# Repeal vote imminent ?



## Lizzie66 (8 July 2015)

Apparently there might be vote next week, the article is ambiguous though. It implies the vote might be to bring England and Wales in line with Scotland, in that you can use an unlimited number of hounds to flush to guns rather than the current two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33440330

If this is an interim measure then great, if not then it is a very watered down version of the Conservative manifesto, which was a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.


----------



## ROG (8 July 2015)

I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................


----------



## Countryman (8 July 2015)

This would be an excellent interim measure-but it cannot be compared to an alternative to repeal. Clearly though, the antis are running scared-its already come up in PMQ's today!


----------



## Lizzie66 (8 July 2015)

ROG said:



			I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................
		
Click to expand...


The problem is if you have a wood that covers say an acre of land or more and you put two hounds in, then the chances of you being able to get those hounds to flush the fox out to where the guns are is remote. Whereas if you put 30 hounds in then the fox can be moved in a certain direction.

Also if this were a sport I would be tempted to agree with you but there is a serious aim to control fox numbers, either by killing them or by dispersing them. There is no intent to eradicate foxes just to keep their numbers down to what the land can reasonably sustain.


----------



## Countryman (8 July 2015)

ROG said:



			I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................
		
Click to expand...

I think the majority of people don't really care either way-though if you pushed them, they might-without knowing anything about it-assume it is cruel.

I know I used to, before I decided to find out for myself.

The fact is, foxhounds are scent hounds, bred to work as a pack. Each hound has his own expertise -e.g, scenting over fallow fields etc. . A single hound on its own would never catch a single fox because it would lose the scent. The idea that it is unfair is incorrect.

As it is, even a full pack of perhaps 30-35 hounds only catches around 1 in 6 foxes that they chase!

You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.


----------



## fburton (8 July 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			Also if this were a sport I would be tempted to agree with you but there is a serious aim to control fox numbers, either by killing them or by dispersing them. There is no intent to eradicate foxes just to keep their numbers down to what the land can reasonably sustain.
		
Click to expand...

How much would the fox population increase if they were not hunted? Does anyone know?

And what factors determine how much the land can sustain?


----------



## Lizzie66 (8 July 2015)

fburton said:



			How much would the fox population increase if they were not hunted? Does anyone know?
And what factors determine how much the land can sustain?
		
Click to expand...

The type of area, the wild prey numbers, the proximity to farmed prey etc. 

I wasn't planning on making a scientific study from it. A lot of it is around what the local landowners etc have to say on fox numbers. ie they will soon be on the phone to the hunt if they are having a problem.


----------



## ROG (8 July 2015)

If lots of smoke is forced into a foxhole what happens ?


----------



## Countryman (8 July 2015)

I think the crucial thing to remember is that hunting isn't just a sport-its also a method of pest control in some areas, and most importantly,  the only selective method of humane wildlife management


----------



## Judgemental (8 July 2015)

I have been very reliably informed that the matter will be dealt with via a Statutory Instrument and will be laid before the House of Commons, tomorrow Thursday 9 July 2015.

The debate of 90 minutes will take place the following Thursday 16 July 2015 followed by a vote.

Judging by the strong feeling on both sides it will be a 'close run thing' either way.

That said, I do have to point out and the old hands on this forum will know that I have consistently advocated a small measure taken by Statutory Instrument, rather than full blown repeal.


----------



## horserugsnot4u (8 July 2015)

Countryman said:



			You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.
		
Click to expand...

Well I didn't realise you hunting lot were really being so kind to the ailing fox who needs to be put out of his misery, rather than enjoying yourselves chasing after him.  I am sure he will be very grateful and as he is so weak and feeble, he will not be able to put up much of a fight.  You can all go home happy after 10 minutes, job done.


----------



## Sandstone1 (8 July 2015)

Pest control? Hum, so why has a hunt staff member recently been found to have 16 Fox cubs locked up in a barn? That all went pretty quiet didn't it.


