a licence for anything over a .22 for fox control (whereas a .222 is the minimum you need!)  A .303 would go through a fox - and a sheep 200 yards further on - and still wound a pony in a field a couple of 100 yards further away!

My first few outings with foxhounds convinced me it was a great riding sport - but a hellishly inefficient way of killing foxes!  All those hounds, and people on horseback, to kill one fox in a couple of hours!!  Hell, my best night with a .303 I personally killed 50 in a couple of hours!  It took a little more time for me to understand that foxhunting was NOT about killing foxes - it was about managing (and to a degree PROTECTING) a healthy fox population!

In areas where foxhunting had a good following, there was a lot less shooting and snaring!  (And that was a factor that convinced at least one leading LACS activist to change his mind!)  And it was a great excuse when a neighbour asked if he could come onto my land to shoot foxes.  While what I really wanted to say was: "I wouldn't let an idiot like you loose on my land with a rifle", one doesn't want to fall out with a neighbour so instead I said: "Ooh, sorry, but no - I'm a hunt supporter!"

But - most important - I had the opportunity to see - close-up - a couple of foxes killed by hounds in very short runs.  There were mangey foxes, there were foxes wearing wire, there were foxes with shotgun injuries.  And no - it's NOT that foxhounds are kindly chaps who ONLY kill the old and infirm - it's just that a fox who is slowly dying of mange or injury smells more strongly - and is easier to catch!

As for " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery"  You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?"

I assume you're talking to a shooter there - and shooters don't tend to run around with a couple of foxhounds in tow!  By the time a shooter realises he's wounded a fox rather than killed it outright, he MIGHT be able to get a second shot - or it might have got away to die slowly!  A good friend of mine is a 'deer manager' in our local woodlands where deer are shot by poachers - or more likely hit by cars.  He has a highly trained Lab - it will search out a wounded deer, usually lying up in heavy cover, and come back and 'tell' my friend he's found it - and lead him back to it!  My friend is often called out by the police after an RTA - when a wounded deer has run away - and thanks to this highly trained dog the deer can be found - and put out of its misery.  That was a service that hunts provided for the fox population - as a side effect of course - but nevertheless a valuable one!  Now, a huntsman who allowed hounds to find and despatch a wounded fox would be prosecuted!  Crazy world!


----------



## cptrayes (5 January 2012)

That's a great post Janet, thankyou.


----------



## cptrayes (5 January 2012)

Will everyone please note that I did not restart this and it is not me wanting to continue it. 



Herne said:



			You will concede, I hope, that it would be *hypothetically possible* for the situation to be that every single shooter was a hopeless shot and every single fox that was shot at spent a week in agony dying of gangrene. In such an entirely theoretical situation, hunting with dogs, with all its faults, would clearly then be a better method of control in terms of animal welfare than shooting.
		
Click to expand...

Which is presumably why the law allows for hunting with two dogs to flush to an experienced gun? Because few people deny that weak, injured and indeed overpopulated foxes need putting to death. It may be better with more dogs, I don't know, but for sure it does not require the accompanying 30-150 riders.

From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman. I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field. 




			:
Originally Posted by Santa Paws View Post
It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are completely justified in our feelings that hunting live quarry is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justfiably criticised for.
		
Click to expand...




Herne said:



			No, I will not agree that you are justified in your feelings &#8211; unless you can demonstrate that your feelings are justifiable.
		
Click to expand...

I apologise, my quote should have read:  

It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are entitled to our feelings that hunting live quarry with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders is not the right thing for us to do, and sort out the stuff they are being justifiably criticised for.

Because you see, feelings are feelings whether you believe that they are justified or not, you cannot just remove them from us.  My point was supposed to focus on the point that even when a hunt is justifiably criticised, like in the original post, some fox hunters seem to go out of their way to insist that hunts just never do anything wrong and it gives the wrong impression of your sport. Janet George's posts are a much better response, and truly educational.


----------



## Fiagai (5 January 2012)

To those that may think that Hunt sabs are just cuddly bobble-hat wearing concerned citizens  take a read of this xenophonic, class hatred ridden piece from a pro hunt sab blogger.  It is interesting that without qualification the blogger takes the stance that if dressed in the traditional  manner with hounds present then ipso facto there is hunting taking place, the writer also presumes that hunt sabs never do any harm and then equates those who turn up a hunt on horseback (even if they are not "hunting live quarry") with child abusers...  




			In early 2011 I spent a Saturday documenting the wonderful efforts of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. The short story is that it was a successful sabotage; the hunters, all *bourgeois* men and women in their fineries on horseback with their *packs of slave dogs*, couldn't shake the sabs and ended up going home early. They were thoroughly pissed off and I had a grin from ear to ear. No foxes were killed that day.

Citing direct action as the only route might sound extreme if you don't know that fox hunting has been banned in England. Yep, it is illegal but it happens anyway, so the laws won't protect the foxes. Interestingly, it is also illegal to sabotage a fox hunt.

The longer story: on Saturdays, when the hunters and the sabs are out doing battle, *the police are also out in full force, protecting the hunters*. What? Yes, the police are there to protect *the hunters (ie: the rich)* from those scary-looking, intimidating hunt saboteurs who might cause them harm. *No sab had ever caused a hunter harm.* Quite the opposite. The hunters charge, whip, hit and run over the sabs in an effort to intimidate and hurt them so that they can carry on with their hunt. Witnessing this, I felt like I was in a war zone and was full of admiration for the sabs who return week after week at risk of personal injury to thwart the hunters.

*As we ran by one of the police officers I asked him why they were protecting the hunters and detaining the sabs. His answer: "Have you seen any of them kill a fox? Until there's a dead fox, they are doing nothing wrong." Right. Do you wait for a pedophile to attack before arresting him*?
		
Click to expand...

It would be nice to think that this is a once off piece of venom however even from a brief trawl of the intranet there are hundreds of such websites and blogs which potray similar nasty and vicous rantings.

Many of these sab sites start with advice on sab tactics such as the example from the hunt sab association which gives instruction for - "Pre-meet tactics: Ways to sab the hunt before they even start" . The same sites universally fail to make any mention of trail hunting, blood hounds or any of the legal hunting methods.  The advice to their followers is to get in there and disrupt anyway. 

To those here that have claimed that hunts are being sabbed only because they are hunting, these sites are the proof that this not what is happening.

The sooner that proper legal controls on such illegal activity are put in place the better.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Which is presumably why the law allows for hunting with two dogs to flush to an experienced gun? Because few people deny that weak, injured and indeed overpopulated foxes need putting to death. It may be better with more dogs, I don't know, but for sure it does not require the accompanying 30-150 riders.

From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman. I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field.
		
Click to expand...

The problems with using 2 hounds to flush a fox to a gun are that : 1) in a hundred acres or more of woodland 2 hounds would be unlikely to find a wounded fox within a reasonable time frame: and 2) IF they found it and flushed it on the opposite side of the woodland to the experienced gun, he couldn't shoot it and hounds would hunt on.

The old gun packs - now illegal - put 20 hounds into a piece of woodland and SURROUNDED it with chaps with guns - maybe 20 or more of them!  Foxes came out in all directions - some were successfully shot - the wounded ones ran on and were chased and despatched by hounds!  As a method of killing foxes it was VERY efficient indeed (assuming the 20 guns were competent!)  Shotguns were used because with so many people around, and foxes coming out at speed, a rifle would have been unsuitable and dangerous!

Long runs are - in most cases - a wishful myth!  While hounds may follow a scent for several miles, they often change scent - and the fox who left the scent has often gone to ground LONG before hounds lose the scent!

