# National Trust Vote - proposal defeated.



## Orangehorse (21 October 2017)

The proposal to ban trail hunting was defeated, but not by many about 300 odd votes (and I told my daughter to vote and she forgot!).

The pros for the motion and the against to keep it were very similar but still a tiny minority of the 5 million members.  So if the other members couldn't be bothered to vote they don't mind much.

And I don't even hunt!


----------



## conniegirl (22 October 2017)

A lot of the members will only have the membership because it gives you free access to thier buildings and sites meaning a family holiday away with the kids is so much cheaper. Most will have absolutely no interest in the politics behind it.


----------



## Fellewell (22 October 2017)

Another ill thought out plan is exposed and a lot of time and money is wasted by attempting to ban a lawful activity.


----------



## Judgemental (22 October 2017)

Fellewell said:



			Another ill thought out plan is exposed and a lot of time and money is wasted by attempting to ban a lawful activity.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.

I must confess I did not really follow the proposal too closely. 

However in practical terms, a wholesale waste of time and money.

Trust land is generally unfenced, so access is without impediment but what these people were concocting is without legal merit.

So how do the trustees stop hunting in any event? Any vote would not have made it a criminal offence and I suggest, that some members who wanted the ban, were misguided to believe that their vote made any infringement a criminal offence. No police officer is going to show any interest even if the Trust claimed an act of trespass. The police would probably say, have the hunt 'broken into' the land. Well we all know Trust land is open to the public and four winds.

At best, the Trust could have only issued proceedings in the County Court and in order to do so, they would have had to show loss. Most District Judges would have to be persuaded there was a financial loss. What loss!

I suppose the Trust could have issued an injunction preventing access, with a penal sanction, so that if the injunction were breached, the Masters could be arrested by the Tipstaff and given a couple of days in goal. But even then the County Court would automatically send the matter to the High Court and I would be surprised if any High Court Judge would have entertained such an application. 

But the cost to the Trust would be astronomical in terms of legal fees, especially as one could appeal any judgment in the County Court to the High Court and thence to the Court of Appeal and appealed from the Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. then to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 October 2017)

To be quite truthful,  I'm not even sure banning any form of Hunting on Trust land would make much difference.  Apart from the odd pocket or two of NT administered land which has a substantial area within it's control,  mostly the NT tend to administer to buildings and those which have been bequeathed because the upkeep and so the possible sale value,  make the properties of reduced value.

Upon the death of an owner,  generally the land is sold where there will be a ready market,  with the often substantial country houses being handed over,  almost as a poison chalice,  to the NT.

Even had the vote gone in favour of a ban,  I doubt that it would have had much effect on many.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (22 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			To be quite truthful,  I'm not even sure banning any form of Hunting on Trust land would make much difference.  Apart from the odd pocket or two of NT administered land which has a substantial area within it's control,  mostly the NT tend to administer to buildings and those which have been bequeathed because the upkeep and so the possible sale value,  make the properties of reduced value.

Upon the death of an owner,  generally the land is sold where there will be a ready market,  with the often substantial country houses being handed over,  almost as a poison chalice,  to the NT.

Even had the vote gone in favour of a ban,  I doubt that it would have had much effect on many.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

In the majority of Trust properties you are right but there are substantial acres in the New Forest, Exmoor and Dartmoor that are owned by the Trust.  

Not sure about the others:

Brecon Beacons
Broads
Cairngorms
Lake District
Loch Lomond & The Trossachs
Northumberland
North York Moors
Peak District
Pembrokeshire Coast
Snowdonia
South Downs
Yorkshire Dales

In the final analysis as you and I know it's not about a practical ban, it's all about symbolism. This defeat sends a clear message to many, leave hunting alone. There is the misguided 2004 Act and that is the end of the issue.


----------



## Orangehorse (22 October 2017)

Our local National Trust property has quite a lot of parkland and allows the hunt across.  It is often used for Boxing Day meets.  Since hunts have to ask any landowners' permission I think it is very important that the vote was lost, even though the Board of Trustees are not bound by any vote for or against.


----------



## claret09 (22 October 2017)

good news


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 October 2017)

But it looks as though new licensing rules will be in place? This is from the National Trust website:-


----------



## Mrs B (24 October 2017)

When did that new page appear, TP?

If since the vote, it says to me that the NT is simply going to ignore the result and proceed as if the vote didn't happen.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 October 2017)

Mrs B, I'm not sure when it appeared, it doesn't refer to the vote at all, which is a little odd.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-position-on-trail-hunting


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2017)

Mrs B said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

If since the vote, it says to me that the NT is simply going to ignore the result and proceed as if the vote didn't happen.
		
Click to expand...

Were it only that simple&#8230;&#8230;..

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (24 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Were it only that simple&#8230;&#8230;..

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

In many ways it is simple because it open land and open to the public. Suspect the post on the website is an angry tecky, whose vote failed. (Fair few of those about US Democrats. EU Remainders etc etc).

The Trust needs the cooperation of the hunt because they, the hunt are no different to any other user, rider, walker on Trust Property.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 October 2017)

According to this report dated 23/10/17 from The Times, the new licensing conditions for trail hunting on NT land are being introduced nothwithstanding the result of the recent vote.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/national-trust-in-stand-off-over-hunt-rules-fm73szxfq

I have to say that it is a bit rich of Lord Mancroft (chair MFHA) to declare that:-

'the trust had been acting like a &#8220;Victorian landlord&#8221; by trying to tell its tenant farmers who was allowed on their farms.' 

Where I live, the Cholmondeley estate and other local sporting estates write it into the tenancy agreements that the hunt must be allowed access to their land by the tenants, like it or not...


----------



## Judgemental (28 October 2017)

I must confess to not being a regular purchaser of Horse and Hound, perfering to rely on this website.

However seeing this week's contained the hunting directory, I thought I would bring myself up to date with a general 'Who's Who'.

The first thing that struck me was the continuity and thread of many family names associated with hunting, going back probably a 100 years.

The second, the majority of my fellow Britons are bored with arguing the toss concerning hunting.

You may say how do you distill that from this weeks H & H?  All hunts are fully operational with a huge and undiminished display of enthusiasm from youthful masters, their families, secretaries and staff.

Did the 2004 ban strengthen overall resolve, in many ways yes, which is to a certain extent reflected in the failure of the motion before the National Trust.


----------