----------



## Judgemental (9 July 2015)

I can't understand why folk are expressing dissent on the subject when Repeal was clearly detailed in the Conservative Manifesto and well trailed by the Prime Minister during the election campaign.

The British people voted for the Conservative party with a majority and therefore the majority voted for repeal.

The government have done the decent thing, by introducing the matter to the House of Commons with a modest number of changes via a Statutory Instrument. The mechanics of the Statutory Instrument where built into the Hunting Act 2004 by the LABOUR PARTY, it was therefore enshrined in law and the act.

The debate next week, on Wednesday not Thursday, (as stated in House of Commons Business for next week) as I previously indicated is going to be 90 minutes long, which is the standard length of time for amendments under the Statutory Instrument, indeed that is the length of time for any matter governed by Statutory Instrument.

Frankly I find the whingings wholly absurd, when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 July 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Frankly I find the whinging of the Bunny Huggers wholly absurd when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.
		
Click to expand...

C'mon, JM, you can do better than this.

Anyone who refers to people with different views to their own as 'bunny huggers' does not pass Go and instead goes straight to jail. It's lazy and patronising terminology.


----------



## Judgemental (9 July 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			C'mon, JM, you can do better than this.

Anyone who refers to people with different views to their own as 'bunny huggers' does not pass Go and instead goes straight to jail. It's lazy and patronising terminology.
		
Click to expand...

What Bunny Huggers, 

I said:



Judgemental said:



			Frankly I find the whingings wholly absurd, when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.
		
Click to expand...

Ha, you comprehensively shot your fox - (minor chuckle)


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 July 2015)

Judgemental said:



			What Bunny Huggers, 

I said:



Ha, you comprehensively shot your fox - (minor chuckle)
		
Click to expand...

Good call to edit your post, JM  !!


----------



## EquiEquestrian556 (9 July 2015)

Countryman said:



			You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.
		
Click to expand...

Without wanting to start an argument (I'm sure I'll fail miserably though.......) how do you define the words "swift and humane"? I'm certainly no anti, however I'm not really pro fox hunting either. I agree that it is necessary to keep numbers down in some areas, however I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind. I'd much rather see them _correctly_ shot than hunted - quicker and if done correctly truly humane. As I say, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers down, but it's also been turned into a sport, or game if you like, which is, in my opinion, immoral. I'm no anti, but the fact that their culling has been made into a game (aka sport) as well as a deed, I don't agree with.

I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion.


----------



## {51248} (9 July 2015)

EquiEquestrian556 said:



			Without wanting to start an argument (I'm sure I'll fail miserably though.......) how do you define the words "swift and humane"? I'm certainly no anti, however I'm not really pro fox hunting either. I agree that it is necessary to keep numbers down in some areas, however I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind. I'd much rather see them _correctly_ shot than hunted - quicker and if done correctly truly humane. As I say, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers down, but it's also been turned into a sport, or game if you like, which is, in my opinion, immoral. I'm no anti, but the fact that their culling has been made into a game (aka sport) as well as a deed, I don't agree with.

I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion. 

Click to expand...

I so agree.


----------



## Tea Drinker (9 July 2015)

EquiEquestrian556 said:



			I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion. 

Click to expand...

Well then you'd better ban all farming because that sure as hell stuffs up nature and animals! Irresponsible farming is the biggest threat (worldwide) to nature that there is. You can include deforestation in South East Asia and South America in that too. ~When humans interefere in the ecology, problems are caused which then require manmade solutions. Farming and foxes are one such problem that needs a manmade solution. Any natural predator to the fox was wiped out (by man) sometime ago here in the UK.

And referring to you wish to seeing foxes "correctly" shot ... then good luck on that one too. When man pulls a trigger on an animal, you can only hope that they will do it correctly every single time. Of course, the reality doesn't square up.

So you have a choice - do you go for a certain kill with hounds (there are no half measures) or percentage likelihood via gun? 
On that basis, what do you think is more humane? 
No animal ever died from breathlessness but plenty die a malingering death caused by shot wounds.