And the field's CHIEF purpose is to pay the bills!  Maintaining a pack of foxhounds, a professional huntsman, a whipper-in (or two), a hunt groom and hunt horses is a VERY expensive business.  As is the maintenance of the vehicles that transport hounds - and collect deadstock from farms - to say nothing of the cost of providing and running an incinerator - or having offal removed by licensed contractors.  Yes, farmers contribute to the collection of deadstock (as does the Government where TB reactors are concerned!) but it doesn't cover the costs fully.

And - TBH - is it really relevant that riders enjoy following hounds??  It's certainly not relevent to the cruelty question!


----------



## Echo Bravo (5 January 2012)

Well considering this post has gone on since th 26/12/11 and Santa Paws and Fiagai haven't had much sleep and as usual things get personnal. I was always lead to believe that the Hunts would only go over land they had permission to use,I know on some big estates the tenant farmer had it written into their contracts, that the hunt could travel over their land, but would repair and damage to fences,hedges ect:-And that the Masters would go round each farm telling the farmers/owners which way they may come, also the Hunt is invited to hunt over peoples land, so I think do co-ordinate with other property owners, and if they were told keep off the land they did so.


----------



## Fiagai (5 January 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			Well considering this post has gone on since th 26/12/11 and Santa Paws and Fiagai haven't had much sleep and as usual things get personnal. I was always lead to believe that the Hunts would only go over land they had permission to use,I know on some big estates the tenant farmer had it written into their contracts, that the hunt could travel over their land, but would repair and damage to fences,hedges ect:-And that the Masters would go round each farm telling the farmers/owners which way they may come, also the Hunt is invited to hunt over peoples land, so I think do co-ordinate with other property owners, and if they were told keep off the land they did so.
		
Click to expand...

I am touched by your solicitude EB  trust me though I am in no danger danger do of loosing sleep rather over such matters, although I do feel passionate about certain things and then I am a fast typer


----------



## VoR (6 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			That's a great post Janet, thankyou.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, that is a really good post with valid personal experience being imparted.



Fiagai said:



			The sooner that proper legal controls on such illegal activity are put in place the better.
		
Click to expand...

Definately, also the 'blogger' shows a very real lack of understanding of the 'class' (for want of a better description) of many of those that hunt (it would also be interesting to look in to the background of many sabs!!??) and also of powers of arrest! The sabs are more at risk of this as they are potentially disrupting a legal activity and certainly are in disrurting a meet when their actions might verly likely be deemed 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace', then they accuse the police of 'protecting the rich'????!!!! Clap-trap, most police officers spend most of their time working with the less fortunate in society, often protecting them, it is the nature of their work! As for the 'paedophile' jibes, this has unfortunately become a common insult and the word is so extremely over-used by the uneducated and some of the media there is a danger people will become indifferent to it and the abhorrent crimes it relates to! Finally, there is the issue of sabs 'doing no wrong', I have never, ever, seen anti-hunt people hold up their hand and say, we were wrong, we were out of line, I and I'm sure many supporters of hunting would be happy to say that the courts have come to the conclusion that hunts and some hunt staff have, time to grow up people! 



JanetGeorge said:



			And the field's CHIEF purpose is to pay the bills!  

is it really relevant that riders enjoy following hounds??  It's certainly not relevent to the cruelty question!
		
Click to expand...

Another good post JG....trouble is I now just feel like a cash-cow!!  I really don't think that most riders were, nor would be, too concerned whether a fox was killed or not, more than that I think most people did have and would have a quiet respect for the ones that got away (but didn't and wouldn't tell the Huntsman that!!!!! ). The main thing is the riding experience which can't be replicated in any other way, that is why people still hunt given the changes in law surely???


----------



## Herne (6 January 2012)

Santa Paws said:



			Will everyone please note that I did not restart this and it is not me wanting to continue it.
		
Click to expand...

This is a debating forum and this section is about hunting. We are debating hunting.

There&#8217;s no need to apologise about it. People who don&#8217;t want to read this stuff shouldn&#8217;t click on it.




			My point was supposed to focus on the point that even when a hunt is justifiably criticised, like in the original post, some fox hunters seem to go out of their way to insist that hunts just never do anything wrong and it gives the wrong impression of your sport.
		
Click to expand...

For what it&#8217;s worth I agree with you entirely on this point.

I did PM the OP for details some while ago, so that I could verify the whole business with the hunt concerned and demonstrate to all the people trying to make out that it never happened that it did.

Unfortunately, I have not received a response yet.


----------



## Herne (6 January 2012)

Oh, dear, CPTrayes, what a disappointment.

I was hoping from the tone and content of some of your previous postings that we might actually be able to get down to some intelligent debate about the real nitty-gritty of the subject.

However, alas, it seems it is not to be. 

It seems impossible to get anyone from the anti-hunt side of the argument to actually argue about the comparative merits of the various methods of fox control. When ever you start, they just veer away from the topic. 



Santa Paws said:



			From what you are describing, then the most humane method of killing foxes is to flush with hounds towards someone who you know is a marksman.
		
Click to expand...

As it is virtually impossible to interpret my post in that light, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

When confronted by information about the problems that can be associated with shooting stationary foxes, it is not even remotely logical to respond &#8220;Oh, well in that case, the best thing must be to scare them and then try to shoot at them whilst they&#8217;re moving&#8230;&#8221;

Come on, do try at least to think about what you&#8217;re saying before you write it&#8230;




			I do not see the justification for the long run, or the chasing field.
		
Click to expand...

The chasing field is a red herring. They have absolutely no bearing on the welfare issue. We have them there because they pay for the running of the whole shebang, but the welfare issues would be the same whether they were there or not.

The claimed justification for the long run is obvious (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). It is the long run (and don&#8217;t forget Burns talks of an average of 15-20 minutes) that makes hunting with dogs selective. 

If (and I am talking in pre-ban terms here) we used a dog that was so fast that it caught every fox it was loosed at in 20 seconds flat &#8211; or if we allowed every fox to pop down the nearest hole, then hunting would be no more selective than shooting or snaring. It would be entirely random.

As Janet said, in her post that you described as &#8220;great&#8221; and &#8220;truly educational&#8221;, hunting is about managing a fox population.

And in any population management exercise, be it in the British countryside or a game reserve in Africa, every single conservation authority you care to look at will tell you that when carrying out a cull, that cull should be selective and not random.

The only people anywhere in the world who try to make out that a random cull is better than a selective one are those who are against hunting with dogs. Why? Because it goes against every single known theory or rule of conservation.

So, to say that &#8220;you do not see&#8221; the justification is disingenuous, because this cannot be the first time that you have heard it.

You would be perfectly entitled to say: &#8220;I do not accept that the reason you give for the long chase justifies the amount of suffering that it causes&#8221;. Fine. Ok. Let&#8217;s discuss that.

Because, and this is the important point here, the long run is already accounted for in the figures that I gave you to look at and which you are so studiously ignoring.





			It would be so much better for the image of fox hunting if they could simply agree that some of us are entitled to our feelings that hunting live quarry with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders is not the right thing for us to do &#8230; Because you see, feelings are feelings whether you believe that they are justified or not, you cannot just remove them from us.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm. But what happened to:



Santa Paws said:



			I'm an atheist, my opinions are certainly not God given, but it is the law to have free speech in this country so I will continue to challenge you if I believe that you are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Sauce for the goose&#8230;?

If you were merely saying that fox-hunting was not for you, that would be absolutely hunky-dory. You have a perfect right to make that moral choice for yourself. Can&#8217;t argue with that in the slightest.

That isn&#8217;t what we are arguing about.