----------



## Judgemental (9 July 2015)

The proposed amendments under Statutory Instrument.


Draft  Order  laid  before  Parliament  under  section  14
(b)  of  the  Hunting  Act  2004  (c.  37),  for 
approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
D R A F T   S T A T U T O R Y   I N S T R U M E N T S  
2015 No. 0000 
ANIMALS, ENGLAND AND WALES 
The Hunting Act 2004 (Exempt Hunting) (Amendment) O
rder 
2015 
Made        -      -      -      -                                                   2015 
Coming into force in accordance with article 1(b) 
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers c
onferred by  sections 2(2) and 14(c) and (d) of 
the Hunting Act 2004(
a
) and section 28(2)(a) of the Small Business, Enter
prise and Employment 
Act 2015(
b
), makes the following Order. 
In accordance with section 14(b) of the Hunting Act
 2004, a draft of this instrument has been laid 
before and approved by resolution of each House of 
Parliament. 
Citation and commencement 
1.
 This Order &#8212; 
(a)
may be cited as the Hunting Act 2004 (Exempt Huntin
g) (Amendment) Order 2015; and 
(b)
comes into force on the day after the day on which 
it is made. 
Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Hunting Act 2004 
2.
 Schedule 1 (exempt hunting) to the Hunting Act 200
4 is amended in accordance with articles 
3 to 6. 
Stalking and flushing out 
3.
 In paragraph 1 (stalking and flushing out), for su
b-paragraph (5) substitute&#8212; 
&#8220;(5) The third condition is that the number of dogs
 used&#8212; 
(a)   is  appropriate,  having  regard  to  the  terrain  an
d  any  other  relevant  circumstances, 
and 
(b)   enables the stalking or flushing out to be carr
ied out as efficiently as possible.&#8221;. 
(
a
)    2004 c. 37. 
(
b
)    2015 c. 26. 
2
Use of dogs below ground to protect livestock, or b
irds for shooting 
4.
 For  the  heading  to  paragraph  2  (use  of  dogs  below 
ground  to  protect  birds  for  shooting) 
substitute  &#8220;
Use  of  dogs  below  ground  to  protect  livestock,  or  b
irds  for  shooting
&#8221;,  and  for  sub-
paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph substitute
&#8212; 
&#8220;(2) The first condition is that the stalking or fl
ushing out is undertaken for the purpose of 
preventing or reducing serious damage to&#8212; 
(a)   livestock, or 
(b)   game  birds  or  wild  birds  (within  the  meaning  of
  section  27  of  the  Wildlife  and 
Countryside  Act  1981  (c.  69))  which  a  person  is  kee
ping  or  preserving  for  the 
purpose of their being shot. 
(3) The  second  condition  is  that,  if  a  constable  as
ks  the  person  doing  the  stalking  or 
flushing out to produce the evidence mentioned in s
ub-paragraph (3A), the person either&#8212; 
(a)   makes the evidence immediately available for in
spection by the constable, or 
(b)   before the end of the period of 7 days beginnin
g with the date on which the request 
is  made or as soon as is reasonably practicable, pr
oduces the evidence, in person, 
at a police station specified by the person at the 
time the request is made. 
(3A) The evidence is written evidence&#8212; 
(a)   that the land on which the stalking or flushing
 out takes place belongs to the person 
doing the stalking or flushing out, or 
(b)   that that person has been given permission to u
se that land for the purpose by the 
occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a p
erson to whom it belongs.&#8221;. 
Rescue of wild mammal 
5.
 In paragraph 8 (rescue of wild mammal)&#8212; 
(a)
in sub-paragraph (2), at the end insert &#8220;or disease
d&#8221;; and 
(b)
for sub-paragraph (4) substitute&#8212; 
&#8220;(4) The third condition is that the number of dogs
 used&#8212; 
(a)   is  appropriate,  having  regard  to  the  terrain  an
d  any  other  relevant  circumstances, 
and 
(b)   enables the hunting to be carried out as effici
ently as possible.&#8221;. 
Research and observation 
6.
 In paragraph 9 (research and observation), for sub
-paragraph (3) substitute&#8212; 
&#8220;(3) The second condition is that the number of dog
s used&#8212; 
(a)   is  appropriate,  having  regard  to  the  terrain  an