Because, that is not all you are saying:



Santa Paws said:



			Why do you think that hunting was banned on welfare issues?  It was banned for  ... *But I did agree with the result*.
		
Click to expand...

*That* is what we are arguing about. The fact that you support the idea that I should have *my* right to make *my own* moral decision on this issue taken away from me by Law.

It is the function of democracy to protect the rights of minorities from unjustified oppression. As Thomas Jefferson said: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule if fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

That is why am pushing you to answer my questions. Not because of your own moral decisions, but because of your above-stated support for the principle that I should not be allowed to make *my* own moral decisions.

That you should be able &#8211; and indeed willing &#8211; to justify.




Santa Paws said:



			Alec you do not wish to educate.  You wish to *make* people who have a moral objection to culling foxes with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders agree with you that they are wrong &#8230; They are not wrong &#8230; I am not wrong &#8230;We all hold a _different_ opinion  from you and it is time that you began to respect it, because this new generation of young people feel even stronger about it.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry &#8211; are you really trying to make out that someone who makes a moral objection to something somehow cannot be wrong?

Of course they can be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. Even, and you may find this hard to believe, me.

If someone forms a moral objection to something based on misinformation, then it is entirely possible that they would form a different moral opinion if based on the correct information. In that case, their first objection would have been &#8220;wrong&#8221;.

So, to be absolutely clear about this, I am not questioning your moral objection in my post above. I am questioning your knowledge and understanding of the factors underlying that objection and upon which it was formed.

Surely that is fair enough&#8230;



_(EDIT:Going back to what I said earlier about hunting having upped its PR game, it's weird the way things have changed. Whoever would have thought a few years ago, that it would ever be the pro-hunt side haveing to chide the anti-hunt side for refusing to address the issues of animal welfare..._   )


----------



## cptrayes (6 January 2012)

Herne said:



			The claimed justification for the long run is obvious (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). It is the long run (and don&#8217;t forget Burns talks of an average of 15-20 minutes) that makes hunting with dogs selective.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand your argument here Herne. Previously we have been told that hunting culls the sick and weak, but in this case it culls everything capable of running outrunning hounds for 15 -20 minutes. That's a pretty fit fox.

Are there days when hunts go and hunt trail because there are insufficient foxes to justify killing one? If not, how is that managed unless you are deliberately breeding/allowing enough to breed to be able to provide sport for the rest of the season?

One of the huge problems that you have with the image of the sport is the conflict of interest. What makes it fun for the people who pay for it, a long run, is at odds with the declared object of the sport, the most humane method of fox control. In any other business, that type of conflict of interest would raise alarm bells.

Another huge problem with your current justification for repealing the law is that the decline in the fox population in rural areas, unless you produce a lot more evidence, looks from the outside to be indistinguishable from what would have been expected to have happened if hunts were deliberately protecting and conserving the breeding of foxes in order to have them to hunt. 

I hope someone in the CA is commmisioning the independant review that will prove that the decline is due to increased killing by other means.

Do not shoot the messenger on either of these points, please. You need to counter both arguments if you are to persuade people to support a repeal. 




Herne said:



			So, to say that &#8220;you do not see&#8221; the justification is disingenuous, because this cannot be the first time that you have heard it.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, so when I say I know there are hunts which are hunting illegally, no one will believe me because they have not seen it. But when you say foxes are dying horrible deaths in big numbers I am suppposed to believe in these large numbers even though I have ridden over and driven through large areas of unhunted fox country daily for 20 years on horseback and never ever seen one?




Herne said:



*That* is what we are arguing about. The fact that you support the idea that I should have *my* right to make *my own* moral decision on this issue taken away from me by Law.
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of things which other people believe are morally right which have been taken away by law. Dog and cock fighting are the two most obviously relevant, but the law is littered with examples. There is no conflict in me insisting on a right to believe something is morally wrong and another person being legally banned from exercising their moral judgement whether to be able to do it or not.

You seem to be getting caught up again in the feeling that if only  you could explain enough that the rest of the British population would agree with you that fox hunting is right. I don't think that's the case. I believe that the majority of the British population now think that the time is past for killing an animal by chasing it across country for 15-20 minutes first. Unfortunately for you, it does not matter how good a welfare case you put up, this is a visceral response. 

The public were banned from watching hangings 150 years or more before hangings ceased. It's a very extreme example of the same thing - that many people find it morally repugnant to link a sport inextricably with animal deaths, however necessary those deaths may be.

You can go on and on about the welfare issue as long as you like. You can be as right as you like about it. I accept a lot of what you are saying, especially when explained the way Janet does, without trying to tell people that they have no right to feel as they do. But you aren't going to be able to get away from the moral repugnance of linking prolonged animal death and pleasure.

I don't speak directly for myself on this, I am describing what I believe to be the problem that you will face in having the act repealed and why you will face an almighty fight from the sabs should it be repealed because each  generation behind you feels even more strongly about it than the last. 




Herne said:



			It is the function of democracy to protect the rights of minorities from unjustified oppression. As Thomas Jefferson said: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule if fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
		
Click to expand...

Well there's your *BIG* mistake. It is the function of democracy to do the will of the majority. Jefferson was right, it is mob rule and it always has been.  

It's how democracy works, and it doesn't even need a full majority of 51%  it just needs one more vote than anyone else's view. It's a lousy system but it's the best we can come up with, all the rest are worse.



ps if you decide to reply to this, could you please try to word it as if you are answering "the great unwashed public" and not me personally too much , because I really am trying to explain to you how "people" feel about hunting and not how "I" feel about hunting. It is not me you need to convince, it is the two generations behind me.


----------



## EAST KENT (6 January 2012)

Two questions. firstly ,if hounds flush to guns,don`t they themselves risk a pellet ot three? the other week I saw a fox,apparently in good body weight,but entirely bald on it`s main body from mange;it was attempting to break through the more than adequate electric fencing on some "free range" chooks. How long can a fox survive it that condition?
   Poor wee sod must be freezing at the moment.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			One of the huge problems that you have with the image of the sport is the conflict of interest. What makes it fun for the people who pay for it, a long run, is at odds with the declared object of the sport, the most humane method of fox control. In any other business, that type of conflict of interest would raise alarm bells.

Another huge problem with your current justification for repealing the law is that the decline in the fox population in rural areas, unless you produce a lot more evidence, looks from the outside to be indistinguishable from what would have been expected to have happened if hunts were deliberately protecting and conserving the breeding of foxes in order to have them to hunt.
		
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right!  No foxes = no foxhunting - so it is in hunts' best interests that the fox population is _managed_:  enough foxes for hunting but no SO many that predation on lambs and poultry becomes highly significant to farmers!  And of course 'management' is not JUST killing: a hunted fox who gets away is likely to steer clear of the smell of dogs for some time to come - chances are he'll stay away from farmyards and lambing fields!

A few years back I was showing a Master of Hounds from the USA around some kennels - her hunt hunted coyote, and with a LOT of culling with guns going on, populations were low.  So they went out of their way not to kill coyote - they'd hunt them to the outer edges of the hunt country - or the coyote's territory, stop, have a drink, and then hunt the same coyote back again!   (Not sure that it was too helpful to the farmers to keep the coyotes quite so fit!)

And - of course - who is most aware of fox (or other quarry species) numbers and health?  The people who hunt them, of course!  When the decline in the otter started - due primarily to pollution - it was the otter hunts who first noticed and who - voluntarily - tried NOT to kill the quarry!  And that was several years before the otter became 'protected'!  And before the ban it was the mink hunters who first noticed the return of otters to rivers where they hadn't been seen in years - and voluntarily stopped hunting those river stretches to avoid disturbing the otters!




			There are plenty of things which other people believe are morally right which have been taken away by law. Dog and cock fighting are the two most obviously relevant,
		
Click to expand...

Now you'll make me cross if you try to put field sports into the same category as the baiting and torturing sports!!   Dog fighting, cock fighting, badger baiting etc all exist for one primary reason - an enjoyment of cruelty by a bunch of sick b**tards!  There is NO element of pest control, there is NO conservation, and there is NO enjoyment that does not involve a lust for cruelty!




			You seem to be getting caught up again in the feeling that if only  you could explain enough that the rest of the British population would agree with you that fox hunting is right. I don't think that's the case. I believe that the majority of the British population now think that the time is past for killing an animal by chasing it across country for 15-20 minutes first.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, the anti-hunt argument is VERY simple - "a bunch of upper class idiots, dressed up for the kill, chasing a poor little fox with 40 dogs intent on tearing it apart."  If asked, of COURSE the majority of the population will say it's cruel when put in those terms!  But of course the majority of THAT majority wouldn't bother to cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, or even click on a newspaper link to vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

That is why an online newspaper poll currently running in a strong 'sab' area shows the following:

Are you in favour of the ban on hunting being repealed?

Yes
 2608 (97%)

No
 71 (3%) 

While a majority of the population - if asked - is against hunting, the truth is it comes in very low on their list of things they actually CARE about!

Maybe if the pro hunting organisations had started FAR earlier on PR campaigns things would be different.  For many years, the BFSS wouldn't send people in to debate in schools - so the anti-hunt activists had a free rein.  The kids they reached are now teachers and politicians!

And if a few more foxes attack babies in prams they could still change!

Some interesting snippets of public opinion research done by BFSS in the '90s.

In a poll of urban dwellers, the % thinking urban foxes should be culled was MUCH higher than those who thought rural foxes should be culled.  Reason: urban foxes were killing their kids' pet rabbits, walking over their car bonnets, and trashing their dustbins.  Rural foxes didn't harm THEM!

In the same poll, the ONLY urban dwellers who weren't anti-hunting - when questioned as to their reasons - admitted they were friends with - or knew someone 'nice' who hunted - therefore it couldn't be THAT bad!

Everyone is entitled to their view - however, if their view is based on a total lack of knowledge then one would THINK it shouldn't be taken into account in framing law!  Legislation by opinion poll is almost always BAD legislation!


----------



## Echo Bravo (6 January 2012)

Well mange is increasing in the fox population rapidly,round here where the hunt don't come the rise of mange in the fox population has grown rapidly, what foxes we see alive now all have mange, the ones we've found dead the same condition, skin and bone and very little fur on them, mostly the head still has fur the rest of the body full of sores and bald. So who is right


----------



## Herne (7 January 2012)

CPTrayes, before I get on to responding to your post, answer me, please, if you will, this question:

(And I mean answer for you personally, not on behalf of the great Britsh public)

Since its implementation, the net effect of Hunting Act 2004 must have have been either to improve the overall level of animal welfare in the countryside or to reduce the overall level of animal welfare in the countrsyside.

(The chances of the net effect being zero are so negligible as to be irrelevant)

Is it your position that you would still support the ban even if you discovered that the effect was negative?

(Or, could it possibly be, as I suppose I must consider the possibility, however bizarre, that you don't actually care which way animal welfare was affected as long as it stopped hunting with dogs?)


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Herne said:



			CPTrayes, before I get on to responding to your post, answer me, please, if you will, this question:

(And I mean answer for you personally, not on behalf of the great Britsh public)

Since its implementation, the net effect of Hunting Act 2004 must have have been either to improve the overall level of animal welfare in the countryside or to reduce the overall level of animal welfare in the countrsyside.

(The chances of the net effect being zero are so negligible as to be irrelevant)

Is it your position that you would still support the ban even if you discovered that the effect was negative?

(Or, could it possibly be, as I suppose I must consider the possibility, however bizarre, that you don't actually care which way animal welfare was affected as long as it stopped hunting with dogs?)
		
Click to expand...



herne the answer to your question is that I do not believe that conservation requires  the method of hunting that you wish to use. It would, I think, be perfectly possible to conserve the  fox population with my own preferred method of cage trapping followed by shooting at very close range while still in the cage.

However,  I recognise that this is never going to happen. Particularly following Janet's posts, I also recognise the possibility that having mounted followers financing your conservation efforts might be the most effective way of doing things. And I certainly agree with a point she made to me offline that the fox would prefer the way you want things done.

I remain concerned about cubbing, as I cannot see the point of allowing a pair of foxes to breed only to trap their offspring in a wood and put hounds in to kill them in the autumn.

I remain concerned that falling fox numbers in rural areas indicate that foxes may actually have been being bred in order to provide sport. 

So would I still support the ban if it was proved that the effect was negative and there was no other method of more humanely controlling fox?  No I would not.

Do I wholeheartedly believe that there is no other more humane way of controlling fox? Do I believe that no foxes were born as a direct result of people wanting to be able to create sport from killing them? No, but I am less against hunting with hounds than I was as a result of some very well argued posts on this thread.

But my opinion is pretty much irrelevant. It is the children and young adults that you need to convince, not me, and the hunting fraternity are not doing a terribly good job of that, particularly with people like Judgemental and Fiagai on the loose.

Tell the CA that they cannot just make announcements that 10% more people are hunting  and fox populations have reduced without realising that there are at least two possible ways of interpreting those statistics and they have to explain and prove that theirs is the correct one. "Because we say so" will not do!


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Spot on again Janet, thanks. I learn more from you than any other poster on this thread.

Good challenge on the dog fighting, too, well done   I'm just thinking that one through. Do foxes have any natural predators? And can it be proved that falling numbers indicate a problem rather that a return to natural numbers which would be the first assumption of an anti?

You were so unlucky that you got Blair/Mandelson as PM because for me it has never been in doubt that the hunting ban was purely for votes. Of course now Blair wants to be friends with people who support hunting and want a repeal, he has changed his mind.  He clearly hasn't lost his talent for telling people what they want to hear.


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Herne can you answer the equivalent  question in return for me please?

If I was to come along to you with sufficient funding for you to carry out your conservation work with cage trapping and close quarters shooting, or any other method that was humane, met conservation needs and did not require a 15-20 minute chase with hounds, would you still do the conservation work?


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Do foxes have any natural predators? And can it be proved that falling numbers indicate a problem rather that a return to natural numbers which would be the first assumption of an anti?
		
Click to expand...

The fox's only predator in the UK is man - and most particularly man behind the wheel of a car!  It is probable that more foxes die after being hit by a car than by all other means of 'control'.  In the USA, they have coyote in the 'best' country, then red foxes, then - further north as pickings are sparser - you have grey foxes, and when you get up to the north of Canada etc you get Arctic foxes (which are white.)

Falling numbers - well if I had to make an only somewhat informed guess, I'd say that is because there is now more shooting of foxes.  A friend of mine is into fox shooting in a big way.  Since the ban he has been invited onto nearly twice as many farms as he had access to before the ban - and is shooting twice as many foxes.  The farms he is being invited onto are almost all farms where - previously - fox control was left to the hunt.  In one night's shooting on one decent sized farm, he will shoot 3 - 5 foxes - whereas the local hunt would have crossed 5 or 6 of these farms to catch (or not) one fox.

Certainly I am seeing far fewer foxes around in the past 4-5 years - it used to be that I'd see a couple in a day, most days.  Now i rarely see more than 1 a week.  There is of course an up-side to this as I'm seeing far more hares!