d  any  other  relevant  circumstances, 
and 
(b)   enables the hunting to be carried out as effici
ently as possible.&#8221;. 
Duty to review 
7.
&#8212;(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time&#8212;
(a)
carry out a review of articles 2 to 6; 
(b)
set out the conclusions of the review in a report; 
and 
(c)
publish the report. 
(2)
The report must, in particular&#8212; 
(a)
set out the objectives intended to be achieved by  t
he regulatory provision  made in  those 
articles; 
3
(b)
assess the extent to which those objectives are ach
ieved; and 
(c)
assess  whether  those  objectives  remain  appropriate 
and,  if  so,  the  extent  to  which  they 
could be achieved in another way which involves les
s onerous regulatory provision. 
(3)
The first report under this article must be publish
ed before the end of the period of five years 
beginning with the day on which this Order comes in
to force. 
(4)
Subsequent reports must be published at intervals n
ot exceeding five years. 
Name
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 
Date                                                                Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff
airs 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
(This note is not part of the Order) 
This  Order  is  made  under  sections  2(2)  and  14(c)  an
d  (d)  of  the  Hunting  Act  2004  (c.  37)  and 
section 28(2)(a) of the Small Business, Enterprise 
and Employment Act 2015 (c. 26). 
The Hunting Act 2004 makes it an offence to hunt a 
wild mammal with a dog, unless the hunting 
is within a class of exempt hunting specified in Sc
hedule 1 to that Act. 
This Order amends Schedule 1 so as to vary certain 
classes of exempt hunting, as follows&#8212; 
in  paragraphs  1  (stalking  and  flushing  out),  8  (res
cue  of  wild  mammal)  and  9  (research  and 
observation)  of  that  Schedule,  by  providing  that  th
e  number  of  dogs  which  may  be  used  is  to  be 
that which is appropriate to the terrain and any ot
her relevant circumstance, and which enables the 
activity to be carried out as efficiently as possib
le (
articles 3, 5(b) and 6
); the description of wild 
mammal that  may be hunted under paragraph 8 is now 
extended to include any which the hunter 
reasonably believes is or may be diseased (
article 5(a)
); and 
in  paragraph  2  (use  of  dogs  below  ground  to  protect
  birds  for  shooting)  of  that  Schedule,  by 
adding the protection of livestock as a purpose for
 which that exemption applies, and by providing 
that the existing requirement to make available, to
 a constable who asks to see it, written evidence 
of  a  person&#8217;s  right  to  be  on  land  where  the  activit
y  takes  place,  may  now  be  fulfilled,  if  not 
immediately,  then  by  the  person&#8217;s  producing  such  ev
idence  at  a  police  station  specified  by  him 
within seven days or as soon as is reasonably pract
icable (
article 4
). 
As  required  by  section  28(2)(a)  of  the  Small  Busine
ss,  Enterprise  and  Employment  Act  2015  (c. 
26) the Order requires the Secretary of State to re
view the operation and effect of this Order and 
publish  a  report  within  five  years  after  it  comes  i
nto  force  and  within  every  five  years  after  that 
(
article 7
). Following a review it will fall to the Secretary
 of State to consider whether the Order 
should  remain  as  it  is,  or  be  revoked  or  be  amended
.  A  further  instrument  would  be  needed  to 
revoke the Order or to amend it. 
An  impact  assessment  has  not  been  produced  for  this
  instrument  as  no,  or  no  significant,  impact 
on the private, voluntary or public sectors is fore
seen. 
4
£4.25 
UK2015070815   07/2015   19585 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukdsi/2015/9780111
137628 
© Crown copyright 2015 
Printed  and  published  in  the  UK  by  The  Stationery  O
ffice  Limited  under  the  authority  and  superintenden
ce  of  Carol  Tullo, 
Controller of Her Majesty&#8217;s Stationery Office and Q
ueen&#8217;s Printer of Acts of Parliament.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 July 2015)

Thanks for that Judgemental.  