			You were so unlucky that you got Blair/Mandelson as PM because for me it has never been in doubt that the hunting ban was purely for votes. Of course now Blair wants to be friends with people who support hunting and want a repeal, he has changed his mind.  He clearly hasn't lost his talent for telling people what they want to hear.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it was never about votes.  The only substantial number of voters who took a candidate's views on hunting into account was those who supported hunting (and they weren't all Tories!)  Only the real dyed in the wool antis would vote for an anti-hunt candidate purely because he/she was anti-hunt - and most of them were Labour voters anyway.

It was about class/political hatred and the need to keep the Labour backbench on-side.  Mandelson was against a ban, Blair didn't much care either way, but after the Countryside Rally and the first March, Blair was very minded to leave it alone.  He only backed down - and allowed the Parliament Act to be used - to quell a backbench rebellion on another issue.  Labour MPs hated hunting because the Tories had hijacked EVERY Labour attempt to ban it in the previous 70 years - even when Labour was in power.  And had usually used the Lords to 'kill off' any hunting bill.  (And killed off other Labour bills as part of the protection of hunting!)  It was seen as a 'Tory' sport and a 'toff' sport.  The anti-hunt orgs. - particularly PAL but also LACS and IFAW - went to great lengths to get Labour on-side - remember the £1 million donation from PAL/IFAW!  That was just the tip of the iceberg.  That nice crook Elliott Morley had researchers paid for by the LACS, Tony Banks also received substantial financial assistance, as did a number of others!


ETA - just saw your question to Herne re cage trapping.  Cage trapping works with urban foxes - it is spectacularly unsuccessful with rural foxes and - IMHO - it is FAR crueller than hunting or shooting.  The fox is trapped - unable to escape - and THAT is the most terrifying experience for any wild animal.  A trapped fox will claw the wire so hard he'll tear his claws out, and bite the wire so hard his gums will bleed (yes, I've seen one, and it wasn't pretty - the only thing worse is a badly set snare!)


----------



## Herne (7 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Herne can you answer the equivalent  question in return for me please?

If I was to come along to you with sufficient funding for you to carry out your conservation work with cage trapping and close quarters shooting, or any other method that was humane, met conservation needs and did not require a 15-20 minute chase with hounds, would you still do the conservation work?
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for the answer to you my question. I will address both it and the previous post when I have time later this weekend. However, here, in haste, is the answer to your question:

Yes.

I have lived and worked in non-hunting areas and have used the methods that were available there.

I am interested by your choice of alternative method, however.

A humane live-trap or cage-trap. Ok. But can I ask you, have you really thought that through?

You are going to take a wild animal and pen it up in a small cage. What is that animal going to think? It knows it has to eat, it knows it has to drink. It is going to become desperately frightened in that little box.

Even if you put food and a water bowl in with it, it will still be panicking, thinking that it needs to escape.

Have you ever seen pictures of animals in live-traps with bleeding paws and jaws where they have desperately been trying to dig and chew their way out of the cage?

It doesn't know that someone is going to come along and kill it in a few hours to put it out of its misery- and even if it did it would hardly make it happier...

And even then what happens? Some gallumphing great human comes right up to it, scaring it even more witless, and starts faffing around preparing things and then manhandling it out of the cage and putting a gun to its head before finally the lights go out.

How long is that going to take? If someone checks their traps three times a day, that could be up to eight hours.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against cage-trapping. It is an effective method of control and the suffering that it does cause can be justified by the problems that it is being used to solve.

But you will have to do a hell of a lot of work to persuade me that several hours trapped in a tiny box, followed by how ever many minutes of terror when the human come along is more "humane" than spending 15 minutes out in open countryside in your own territory using your own wits and cunning to outwit a pack of dogs that are slower than you, stupider than you and don't know where they are.

Yes it will be terrifying when it becomes apparent that capture in inevitable, but that will only be the last few minutes.

Personally, I would choose that fate for an animal over live-trapping any time.

(Plus, of course, once again, it is not selective&#8230


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

I fully accept your and Janet's experience that a wire cage is not the right trap.


----------



## Echo Bravo (7 January 2012)

Well most farmers now with live stock,just shoot to kill,so the hunting ban hasn't worked as more foxes are shot than before and so many now have the mange,which is a dreadfull way to die.


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Herne said:



			However, here, in haste, is the answer to your question:

Yes.
		
Click to expand...

OK.

I accept your answer but why would you spend time and energy conserving a species which

- is not in any danger
- self-regulates the number born depending on numbers in the area and available food
- has shown remarkable resiliance and ability to colonise new habitats (urban areas) 
- preys on species which are threatened (brown hare)


?


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			Well most farmers now with live stock,just shoot to kill,so the hunting ban hasn't worked as more foxes are shot than before and so many now have the mange,which is a dreadfull way to die.
		
Click to expand...

EB can you please point me to the indiependant research which has shown that more foxes are being shot, and that fox numbers are not simply falling back to a natural level?


----------



## rockysmum (7 January 2012)

I haven't been back to this thread for a while.

Are you really discussing conserving foxes.  Why !!!!!

Unless they were endangered they are nasty flea and mange ridden vermin who kill for fun.

We will be having a conservation programme for rats next


----------



## cptrayes (7 January 2012)

Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?

 I have found many others, some of very dubious funding, which support the belief that foxes are a self-balancing population. It appears that vixen will mate but fail to produce a live litter when food is scarce or when fox numbers in the area are high. And that removing foxes from an area simply results in foxes from another area moving in to take over the territory.

In other words, killing foxes simply leads to more foxes being born.

These numerous websites also reach the conclusion that the principle difference between hunted and non-hunted areas is not  in the number of foxes in that area, but in the age of those foxes, with few foxes in hunted areas reaching 2 years of age and practically none reaching a natural old age. 

I have spent the last two days coming around gradually to the idea of hunting fox with hounds, but now find myself completing the circle and reaching the conclusion that the principle achievement (not necessarily "aim" but certainly "achievement") of conserving fox by hunting with hounds is to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase 

Seriously, though I doubt you will believe me, I was moving away from this position and hoped to be completely convinced, but the more research I do the more likely it seems. I hope you do not feel you have wasted your time talking to me, it has been educational from my point of view, though I have no doubt very frustrating from yours.


----------



## JanetGeorge (8 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I accept your answer but why would you spend time and energy conserving a species which

- is not in any danger
- self-regulates the number born depending on numbers in the area and available food
- has shown remarkable resiliance and ability to colonise new habitats (urban areas) 
- preys on species which are threatened (brown hare)
		
Click to expand...

1.  Should we wait until a species IS in danger before thinking about conservation (that can be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.)
2.  Self regulation is a bit of a myth when you're talking predators in a country FILLED with available food - would you starve locked in a well stocked supermarket?
3.  The fox is certainly resilient, but high populations can lead to catastrophic 'crashes' as disease can then spread like wildfire.  
4.  The brown hare is making a comeback in areas where fox control is high, habitat management is good, and where hare shooting and illegal coursing are not a problem.  But the hare is not 'protected' in any way and it IS an agricultural pest.  Shooting and poaching are a threat to hares, as are foxes, although probably nothing has harmed the hare more than forage harvesters!!


----------



## JanetGeorge (8 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?
		
Click to expand...

Yes - Natural England is an environmental/conservation body that deals with scientific fact.  I scanned the document and couldn't see anything that I would disagree with - although there are probably some areas that could usefully be elaborated upon.




			I have found many others, some of very dubious funding, which support the belief that foxes are a self-balancing population. It appears that vixen will mate but fail to produce a live litter when food is scarce or when fox numbers in the area are high. And that removing foxes from an area simply results in foxes from another area moving in to take over the territory.