I do though have a serious problem with the inferences and much of the content.  Referring (by inference) to the Fox as vermin,  or at best,  a pest,  is wrong.  Again I'll stress the point;  The Fox,  when he's viewed as a valuable asset,  will once more return to the point where there's a degree of reverence.  Whilst we consider the Fox to be of no greater value to the countryside than a rat,  so these flawed excuses to continue with or promote Hunting,  will continue.  Neither the Fox nor Man benefits from such an approach.

Whilst I accept that when dealing with politics and by necessity,  all may not be as it seems,  the simple fact is that it's both the well being of our national vulpine population,  and man too who are the poorer for the nonsense which surrounds the arguments of those who will fail to listen to simple and logical common sense.

Alec.


----------



## GoblinPony (9 July 2015)

EquiEquestrian556 said:



			I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind.
		
Click to expand...

Judging from what you've written, you probably envisage the fox running for hours for its dear life, fully aware that it is being chased and thinking "OMG, I'm going to die!" 
However, in reality the hounds follow the scent and the actual animal is, for the most part, not even in sight. It doesn't realize that it is being purposefully hunted, it is just trying to put some distance between itself and all the commotion, often at quite a leisurely pace. It would do the same with hikers, cyclists, dog-walkers. The part of the chase when the hounds can actually see the fox, and the fox realizes imminent danger, is really quite short. And then the first bite usually kills the fox. "Ripping to shreds" - the dramatic expression that the antis love so much - happens after the animal is dead, if at all.


----------



## Amymay (10 July 2015)

Hunting has little to do with pest control, but much to do with the thrill of riding across country. I hunted for several years and loved every minute of it.  So lets not, anyone, dress it up to be something it's not.

If people really feel there is a need to control the fox population with hounds - fine. But you don't need a field of 30 odd people following along for the 'sport' of it. Most of whom have no interest in controlling the fox population. 

I would be very sad to see the act repealed.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (10 July 2015)

amymay said:



			Hunting has little to do with pest control, but much to do with the thrill of riding across country. I hunted for several years and loved every minute of it.  So lets not, anyone, dress it up to be something it's not.

If people really feel there is a need to control the fox population with hounds - fine. But you don't need a field of 30 odd people following along for the 'sport' of it. Most of whom have no interest in controlling the fox population. 

I would be very sad to see the act repealed.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting in all its forms has everything to do with wildlife management and only sometimes to do with riding across country. I have hunted for many years and still love it. It is an extremely complex issue but, essentially, is beneficial to the quarry species and the environment. It is not only about foxes as I've said previously.


----------



## aran (12 July 2015)

It's amazing how more prepared the antis are regarding this vote. They have organised and have been barraging MPs with anti-hunting lit via email, FB, and Twitter since they were elected. It's sad that many MPs are under so much anti-attack and very few pros are offering any support. Some are changing their vote due to the onslaught! It's going to be an interesting week!


----------



## ycbm (12 July 2015)

Ummm, have I missed something?  It's not a repeal vote, is it,  it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.  

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron?  So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done?  Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were *not* flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?


----------



## Countryman (12 July 2015)

ycbm said:



			Ummm, have I missed something?  It's not a repeal vote, is it,  it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.  

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron?  So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done?  Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were *not* flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?
		
Click to expand...

No, that's not the case - the idea that this will make the ban unenforceable is (sadly) not true. The situation is no different to that currently enjoyed by some hunts under the falconry exemption - they can hunt within the law, but t is not traditional hunting.

With luck, once EVEL is secured, we may have a chance at actual repeal. This is really just what the official line is - a minor, technical amendment which will allow the gunpacks in Wales a better shot at pest control than they currently can.


----------



## Lizzie66 (13 July 2015)

ycbm said:



			Ummm, have I missed something?  It's not a repeal vote, is it,  it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.  

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron?  So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done?  Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were *not* flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?
		
Click to expand...

This seems more of a test for the SNP MPs than anything else. DC is basically saying we want to change the law in England and Wales to be as it is in Scotland how are you Scottish MPs going to vote ?

They have no alternative but to abstain, the alternative is them being seen to insist that Scotland can determine its own laws but also stop E&W having the same law (or vice versa). This would bring all English and Welsh MPs from all parties having to vote for EVEL whether they want to or not. Not because the English and Welsh are massively bothered about fox-hunting (as in the main they aren't), but the publicity of the SNP say no to England and Wales matching them would force their hand.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 July 2015)

aran said:



			It's amazing how more prepared the antis are regarding this vote. They have organised and have been barraging MPs with anti-hunting lit via email, FB, and Twitter since they were elected. It's sad that many MPs are under so much anti-attack and very few pros are offering any support. Some are changing their vote due to the onslaught! It's going to be an interesting week!
		
Click to expand...

I'm certainly hearing more noise from the antis than the pros. This piece in the Mirror, headed 'Former fox hunter exposes full scale of bloodsport's barbarity as David Cameron seeks its return' was mentioned on this morning's R4 Today programme.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-fox-hunter-exposes-full-6054986


----------



## EquiEquestrian556 (13 July 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 July 2015)

ROG said:



			If lots of smoke is forced into a foxhole what happens ?
		
Click to expand...

The fox lives in an "earth", but many will lie in other places, I don't think smoke would do much good., Some people use cyanide gas to kill them I believe, which sounds dreadful.
"lamping" is probably a reasonable method of fox control. but there are a lot of poachers who use these methods illegally, it's  probably very dangerous to have random criminals scouring the countryside at night with shotguns, very scary for residents.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 July 2015)

Bonkers 2,

It's illegal to use cyanide gas (commercially sold as Cymag) to gas foxes.  'Lamping' is the most indiscriminate method of controlling fox numbers,  as no thought is given to gender or the time of year.  When we stop considering our vulpine population as 'vermin' or 'pests',  then we'll stop night shooting vixens whilst they're nursing cubs,  and we'll stop killing cubs which have barely had a chance to grow and to learn the art of survival.  The near constant killing of cubs after harvest fails in its purpose in that it disrupts the staged and natural evolvement of the fox as a species.  If only those who are so totally opposed to Hunting could see the devastating level of damage which they have done.  They can't see it though,  and there's a reason for that,  they don't actually care! 

Alec.


----------



## Herne (31 August 2015)

Judgemental said:



			That said, I do have to point out and the old hands on this forum will know that I have consistently advocated a small measure taken by Statutory Instrument, rather than full blown repeal.
		
Click to expand...

How could I forget...




Judgemental said:



			Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.
		
Click to expand...

How true.

Got anything to say to me...?


----------



## JanetGeorge (31 August 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			I'm certainly hearing more noise from the antis than the pros.
		
Click to expand...

IMHO, that is due to the fact that organisations like League Against Cruel Sports have better PROs and are much more committed to getting hunting banned than the Countryside Alliance who is short of good PROs - and IF it is dedicated to saving hunting, it is using FAR too subtle a set of techniques to stand a chance!

It's also incompetent in basic PR tools - I TRIED to visit it's 'new' website tonight and discovered very quickly that it was IMPOSSIBLE to access more than a quarter of its contact in Firefox because the navigation tool bars were useless,

I have a LITTLE bit of hope that the new Chief Executive Tim Bonner will have a bit more success than every Chief Executive who has done the job since 1998 (it wouldn' need much from hunting people's point of view.)  But - of course - even if Tim has a high level of competence, his success (or otherwise) depends very heavily on the current Board (and it has proven over the past 17 years - at least to me - that the Board isn't much help to anyone.)