In other words, killing foxes simply leads to more foxes being born.
		
Click to expand...

The principles of a self-balancing population make sense IF there is a food shortage.  As I said in my earlier post, this just doesn't happen in most of England and Wales - it's the foxes' supermarket!




			These numerous websites also reach the conclusion that the principle difference between hunted and non-hunted areas is not  in the number of foxes in that area, but in the age of those foxes, with few foxes in hunted areas reaching 2 years of age and practically none reaching a natural old age.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting had very little effect on the overall age of the fox population in most given area as it didn't kill sufficient numbers of those killed by all means.  Young foxes (to 12 months) are at high risk from all sorts of killing methods due to dispersal and the hunt for new territories which exposes them to more traffic, and their own lack of experience in avoiding dangers (young foxes are VERY easily 'squeaked' to the spotlight and rifle.)  Old foxes are also more at risk of becoming road traffic victims - and the longer they live, the bolder they get - so perhaps more likely to venture into dangerous areas.  Hunting with hounds DID take out the very old - and infirm - and cub-hunting (a bit of a misnomer as often more old foxes were killed at that time - and 'cubs' were generally more than 6 months old and starting to disperse naturally when cub-hunting started) did take out some of the under 12 months foxes.

The Game Conservancy Trust did some research about 15 years ago about the numbers of foxes killed by different control methods in different areas - there were BIG variations, with the % killed by hunting being less than 20% in arable/shooting areas - and up to 70% in some hill countries where shooting and oher control measures were more problematic.  There really is no ONE answer to these questions. 




			I have spent the last two days coming around gradually to the idea of hunting fox with hounds, but now find myself completing the circle and reaching the conclusion that the principle achievement (not necessarily "aim" but certainly "achievement") of conserving fox by hunting with hounds is to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase 

Click to expand...

That certainly could be true if no other factors came into play - and if hunting was the only form of fox control/killing.  But of course it never was!  Only time will tell what effect the hunting ban will have over time.  It may well have none - or it may be proven that there is more fox killing (and more fox disease in areas where less control is carried out.)  It will be hard to prove - because this sort of research is very expensive to carry out in a scientifically valid way - far too many people involved - all with axes to grind - and far too many variables coming into play.


----------



## Herne (8 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Can anyone tell me if this

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/sin004.pdf

is an unbiased source of information?
		
Click to expand...

The document looks pretty fair to me - and I am not aware of "Natural England" being considered to have any particular bias.

I do observe that they advocate wire cage traps though - and that the minimum legal requirement for checking is only after 24 hours. I thought 8 hours was bad enough.


The thing about foxes is that they are, on the whole, useful things to have about.

As you will have seen from your research, a large proportion of their diet is made up of small mammals and invertebrates.

Many of those things are problems for the farmer: slugs, snails, voles, rats and mice. Having some foxes around to clear them up is no bad thing. Even farmers with shoots quite often like to have a fox or two around the place to clear up "pricked" (wounded) birds.

If you have some foxes around, there will always be an element of predation upon things you would rather they didn't eat, but except in areas where extremely commercial shooting interests  are try to operate very intensive systems, then a certain level can be tolerated by most people.


The problem comes when there are too many foxes in an area. Then there are not enough of the pest species to go around and therefore they need to do more predation on the things we don't want killed.

Then we carry out a culling operation to reduce levels to a tolerable level again.


Now this is where the anti-hunters immediately butt-in with Oh, but foxes will self-regulate their numbers without the need for any culling. They will be controlled by the natural availability of food.

Its a lovely sound-bite, that one. You can just hear David Attenborough saying it  and it is 100% true

 in a wilderness area, where *everything* is subject to natural methods of control.

But we dont have any wilderness in the UK. It is all man-made environments, where populations of nearly everything are being sustained at un-natural levels for the convenience of man.

So the thing is, yes, fox populations _*could, in theory*_ self-regulate their numbers, BUT it would *NOT* be at that level that would be considered acceptable by farmers and land-owners.

If you think about that, that would be the most incredible, unbelievable co-incidence in the history of the universe. That the natural control limit level just-so-happened to be the same as the desired limit level. That would be a trillion-billion-gazillion-to-one chance.

The reality is that fox numbers would not be controlled by the natural availability of food, they would be controlled by the *total* availability of food, including any available domesticated or managed food that the farmer did not want them to eat.

For it to be otherwise would require the newly pregnant Mrs Fox to wander around the woods and think to herself Dammit, Charlie next door wont let me have any of his slugs and snails, but I mustnt eat that pheasant, because its not natural, so I suppose Id better just reabsorb my foetuses instead.

Its not really going to happen in real life, is it?


Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas.

So why do anti-hunt people always try to make out that it is logical to suggest that if farmers trap a proportion of foxes for this reason, or shoot them or snare them, or whatever, then that is acceptable, but if hunting people kill a proportion of them, then all the control reasons fly out of the window and it is *only* because they want to get a thrill from the chase.

If people in non-hunting areas preserve a proportion of their foxes it is for conservation reasons, but if they do it in hunting areas, it is suddenly *only* to supply a full season's sport with young and healthy fox, which can run a long way, to chase.

No, what is an acceptable motive for a non-hunting person *has* to be allowable as a motive for a hunting person as well.

(I grant you entirely that the majority of the followers are not bothered by such considerations, they dont need to be, but for those of us that organise it and run it, this is what it is all about.)


And, heres something else you have probably not thought about  for people who really like foxes, like myself, hunting is actually the most compassionate form of fox control.

You think about it  when I go out with a pack of hounds, I know that most foxes I hunt will get away and only some will be killed  and that is my objective, as it is with most people, only to kill some.

So when I see an individual fox, it is perfectly rational for me to think OK, Charlie, I hope that for you, today is not your day. Good luck to you and be happy for it when it gets away, because I know that the next or the next or the one after that will get killed, thus fulfilling my objective.

And when one does get killed, I have the reassurance of knowing that it wasnt me that chose it, it was caught (on average) because it has had its time and that nothing can live forever. The cycle moves on.

If I go out with a gun, I pick the fox and I decide its fate  without most of the time having the foggiest idea whether it is young or old, fit or healthy.

I have absolutely no compunction whatsoever in choosing hunting as my preferred method of fox-control  for all the *right* reasons.


----------



## cptrayes (8 January 2012)

The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate."  Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer 

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on things, it has been very interesting.


----------



## Sunshine (8 January 2012)

Having finally managed to catch up and read the whole thread, I find Janet's posts very enlightening.

Going back to the OP point of the thread, from my personal point of view, as a landowner, I would also be extremely angry that ANYONE felt they had the right to set foot/hoof on my land without my permission. I don't tolerate lampers, shoots or hunting with dogs (rats/rabbits/fox) or birds of prey, unless they have the grace to come and ask. And yes I have been known to charge up to shoots/men with shotguns and challenge them when they have been caught trespassing in a friend's field. The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers. 

But to return to the most recent posts,
"Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas." JG
Isn't this what most city dwellers felt about the urban fox? Until, of course, we had the terrible attacks on their pets and even children. The urban foxes have multiplied exponentially due to the easy pickings and lack of control measures. What happens to the natural number equilibrium in these circumstances? They certainly couldnt be hunted by guns, or poisoned in sufficient numbers, and I very much doubt the Beaufort would be welcomed at full gallop down the main streets. So would it reach a point where the cities cannot provide enough territories for the urban fox and some of these would return to the rural areas?


----------



## Herne (8 January 2012)

cptrayes said:



			The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate."  Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer 

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.
		
Click to expand...

If I had a spare couple of million, I would bet it all that your answer would turn out to be: In some places it does and in others it doesn't.

Which still wouldn't help you.





			Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on things, it has been very interesting.
		
Click to expand...

Likewise.


----------



## Fiagai (8 January 2012)

mnmnm said:



			Having finally managed to catch up and read the whole thread, I find Janet's posts very enlightening.

Going back to the OP point of the thread, from my personal point of view, as a landowner, I would also be extremely angry that ANYONE felt they had the right to set foot/hoof on my land without my permission. I don't tolerate lampers, shoots or hunting with dogs (rats/rabbits/fox) or birds of prey, unless they have the grace to come and ask. And yes I have been known to charge up to shoots/men with shotguns and challenge them when they have been caught trespassing in a friend's field.

The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers.
		
Click to expand...

mnmnm I agree. Rural communities can often work together to ensure that mutual concerns are addressed.  In my experience areas where hunting has been a traditional activity, a good level of communication will have been built up within the community.  I do acknowledge however that mistakes sometimes can be made.   Illegal activity can be curtailed / reported by people in rural communities working together. I have also had on occasion to question individuals whom we found shooting where they should not and was told that they had crossed from an adjacent property without realising it.  A quick check with neighbours confirmed this.  No harm done.  However Newcomers do have some responsibility to get to know others especially in rural areas. In this area there are a small number of newish residents whose lifestyles sometimes seem to preclude just dropping in or meeting in the local pub tbh.  It can be difficult to get to know those that live behind intercomed driveways/gates and who are in residence during weekends etc but I take your point.



mnmnm said:



			But to return to the most recent posts,
"Now, this whole idea of having a few foxes about but not too many is a nationwide thing. It does not happen only in hunted areas." JG
Isn't this what most city dwellers felt about the urban fox? Until, of course, we had the terrible attacks on their pets and even children. The urban foxes have multiplied exponentially due to the easy pickings and lack of control measures. What happens to the natural number equilibrium in these circumstances? They certainly couldnt be hunted by guns, or poisoned in sufficient numbers, and I very much doubt the Beaufort would be welcomed at full gallop down the main streets. So would it reach a point where the cities cannot provide enough territories for the urban fox and some of these would return to the rural areas?
		
Click to expand...

Concerns about fox numbers declining appear to have arisen since the passing of the Hunting Act.  This leads to the obvious question is this just a coincidence?  Are the numbers of foxes being shot in rural areas increasing, due to landowners seeking other methods of control or as one another theory suggests has fox populations suffered a crash due to a possible lack of proper control?  During the period when Fox hunting was legal fox populations appeared to be maintained at equitable level in rural areas - so why the sudden change now?

Taking an area where fox hunting is still extant and where landowners and fox hunting still work together (ie Ireland) recent wildlife studies have found that fox populations are stable with fox hunting  having only a local effect with regard to numbers.  This status quo seems to been ongoing.

In the past the end result of fox hunting was that old sick foxes were most often accounted for.  The result of taking out sick foxes would have reduced the incidence of disease spreading.  The high incidence of mange reported from the 1980's amongst urban foxes would lend some credence to this.

As for control of fox numbers the advocated use of trapping foxes in cages is a horrendous method of control and reminds me of my experience of using live traps on rats.  Rats caught and left in traps for just 24 hours  will often give up and die.  Wild animals trapped suffer significantly more stress than animals that are hunted and will maim themselves / go mad / die in enforced captivity.  

Urban foxes are now treated as pests with a pest company group having reported that the number of foxes being "controlled" had quadrupled in 2010. So there is a situation where fox numbers are decreasing in rural areas where other methods of control have increased and fox numbers have increased in urban areas where such controsl are very limited.  At least fox hunting cannot be blamed for this recent decline and rise between rural and urban areas.


----------



## Herne (8 January 2012)

mnmnm said:



			The comment that the landowner should seek out the hunt secretary to introduce themselves is arrogant. As most farmers and hunts would know when local land is for sale due to the market/pub gossip, surely it would be a better public relations exercise for them to go and introduce themselves and all their services, especially if the new landowner is a townie who has no concept of the rural lifestyle. If nothing else it would decry the critics who portray them as haughty upper class snobs who do not welcome newcomers.
		
Click to expand...

This does happen most of the time - certainly nearly always when whole farms change hands.

But my hunt, for example, covers around 2,000 square miles owned or occupied by over 750 farmers and land-owners. We notify over 1,100 different households of our meet dates in each mailshot.

Whislt we can and do keep track of most of the whole-farm sales via the methods you suggest, it is simply impossible for us to keep track of every building plot sold with a few acres of grazing or every small-holding that changes hands. 

We are only human.


----------



## fartoomanyhorses (14 March 2014)

Having discovered that my local hunt's last visit involved a huntsman jumping in to my paddock, coincidentally coinciding with the date my fabulous youngster went lame, I found this thread.  After 3 pages I couldn't read any further.  The arrogance of you hunting people calling the complainant a Troll, asking for proof of illegal hunting and the assumption that non-hunting horse owners should keep their horses in when the hunt are in their area beggars belief.  Who do they think they are?  Whilst you are all out having a jolly some of us have to go to work for a living and with the hunt coming round sometimes four or five times in a season are we really expected to keep all our horses in necessitating double mucking out, extra feed etc - all I may add in return for an invitation to a ****ing puppy show or some soggy point to point taking place in the rain at the other end of the county. To imagine anyone would be so stupid or inconsiderate whilst calling themselves 'horsemen' is astonishing.  I shall at least be prepared to be treated like a second class citizen when tackling my local hunt on the subject of wrecking my horse and shall return their disdain twofold.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 March 2014)

fartoomanyhorses said:



			........  After 3 pages I couldn't read any further.  The arrogance of you hunting people calling the complainant a Troll, asking for proof of illegal hunting and the assumption that non-hunting horse owners should keep their horses in when the hunt are in their area beggars belief.  ........
		
Click to expand...

Had you chosen to read the whole thread,  instead of forming a rather unbalanced view,  you may well have discovered that most of those who support Hunting,  and who've contributed to this thread,  were as appalled as you and the Original Poster,  at the apparent display of gross bad manners. 

The OP,  for reasons best known to themselves laid down accusations against one pack in particular,  and by association,  those in the wider world who hunt,  but refused to elucidate upon which pack was involved,  nor those who were responsible.

Let me explain to you,  yet again,  that I and others too were appalled at the apparent display of bad manners by those who were involved,  assuming that the Original Poster wasn't a Troll,  and was telling the truth,  but by refusing to offer any sort of verifiable fact which could support their argument,  and further elicit the support of those on here who support hunting,  and would in turn support the complainant and condemn such thoughtless and arrogant conduct,  then there would be a temptation to doubt the sincerity of the original post.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 March 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The document that we all seem to think is pretty fair says "Whether or not fox control reduces fox numbers to levels below that which food supplies can support, is a subject of debate."  Until that debate is settled by research, we can't finish this discussion, because the whole argument depends upon the answer 

If I had a spare couple of million, I'd get it done.

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

And just who would you have carry out this research?  

Who would you trust to give an unbiased report? 

Which of those views proffered would you consider to be the most reliable?

I remember,  40 years ago,  becoming involved in a discussion about Stag Hunting,  and with an elderly man.  Never have I listened to such reason,  never to such passion,  and never to such an understanding of a balanced and worthwhile view.  Never!  

It's my belief,  and that it's generally so,  that the man who pursues an animal,  and with the well being of it's kind in his heart,  is the man who best understands that animal's needs.

That's what I think!  