I remember a number of Board members from way back in 1995 to 1998 although the vast majority of them weren't Board members then.  A few of them were perfectly nice - but NONE of them do I consider particular clever!

Good luck to Tim Bonner - he'll need it - as do hunting people who want the hunt ban lifted.  I personally don't care that much - I'm only still a member of the CA because I stayed in it while my husband was an MFH (until 2013).  And there is VERY little chance I'll hunt again.


----------



## Herne (22 September 2015)

Herne said:



			Got anything to say to me...? 

Click to expand...

Answer came there none.

Not that much of a surprise, I suppose....


----------



## Judgemental (22 September 2015)

Herne said:



			Answer came there none.

Not that much of a surprise, I suppose....
		
Click to expand...

Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.

In other words his timing, probably at the behest of 'Call me Dave' was wrong.

They should have waited until 'Call me Dave' had effectively compromised Mrs Sturgeon.

Also the whips were able to compromise the Blue Foxes and others.

Furthermore they should have waited until the outcome of the Labour Leadership Election  was known, coupled to the identity of the Shadow Minister of Agriculture who is a Vice President of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Bearing in mind I was not the OP, I could not see any point in commenting because it was a waste of time, largely because these matters and overall strategy need greater time and maturity.


----------



## Judgemental (23 September 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.

In other words his timing, probably at the behest of 'Call me Dave' was wrong.

They should have waited until 'Call me Dave' had effectively compromised Mrs Sturgeon.

Also the whips were able to compromise the Blue Foxes and others.

Furthermore they should have waited until the outcome of the Labour Leadership Election  was known, coupled to the identity of the Shadow Minister of Agriculture who is a Vice President of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Bearing in mind I was not the OP, I could not see any point in commenting because it was a waste of time, largely because these matters and overall strategy need greater time and maturity.
		
Click to expand...

Herne I would hate for you not to feel I had been wholly objective but in my opinion, a 'pigs ear' has been made of the issue.

In fact as far as I can see, the chances of success  are about as easy as rolling a  'barrel of pork' up hill to St Catherine's Chapel at Abbotsbury (Cattistock Country).

Or to put it another way, it seems unlikely that the Government are going to 'bring home the bacon' concerning the Hunting Act 2004.


----------



## Herne (23 September 2015)

Judgemental said:



			Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to our many previous conversations during which I attempted to explain to you the limitations of Statutory Instruments, whilst you maintained, with some vigour, that a Secretary of State could use one to make any changes that he chose, and, indeed, proposed various changes that would in fact have been ruled ultra vires if attempted.

You appear to have changed your position - in the light of which I was wondering whether you might have anything to say to me?


----------



## Judgemental (23 September 2015)

Herne said:



			I was referring to our many previous conversations during which I attempted to explain to you the limitations of Statutory Instruments, whilst you maintained, with some vigour, that a Secretary of State could use one to make any changes that he chose, and, indeed, proposed various changes that would in fact have been ruled ultra vires if attempted.

You appear to have changed your position - in the light of which I was wondering whether you might have anything to say to me?
		
Click to expand...

I changed my position when I saw that the SNP were not going to do the decent thing and opt for English Votes for English laws.

Had the Government stood back from the issue and waited for a bargaining chip or two to materialist with the SNP. Then things would be different but the lack of maturity in the Conservative ranks, caused them to rush into the subject, somewhat prematurely

Ideally the Barnett Formula, could have been used as a fulcrum to persuade Mrs Sturgeon to maintain the status quo of English Votes for English laws and abstained on the hunting issue, which she said during the General Election Campaign that was the SNP's policy.

Since you have decided to seek my opinion, I do have to point out that I started the thread on this forum, "SNP to hold the balance of power".  Really in the belief that Mr Sturgeon has no intention of being helpful unless cornered.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2015)

The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (24 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Nice thought , off to do some house work that thought will amuse me .


----------



## Herne (29 September 2015)

Judgemental said:



			I changed my position when ... no intention of being helpful unless cornered.
		