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (14 March 2014)

Jeepers Alec, have you seen the age of this thread??????


----------



## Alec Swan (14 March 2014)

Yes,  I have,  but the last response which I thought worthy of effort was from fart oomanyhorses,  of earlier today,  and then I thought that whilst I was at it,  I'd give some thought to yours,  too!!

There are still those (and thankfully precious few) who hunt,  who seem to live in some 18th. century dream,  and one where they can do as they please,  when they please,  and in any manner that suits them.  I was really only pointing out that the world has changed and that we all need to consider others,  as I'm sure that most will agree.  I felt that FTMH was lumping all those who support hunting,  in to one bundle,  or at least those on here who'd replied.

Alec.


----------



## Starbucks (14 March 2014)

I'm a bit late to this thread but just wanted to add my opinion!

Sounds really crazy that the field would jump into your field with horses in it.  I would be really cross, sounds like a major field master error!!  If they really had to go through then you'd expect that they'd at least walk, doesn't sound like they did have to go through though, which is annoying for you.  

It's easy to go down the "aren't all hunting people arrogant stuck up tossers" route, but maybe it was a new field master, or a genuine mistake.  People do make them!  I expect the rest of the field were just concentrating on sorting themselves out, it's easy to trust to field master on where you're meant to / allowed to be going.

I would have called the secretary or whoever your contact is (who normally comes to see you?), and say look I'm really upset because you've trashed my fields / my horses were going mad / you didn't even call in and tell me etc.  and I'm sure they would have been apologetic and it would never have happened again.  I think in sending them an (arsey?) email, now everyone's back is up, which isn't good for anyone.


----------



## Carlosmum (14 March 2014)

Deleted what I was going to say, but I understand where the OP was coming from


----------



## Starbucks (14 March 2014)

One more thing, I actually feel no guilt about having been fox hunting.  I do feel guilt about eating meat.

Why?  Well I think it's hard to argue that the fox population doesn't need controlling, and I honestly believe hunting with hounds is the best way. What people don't seem to understand is that hunting folk have huge respect for the fox.

I feel guilty about eating meat meat because it's not really necessary and involves lots of animals having a miserable life and a miserable death.  Our world is run by humans and we do so much more cruel things to animals.  Why pick on fox hunting?


----------



## AengusOg (15 March 2014)

Starbucks said:



			I feel guilty about eating meat meat because it's not really necessary and involves lots of animals having a miserable life and a miserable death.
		
Click to expand...

Eh?


----------



## L&M (15 March 2014)

My neighbour farms sheep - currently his lambs are gambolling in the sunshine and feasting on fine shropshire spring grass, hardly a 'miserable life'!?


----------



## littleshetland (23 March 2014)

gunnergundog said:



			But the trail laid IS fox scent/urine, so as far as hounds are concerned no difference whether the FOX laid the trail or a human did!!

Re calling off a trail, now that is a different matter all together.....
		
Click to expand...

I have come very late to this thread and haven't actually read through the whole thing, although what I have read is very interesting.  Although 'horsey' I am mostly ignorant of most things 'hunting' and I have a question loosely connected with the OP.  Why do hunting folk lay a trail that is to be followed by hounds, a scent that consists of fox scent/urine? surely this increases the chances of the hounds hunting live foxes and therefore breaking the law?
Can the hounds be trained to follow a completely different type of scent?  Please don't shoot me down! I'm not a troll or troublemaker, honestly, just curious!   My apologies if this question has already been answered one or a thousand times before on this forum.


----------



## Fides (23 March 2014)

littleshetland said:



			I have come very late to this thread and haven't actually read through the whole thing, although what I have read is very interesting.  Although 'horsey' I am mostly ignorant of most things 'hunting' and I have a question loosely connected with the OP.  Why do hunting folk lay a trail that is to be followed by hounds, a scent that consists of fox scent/urine? surely this increases the chances of the hounds hunting live foxes and therefore breaking the law?
Can the hounds be trained to follow a completely different type of scent?  Please don't shoot me down! I'm not a troll or troublemaker, honestly, just curious!   My apologies if this question has already been answered one or a thousand times before on this forum.
		
Click to expand...

Our hunt uses human urine and aniseed mixed with veg oil. Think it would be pretty impossible to collect fox urine...


----------



## littleshetland (23 March 2014)

I see. Thank you for your reply.


----------



## Countryman (23 March 2014)

littleshetland said:



			I have come very late to this thread and haven't actually read through the whole thing, although what I have read is very interesting.  Although 'horsey' I am mostly ignorant of most things 'hunting' and I have a question loosely connected with the OP.  Why do hunting folk lay a trail that is to be followed by hounds, a scent that consists of fox scent/urine? surely this increases the chances of the hounds hunting live foxes and therefore breaking the law?
Can the hounds be trained to follow a completely different type of scent?  Please don't shoot me down! I'm not a troll or troublemaker, honestly, just curious!   My apologies if this question has already been answered one or a thousand times before on this forum.
		
Click to expand...

There are two main reasons. For some packs, it is because they are waiting for the Huntjng Act to be repealed and do not want their hounds to have lost the ability to hunt a foxes scent, or, want to continue breeding hounds with a good nose for fox scent so when repeal comes they will be a good pack.

Other packs initially began by using artificial scent, but found that their hounds did not speak to it for some reason-they were mute when they were hunting it. Now a major part of hunting is listening to hounds work , whether that be a sole hound puzzling out a line in covert, or a whole pack in full cry, which, coupled with the safety issues caused by a mute pack (nobody can hear them or know where they are-or how far away they are/how close to the motorway....) necessitated the use of fox scent. 

Also, as an aside, some packs who still use hounds to carry out pest control duties such as flushing to a gun with 2 hounds or flushing to a bird of prey with a full pack need a pack which will hunt fox scent, even though they may trail hunt some days and hunt using the legal exemptions on others-so a fox scent is used for trail hunting.


----------



## fartoomanyhorses (29 March 2014)

Thank you Alec for your response to my post.  I am consoled to know that many were outraged by the initial post as well as mine.  Initially I was searching for information on what kind of rights I had and what sort of response I was likely to receive and was shocked by the first 3 pages. I have since, contacted the Hunt Master and he has apologised and admitted that he sent the Huntsman down the side of the paddocks to fetch a stray hound. Unfortunately this action sent my horses into a frenzy and the youngster has strained her fetlock necessitating box rest and rehab as well as some nasty vets bills.  Having examined the hoofprints left in the deep mud the Huntsman was clearly travelling at some speed.  It could have been a lot worse.  I am hoping to be compensated for the vets bills and rehab as I have been unable to continue to do it myself as I am having my first holiday in several years. As a result of this I have had no horse to ride for a total of probably 12 weeks by the time I can get back on board.  I am greatly saddened by the whole unnecessary event.  

I love to see the Hunt out and enjoying themselves and am in no way anti, but all of you PLEASE, think twice before risking any disturbance to turned out horses and if necessary get someone to hold your horse whilst you fetch a stray hound on foot.


----------



## Houndman (28 April 2014)

Hunts would (or certainly should!) never intentionally cross land that has not been cleared, and as you say in this case it is due to miscommunication rather than deliberately.  On very rare occasions (as happened to us once last year), hounds can take off in totally the wrong direction and head towards a very busy main road and in this case you have no option other than to go and stop them as the alternative could be disasterous.  However we have always made a point of getting car followers round quickly and in front of the hounds, trying to contact the landowners quickly by telephone to warn them, and being as careful as possible and going well around livestock where possible, and speaking to landowners afterwards.  I am sorry that you have had the trouble, but hopefully it should be rare.


----------