Click to expand...

Nope, you just can't bring yourself to do it, can you...

Humility is a rare commodity these days.


----------



## Herne (29 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.
		
Click to expand...

"Nothing can be done, so there's no point in trying to do something" - a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Some people think they can, some people think they can't - they are usually right...


----------



## Herne (9 October 2015)

Kaufen, you cannot understand it because you do not wish to understand it. You have decided that hunting people are terrible people out for sadistic thrills and you only acknowledge the aspects of the argument that correspond to your desired conclusions and ignore the rest.

There are lots of things you can enjoy about hunting other than the kill - otherwise why would people go drag hunting?

If you can accept that there are good reasons why people enjoy going drag hunting and you can accept that there are good reasons why farmers might want to shoot foxes - then it is sheer deliberate obtuseness to assume that instead of hunting being a way of combining all the good points of both into one, suddenly all of the points you accept about each individual activity go out of the window and the only possible reason for doing the combined version is sadism. it is flawed thinking.

Your reasoning also falls down because the majority of fox-shooting is done by people who enjoy shooting. If a farmer does not enjoy shooting, then rather than bothering himself he will get someone in who wants to do it.

As for a pack of dogs ripping an animal to pieces, the Labour Government's Burns Inquiry carried out autopsies of hunted foxes and concluded that insensibility and death occurs within a matter of seconds. If we were into hunting for sadism, where on earth would be the point in that? All that expense and effort for the suffering to be over in seconds? Simply makes no sense whatsoever. Sadists would choose something else.


----------



## FFAQ (9 October 2015)

There have been a few comments about how the anti's campaign seems to be better run and organised than the pros.  Could that be because the ban is a bit of a joke anyway?  It's my understanding that hunting carries on in exactly the same way as before, but nobody admits to it!  A couple of years ago, I witnessed a member of staff at the local hunt kennels beating one of the dogs with a length of blue pipe which holding the dog by it's tail.  I called the RSPCA immediately who said that they would go and have a word but it was pointless because hunts are never prosecuted.  Perhaps that is why the pro-hunting groups aren't appearing too bothered about whether the ban is repealed - they think there will never be a prosecution anyway?


----------



## Countryman (10 October 2015)

FFAQ said:



			There have been a few comments about how the anti's campaign seems to be better run and organised than the pros.  Could that be because the ban is a bit of a joke anyway?  It's my understanding that hunting carries on in exactly the same way as before, but nobody admits to it!  A couple of years ago, I witnessed a member of staff at the local hunt kennels beating one of the dogs with a length of blue pipe which holding the dog by it's tail.  I called the RSPCA immediately who said that they would go and have a word but it was pointless because hunts are never prosecuted.  Perhaps that is why the pro-hunting groups aren't appearing too bothered about whether the ban is repealed - they think there will never be a prosecution anyway?
		
Click to expand...

What nonsense. Name the hunt and I might believe you. To suggest "hunts are never prosecuted" is to show a total lack of knowledge of the issue. In fact, the RSPCA and others actually make it a point to prosecute hunts at every possible opportunity -the complete opposite of your allegation. Interestingly critics have pointed out how you cannot fail to plead guilty, even if you are not, if the alternative is risking £1 million in court costs, however unlikely the risk.

There has been a political campaign against hunting, with private prosecutions used by some not for their intended purpose but purely to score political points.


----------



## FFAQ (10 October 2015)

It was Silverton hunt in Devon.  I must admit, at the time I wasn't very impressed with the RSPCA's response - they just seemed like they couldn't be bothered!


----------



## Countryman (10 October 2015)

FFAQ said:



			It was Silverton hunt in Devon.  I must admit, at the time I wasn't very impressed with the RSPCA's response - they just seemed like they couldn't be bothered!
		
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I'm afraid I don't believe you. The RSPCA would have jumped on any possible hint of wrongdoing by a hunt.


----------



## FFAQ (10 October 2015)

Rude!


----------

